New Lee Valley Mortise Chisels

[Allan Speers]

Have you actually looked closely at the Ray Iles chisels or are you just hypothesizing?

The reason I ask is because:

1. They have full bolsters. In other words the flange on the blade at the base of the handle is large enough to cover the full cross-section of the handle, just like a socket.

2. The handle cross-section is absolutely huge.

While I'm sure that you could crack the handle on any chisel with enough abuse, the Iles ones are VERY well supported by the bolster, which prevents the tang from being driven further back into the handle as a result of pounding. In comparison the Veritas chisels have substantially smaller handles, and the socket is much smaller than the Iles' bolster and provides less mechanical support to the handle.

AFAIK, pounding is not the problem. They split when you put sideways pressure on them, in order to pry out your waste. A bolster can't prevent that & the tang weakens the handle in this regard.

[Stewie Simpson]

Allan, that's interesting you raise that point with the D2 Iles, from what I understand the tangs on their mortise chisels are only made from mild steel. Not a surprise considering D2 ranks poorly on impact toughness


.

[Steve Voigt]

Steve, I think my previous post was a little misleading. I was well aware that oval bolsters were made in the 18th century. In fact my Seaton chest book was still open to the page you show when I read your post. I would be pretty happy if I could buy the kind of 1796 chisels in the chest or the 18th c mortise chisels shown in Jay Gaynor's book. The late 19th century Joiner's mortise chisels are considerably heavier.

A late 19th century 3/16 mortise chisel that I own has a bolster that measures .81 X 1.41 while the corresponding chisel in the Seaton chest is .775 X .965. The 19th century tool is 46% bigger in the long axis. And while the widths are the same for the two chisels, the thickness is considerably greater for the later chisel, especially near the bolster.

Paul, we are suggesting that reproduction chisels that copy standards of 200 years ago would be better tools than current offerings, not just historically interesting.

Warren, I think I misread your post as well…I am sure you know this history better than I do. I would be pretty if I could buy those chisels too!

And, it's true that the later chisels are a lot fatter. 46% is a lot!

My most used furniture-size mortise chisel, 5/16", started life as a 3/8" and underwent major surgery. As a result, everything got ground down, including the bolster…it's no surprise that this chisel just feels nicer than most of my other OBMCs. Every time I pick up my 1/2", especially if I've been using the 5/16", I feel like I'm going out to hunt moose or something.

[Patrick Chase]

With a 30 degree secondary bevel (not a micro bevel), the Narex mortise chisels represent excellent value for money spent, and are hard to fault within their overall design.

Yep, the Narex are great chisels for the money.

The only real criticism I have is that they "self-dub" a tiny bit, meaning that significant grinding on the bevel causes the back to slightly curl up at the tip. I suspect that there's some post-hardening residual stress such that the edges are under compression and the core is under tension.

[Stewie Simpson]

the tang and bolster are mild steel, they shouldn't be hard, only the blades are D2, the tang and bolster are welded to the end of the blade.

Yes, it was very clear after the first heat cycle that the bolster and tang are mild steel. In addition the weld line, previously invisible, was very evident due to surface oxidation/etching that happened during the heat.

reference post #4 and post #13 by Rob Streeper. http://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/i...testing-207606

[Steve Voigt]

Why no ferrules? Other than looking like chisels from ~1850 rather than ~1880 what's the advantage?

Fair question, and I can't really quantify it. Below are two of my most frequently used bench chisels: an old two cherries that I rehandled, and a ward with turned handle and ferrule. The two cherries just feels better.

I can't resist turning your question around: whats the advantage of the ferrule, since it's the part that was added later? My answer is, there is no advantage. It's an unnecessary add-on. Having used several unferruled chisels for a couple years now, I can't imagine splitting the handle. But, I don't use my chisel like it's a crowbar. I suspect that's what ferrules are for--to bail out people who use their chisels like crowbars. I can understand the attraction, but ultimately it's better to learn to use a chisel properly.

If someone did make good reproduction chisels I doubt the market would extend beyond those interested in the history of woodworking, which I imagine is a rather small niche.

You may be right; I don't know. I remember in the late 90s when Steve Knight started selling Krenov-style woodies. He was huge at the time, but I wonder if he could even stay in business if he were still making planes today. The market has changed and demand for more historically authentic tools has grown a lot. I wouldn't have imagined back then that people would buy new molding planes, but the few people who make them today sell them like hot cakes. And I don't think people buy molding planes because they're interested in the history of woodworking (at least not primarily); people buy them because they work. I'd buy good 18th c.-style chisels because they're a lot nicer to use, not because I want to be historically accurate. No puffy shirts for me!

IMG_2505.JPG

[Derek Cohen]

One of the comments I made earlier was that the RI chisels were a little narrower at the pointy end than the Veritas chisels (that I have). These Veritas chisels (and I doubt that the blades have changed from my sample) are very similar in dimensions in that area to the vintage chisels I have, such makers such as Ward and Sorby. However, the Veritas was deeper along the full length.

Here is a RI compared with a vintage chisel ...



I doubt that the casual observer will notice much, but it is quite obvious in person.

Here is one of the Veritas to see the wider blade overall ..



Less like a OB and more like a (heavy duty) sash mortice chisel.

The other significant feature (for me) is that the RI has rounded lands at the face. The Veritas has quite sharp lands on both face and back. The vintage chisels I have would have been sharp as well, but often are dulled with time and use. I endeavour to put this back in. It makes a difference insofar as cutting the sides of the mortice.

Regarding length of blades, the average for the vintage chisels I have is around 7 1/2" (from memory). The Veritas were the same length as the others.

With a 20 degree primary bevel (which is how they and the RI are made) and a 35 degree secondary bevel, these chisels went through hardwood like a hot knife through butter. Both A2 and PM-V11 held an edge longer than I could chop. These are very good mortice chisels.

The important question is "should I get them?". My answer to that is another question, "Are they better enough to make a significant difference to the work you do?". The question is not whether the Veritas chisels are better - in my opinion they are better than the others I have - the question is whether they are an upgrade to your work. Only you can answer that. My opinion? I have used the RI and vintage chisels for many years - more than a decade - and I will switch to the Veritas ... because I can. However, I have been very happy with the RI and Wards et al, and these do not actually warrant an upgrade. They do the job very nicely. Having used the Veritas, it is harder to go back to them. However, if you have RI, and are satisfied, you have great chisels, and keep using them.

With regard the steel, the D2 of the RI holds an edge a long time. But so does the laminated HCS steel of the Wards and Sorbys, I do believe it depends a lot on how you chop mortices. For example, too thick and too deep will stress the edge more than needed, and reduce its useful life.

With regard to which design is stronger, the Veritas are built like the proverbial tank, and in fact I expect them to have much greater lateral strength to resist twisting and sidewise movement. This converts into improved forward movement. The deeper blades aid in registration as well. The sharp lands, upside and downside, improve cutting and reduce resistance.

Be aware in reading this review that I do not have the production chisels.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

Derek, thanks for that picture. To my eye it does a better job of highlighting the Veritas chisels' design than do the ones on LV, though I may focus on different things than most of their customers.

You're right - they're beefier than I thought. It's still a sash mortise pattern, but it's super heavy duty. Out of curiosity how tall is the blade at that "PM" label? It looks much beefier than the "1/2 inch" that LV claims, assuming the image of the Veritas is to the same scale as the RI (which is about 3/4" at the bolster, at least on mine).

[Patrick Chase]

AFAIK, pounding is not the problem. They split when you put sideways pressure on them, in order to pry out your waste. A bolster can't prevent that & the tang weakens the handle in this regard.

Wow, you must really put a lot of pressure on those things. The amount of sideways force I can apply with my puny arm muscles couldn't possibly be enough to split a beech handle that thick . It's a pretty straightforward statics problem.

Maybe if you "jerked" it like a weightlifter who's trying to clear a few lbs too much, but I don't take thick enough cuts to need that. I may be overly conservative though, as I size my cuts so that the tip of the chisel does most of the levering (except for a little bit at the bottom) as I drive it down, and the "levering motion" mostly just cleans the chips out.

The instantaneous forces created by whacking with a mallet are vastly higher than what you can apply by pushing/pulling directly with your arms, even taking leverage (length of the handle vs length of the tang) into account.

[Kees Heiden]

Nonetheless, I just don't get why no one makes chisels like this. Why can't someone make a "pigsticker" with a simple high carbon blade and a decent beech handle? For that matter, why can't anyone make HCS bench chisels with thin tapered blades, octagonal bolsters, and no ferrules? Maybe this new Crucible outfit will make some. If not, someone should.

For me this is an interesting question too, because of my interest in the history of these tools. One of the reasons I think is that those 18th century models are really blacksmith work. And the guys at LV and LN are basically machinists. Making these models like a machinst (starting with bar stock, then milling and grinding) is a huge waste of material and time, while a blacksmith can move the steel in the right direction much quicker and without any loss of material. It gives a stronger product too, because the "grain" direction in the steel is being moved the right way around too, in contrast with the cutting action of the mill.

So when you want some of these elegant thin 18th century bench chisels with the nice octagon bolster and a good tang, then you will have to find a good blacksmith interested in this stuff. I know John Switzer from Black Bear forge has done some of this work, but he has of course a very small one man operation. For larer scale production you would have to look in Europe at one of the gouge makers, like Pfeill, Dastra, Two Cherries, Narex or the Iles brothers in England. The German and Swiss operations really work on a large scale with drop forges etc, but it would take quite some convincing to have them abandon their own models, firmly rooted in the tradition of 19th century Germany. Convincing the Iles should be easier, but I don't know if anyone ever tried.

I would love to try a bit myself, but it is very complex and difficult and still way beyond my pay grade as beginning amateur "blacksmith".

[Brian Holcombe]

Fair question, and I can't really quantify it. Below are two of my most frequently used bench chisels: an old two cherries that I rehandled, and a ward with turned handle and ferrule. The two cherries just feels better.

I can't resist turning your question around: whats the advantage of the ferrule, since it's the part that was added later? My answer is, there is no advantage. It's an unnecessary add-on. Having used several unferruled chisels for a couple years now, I can't imagine splitting the handle. But, I don't use my chisel like it's a crowbar. I suspect that's what ferrules are for--to bail out people who use their chisels like crowbars. can understand the attraction, but ultimately it's better to learn to use a chisel properly.

You may be right; I don't know. I remember in the late 90s when Steve Knight started selling Krenov-style woodies. He was huge at the time, but I wonder if he could even stay in business if he were still making planes today. The market has changed and demand for more historically authentic tools has grown a lot. I wouldn't have imagined back then that people would buy new molding planes, but the few people who make them today sell them like hot cakes. And I don't think people buy molding planes because they're interested in the history of woodworking (at least not primarily); people buy them because they work. I'd buy good 18th c.-style chisels because they're a lot nicer to use, not because I want to be historically accurate. No puffy shirts for me!

Steve,

That last part has been my experience as well, with planes. It made immediate sense to me that one would want tools from the era when the users lived on their ability to use their handtools. That has been logic behind going toward a somewhat strange direction of enjoying 18th and 19th century American/English tools along with current Japanese tools. Both offer frustration free results and having new makers reproducing them with accuracy makes that more tangible because one does not have to track down an original tool and restore it.

As I continue to improve my shop I find myself looking only in those two directions because I want the result of evolution rather than a one of solution which has not been put through the paces of trial and improvement.

It makes perfect sense to me, as well, that the hand tool renaissance has dug up these designs and has begun to reproduce them, starting with the tools used more frequently or without common alternative and eventually working their way down to the less common or more difficult items. I hope (and expect) it will continue as ability and interest follow.

I dont see the downside to a ferrule, even Japanese chisel I own has one and they are not made to be used as prybars, and really won't take being used that way. I would not want to see the 18th century chisel modified to suit it (it should be made accurately) but I do see why many makers go toward a ferrule instead. It's a separate part, rather than a big hunk of iron, and does not require being brazed on.

[Steve Voigt]

For me this is an interesting question too, because of my interest in the history of these tools. One of the reasons I think is that those 18th century models are really blacksmith work. And the guys at LV and LN are basically machinists. Making these models like a machinst (starting with bar stock, then milling and grinding) is a huge waste of material and time, while a blacksmith can move the steel in the right direction much quicker and without any loss of material. It gives a stronger product too, because the "grain" direction in the steel is being moved the right way around too, in contrast with the cutting action of the mill.

So when you want some of these elegant thin 18th century bench chisels with the nice octagon bolster and a good tang, then you will have to find a good blacksmith interested in this stuff. I know John Switzer from Black Bear forge has done some of this work, but he has of course a very small one man operation. For larer scale production you would have to look in Europe at one of the gouge makers, like Pfeill, Dastra, Two Cherries, Narex or the Iles brothers in England. The German and Swiss operations really work on a large scale with drop forges etc, but it would take quite some convincing to have them abandon their own models, firmly rooted in the tradition of 19th century Germany. Convincing the Iles should be easier, but I don't know if anyone ever tried.

I would love to try a bit myself, but it is very complex and difficult and still way beyond my pay grade as beginning amateur "blacksmith".

I think there are a lot of obstacles to the blacksmithing approach. First is that in the blacksmithing era, labor was cheap and materials were expensive, whereas now the reverse is true. Blacksmithing is very labor intensive. Second is that it's extremely skilled labor, and few people know how to do it, whereas there are comparatively more skilled machinists. Third is that to scale up with blacksmithing would actually be more expensive (I think, not absolutely sure about that): drop forges and trip hammers are expensive.

I used to program a CNC mill pretty similar to the one Raney bought recently. I'm sure the older style chisels could be made pretty easily; I don't think they would be any harder than what LN or LV are doing today. I think the real obstacle is that no one believes that people would buy these chisels, at least not enough of them to make it worthwhile. And that's probably true for big outfits, but I bet a one-person outfit could make a go of it. Blue Spruce, for example, seems to be successful. All it would take is someone similar who's interested in a more traditional design.

[Matt Radtke]

Has anyone taken a picture of how trapezoidale the Vertias chisels taper? Or can be be compared to a RI or Narex? I'm ready to upgrade my most-used Narex models and was completely ready to swing for RI, and now this happened. I've really come to appreciate the shape and I'm not ready to give it up...

[Steve Voigt]

Steve,

That last part has been my experience as well, with planes. It made immediate sense to me that one would want tools from the era when the users lived on their ability to use their handtools. That has been logic behind going toward a somewhat strange direction of enjoying 18th and 19th century American/English tools along with current Japanese tools. Both offer frustration free results and having new makers reproducing them with accuracy makes that more tangible because one does not have to track down an original tool and restore it.

As I continue to improve my shop I find myself looking only in those two directions because I want the result of evolution rather than a one of solution which has not been put through the paces of trial and improvement.

It makes perfect sense to me, as well, that the hand tool renaissance has dug up these designs and has begun to reproduce them, starting with the tools used more frequently or without common alternative and eventually working their way down to the less common or more difficult items. I hope (and expect) it will continue as ability and interest follow.

I dont see the downside to a ferrule, even Japanese chisel I own has one and they are not made to be used as prybars, and really won't take being used that way. I would not want to see the 18th century chisel modified to suit it (it should be made accurately) but I do see why many makers go toward a ferrule instead. It's a separate part, rather than a big hunk of iron, and does not require being brazed on.

Brian,

I think we are on the same page…I particularly like your comments about "frustration-free results" and wanting "tools from the era when the users lived on their ability to use their handtools."

The ferrule thing is getting over-emphasized…I made an offhand comment that obviously rubbed a couple people the wrong way. It's not a big deal to me if there are ferrules. Similarly, I don't care that much if mortise chisels taper in width, or even if they are laminated vs. solid. If someone made chisels that looked just like the Ray Isles pigstickers, but in O1 instead of D2, I would declare victory. Same thing with bench chisels: if someone made a chisel like the Ward or 2 cherries I posted earlier (I forgot to put up the photo earlier, but it's there now), that would be a win. I'm thinking broad strokes here. Not everyone is going to agree on the details anyway.

[Kees Heiden]

I think there are a lot of obstacles to the blacksmithing approach. First is that in the blacksmithing era, labor was cheap and materials were expensive, whereas now the reverse is true. Blacksmithing is very labor intensive. Second is that it's extremely skilled labor, and few people know how to do it, whereas there are comparatively more skilled machinists. Third is that to scale up with blacksmithing would actually be more expensive (I think, not absolutely sure about that): drop forges and trip hammers are expensive.

I used to program a CNC mill pretty similar to the one Raney bought recently. I'm sure the older style chisels could be made pretty easily; I don't think they would be any harder than what LN or LV are doing today. I think the real obstacle is that no one believes that people would buy these chisels, at least not enough of them to make it worthwhile. And that's probably true for big outfits, but I bet a one-person outfit could make a go of it. Blue Spruce, for example, seems to be successful. All it would take is someone similar who's interested in a more traditional design.

You probably remember the 18th century style chisels Larry Williams and Don McConnel made from bar stock. They sure did complain about the amount of material they had to remove. Starting with a drop forging should get the basic shape pretty close and the rest could be machined or smithed. But like you say, that's expensive, not just the press but also the dies. Only larger scale production would be economical.

But look at the catalogue from Ashley Iles page 4-5: http://www.ashleyiles.co.uk/Catalogue.pdf Here they show how they make gouges with simple tools. It wouldn't be so difficult to transform this method to make 18th century chisels! Companies like this make 100's of various gouges and there is a lot of handwork involved, and theire prices are very reaonable. The Pfeill gouges actually look a lot like the old English chisels. But when they make chisels themselves, they look completely different! No idea why really.