New Lee Valley Mortise Chisels

[Mike Holbrook]

Steven,

Your chisel looks similar to mine but mine is more like 18mm. Mine had a piece nocked out of the corner. It took me quite a while to remove it using a DMT coarse plate, which is all I had at the time. I may regrind it with my CBN wheel, even if it leaves a little hollow. The edge is still a little off. I believe I can make the edge straighter with the CBN wheel.

[lowell holmes]

My Lie Nielsen mortise chisels are square. They are more like a sash chisel. I have Ray Iles and Narex mortise chisels that have tapered sides.

Designed with cabinetmaking in mind, these well-balanced Mortise Chisels are ground with parallel sides and are thicker than they are wide to help keep them straight in the cut. Hornbeam handles. They are made of A2 Tool Steel, hardened to Rockwell 60-62, cryogenically treated and double tempered. Available sizes: 1/10 ", 3/16", 1/4", 5/16", 3/8", 1/2"

[Derek Cohen]

If Warren says a 30 degree primary bevel works best for him, I believe him.

If Kees says a 25 degree primary bevel works best for him, I believe him as well.

And if Joel argues for a 20 degree primary bevel, he is no doubt as right as the others.

The question is why are they all right?

I have been searching for videos of doyens of woodworking to see what they technique is. There are several ways to use a mortice chisel to create a mortice, and I suspect that the reason one finds one design better is that is suits their method.

A few observations ...

Some strike deeply and do not lever chips. That would be best with a low primary bevel. Warren maintains that a high primary bevel facilitates levering. Would the deeper Veritas blades compensate for a shallow primary bevel?

A Japanese mortice chisel has a 30 degree bevel and parallel sides, but the sides are hollowed to facilitate release. I watched Jim Kingshott demonstrate the use of his Japanese mortice chisels. He did not drive his blades in as deeply as I might with a OB and low primary bevel, but he levered the chips out more frequently that I would.

A Oval Bolstered style is relieved at the sides to release more easily. All the ones I have seen have a 20 degree (or there abouts) primary bevel. It strikes me that this design favours more frequent deep chops and less levering.

I recall the Dutch mortice chisels of Kees are tapered thicker towards the bevel. This also aids in release. Does the design do more?

Do you think that chisel design is matched by morticing method?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[steven c newman]

Not sure, as I usually strike the chisel once, maybe twice. Chips are pared out, rarely levered out. With these oldsters I have, I have to be careful....
IMAG0002.jpg
Kind of a hodge-podge, but it is what it is...
IMAG0001.jpg
Not too sure about the German one on the right....

[Kees Heiden]

Just to be sure, mine have a 25 degree primairy plus something like 30 degree secundairy. I am as curious as you are, don't regard myself much ad a mortising expert to draw any definitive conclusions.

Digging around in the history a little I found angles like 20 - 25 degrees. I wonder if that is enough to survive mortising. You usually read about much higher edge angles for this purpose.

[Steve Voigt]

…
When ferrules were introduced as a general handle solution in the 1840's every other type of chisel lost their wide bolsters and adopted a ferrule. (Mass introduction of socket chisels is a later introduction, mostly American) But for mortise chisels there is no way to put on an oval ferrule effieently so the style persisted.

In order to properly forge a wide bolster on a chisel you need some interesting forging tools, not impossible but not easy. Every blacksmith who I know who has production ability to do a run of chisels has thought about it and declined. Not that I have given up but earlty 18th century style chisels disappeared for a reason. Unlike Mortise chisels where the original design was deemed superior to a new fangled design, the minute ferruled bench chisels appeared the ferrulless versions disappeared. When beveled edge chisels appeared ion the 1850-60s, and the bevels were hand ground in, the thin chisels we see in the seaton chest also disappeared. You can argue that it was a less expensive way of manufacture and that's true, but the customers bought them and they were fine chisels.
…

You make some good and thought-provoking points, Joel. There were a lot of innovations in the second half of the 19th c., some good, others not so much. Personally (talking only about bench chisels here), I prefer beveled sides; they are functional. But as for ferrules, I'm still waiting for just one experienced user to give me a good functional justification for them. To me, they add nothing.

Earlier Kees referred to some chisels that Larry and Don made for their own use. Here's a screenshot (I don't think those guys will mind):

Larry Williams chisels 2.jpg

To me, these are basically perfect. There's nothing superfluous. And since several of my own chisels are set up this way, I know the ergonomics are great.

While I love the idea of making real early 19th century chisels, and I know that people want them and will appriciate them I think the market is limited. The other thing to realize than the single biggest motivation in new chisels (which garners good reviews and the way magazines test chisels) has been edge retention, not ergonomics, or appropriateness in use.

I have no doubt you are right. Most buyers are beginners, so the big makers cater to that audience by making chisels that can goes as long as possible without sharpening, and can stand up to being abused when said beginners keep using them long past the point where they should've been sharpened.

But that market is saturated. Can anyone seriously argue that there aren't enough choices for beginners who want massive D2 or A2 chisels?

In the meantime, almost every skilled, experienced user I know values ergonomics, lightness, elegance, and ease of sharpening, and puts edge retention in last place. Surely that is a market that could be served? It'll never be the main market--that'll always be dominated by beginner's needs--but I bet there's enough of a market for a small shop or two. I just requires a little courage to buck what the magazines and other "experts" insist that we need.

[Jim Koepke]

In the meantime, almost every skilled, experienced user I know values ergonomics, lightness, elegance, and ease of sharpening, and puts edge retention in last place. Surely that is a market that could be served?

One problem with that market is many chisel buyers will make their own handles to fit their own ergonomics.

There might be a niche market in chisels sans handles. Handle blanks with the tang mortise pre-cut could be an add on for tang chisels.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Steve

In my own evaluations of chisels, I look at ergonomics, feedback and edge durability. The thing with magazine reviews is that it is easiest to demonstrate edge holding as one can point to numbers. Number include hardness, impact resistance and abrasion resistance. Feedback and ergonomics are much harder to quantify.

How would you describe the handles of the chisels above (those ones are Larry's?). Those are bench chisels. How would you use them for chopping and paring? And why?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Warren Mickley]

" But with the long shallow bevel, much of the thickness was cut away compromising the jigging."

Warren-

Can you expand on this? I'm unclear what this means. I understand the riding bevel concept, but do not understand why the steepness compromises this.

Prashun, I missed your question yesterday. The thickness keeps the chisel from twisting about the long axis of the chisel. The thickness is most needed in the earlier stages of making the mortise when straightness of the cut is being established. When riding on the bevel, the chisel travels into the cavity made by previous cuts, which is where we get the jigging. This keeps the chisel from twisting and from leaning to one side. If you look at the Roubo chisel, it is widest at the heel of the bevel where the thickness is most needed.

Mike Holbrook asked why one wouldn't just buy a Japanese mortise chisel. You certainly don't see Japanese chisels with "primary and secondary bevels". For myself I don't like the Japanese handles, and the tangs are not as nicely formed as what I like. I also prefer the more tempered English tools. I certainly don't like the Lee Valley handles either, and the tangs appear to be rather skimpy, a weak point.

[Warren Mickley]

The sides of most mortise chisels are tapered. such that all of the lateral jigging is coming from the base edges (the widest part of the chisel). The sides do provide some jigging in rotation, but you shouldn't need that anyway as you should be able to guide the chisel to within less than the taper angle by eye and handle feel. I don't see where you're losing anything that matters here.

I think you are really wrong here, Patrick. The tapering really needs only be in proportion to how accurately the chisel is ground. The more accurately the angles are ground and the more consistent the thickness, the less need for any tapering. And any tapering, front to back or along the length, should not be enough to be noticeable in use. The chisel ought to be secure in the cut, not need to be held from twisting by hand manipulation.

[Stewie Simpson]

Three sets of chisels designed to meet the specific needs of making side escapement planes.

Bevel Edge Paring Chisels. (the handle shape that Steve posted for these chisels suggests they were not designed to be struck with a wooden mallet.)






https://www.facebook.com/17160619287...type=3&theater

[Steve Voigt]

How would you describe the handles of the chisels above (those ones are Larry's?). Those are bench chisels. How would you use them for chopping and paring? And why?

I'm not sure I understand the question, Derek. How would I use them? I'd use them like any other bench chisel. I'd use them in most normal situations that require chopping or paring. My only quibble with these is that I'd rather have handles with a single taper, from front to back, like the one I showed earlier, or the ones in the Seaton book. Those are a little stouter and probably better for things like chopping dovetails. I would guess that Larry and Don don't chop a lot of dovetails (and I don't either), which probably biases those guys towards the more delicate handle style. But I have made DTs with the two chisels I showed before; in particular I chop plenty of end grain with the Ward chisel.

As far as "why" would I use them goes: I'd use them because they don't feel clunky. The handles feel good, and the facets orient the chisel without looking and feel more secure than a round handle. If I want to slide my thumb over the handle and onto the tang, it's a nice smooth transition, whereas a ferrule feels sharp and uncomfortable. And the O1 (or cast steel for old chisels) is quick and easy to sharpen.

By the way, I can think of a bunch of other people who work mostly or entirely by hand who use the Seaton style handles with no ferrule. Warren, Kees (I think), Zach Dillinger. On Instagram, you can find lots of pictures of this style in the feeds of Darryl Gent and Joshua Klein. I don't think it's an accident that some people who work mostly by hand use these types of chisels. And as I said before, it's not about role playing or being part of the puffy shirt crowd.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Steve

I clearly did not articulate the question well. You wrote earlier about ergonomics being missing from reviews, so I asked you to describe the ergonomics in using these/your chisels. We are now off the topic of mortise chisels and onto bench chisels, so this may not be a good idea here. Save it for another thread.

Perhaps Warren can say what he likes in a handle for a mortice chisel, and why.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Paul Sidener]

I have no doubt you are right. Most buyers are beginners, so the big makers cater to that audience by making chisels that can goes as long as possible without sharpening, and can stand up to being abused when said beginners keep using them long past the point where they should've been sharpened.

But that market is saturated. Can anyone seriously argue that there aren't enough choices for beginners who want massive D2 or A2 chisels?

In the meantime, almost every skilled, experienced user I know values ergonomics, lightness, elegance, and ease of sharpening, and puts edge retention in last place. Surely that is a market that could be served? It'll never be the main market--that'll always be dominated by beginner's needs--but I bet there's enough of a market for a small shop or two. I just requires a little courage to buck what the magazines and other "experts" insist that we need.

One problem with that market is many chisel buyers will make their own handles to fit their own ergonomics.

There might be a niche market in chisels sans handles. Handle blanks with the tang mortise pre-cut could be an add on for tang chisels.

jtk

The problem when talking about ergonomics, is people. Everyone is different. I am 5'8" with small hands. For someone that is 6'4" they will have much bigger hands, needing a larger handle. Manufactures don't offer different sized handles. That is the reason I prefer chisels with socket handles, they tend to be smaller. While I like Jim's idea about the chisels sans handle. Sadly I don't see that going anywhere. Most people aren't going to pay top dollar if they have to do the work, before the tool can be used. I don't blame the manufactures, for offering just one handle. From a marketing standpoint, it makes sense. Usually the more options equals more overhead and expense, that gets passed on to the consumer.

The chisel is probably the most simple tool in the tool chest. Yet here is seven pages of discussion on it.

[David Carroll]

Back in the 1980s (iirc) Eugene Landon wrote an article (FWW) on making a mortise chisel. It was "pig sticker" in shape, but there was no tang, the steel went all the way back, and the handles were brass scales that were riveted on. So the mallet struck the back end of the blade directly in line and levering wouldn't cause harm. Seems sensible, in light of this very interesting discussion. Easy enough to make also, out of bar stock.

DC