Studies on old chisel steel?

[Brian Holcombe]

John,

These arguments have been hashed out numerous times, another round will not likely settle the debate. The long and short of it are that plain high carbon steels blacksmith made either of today, from Japan, or yesterday in America and England are going to take a very fine edge. The finest of edges are achievable only with carbon steels and proof of that exists in the fact that Kezurou-kai competitors use fine carbon steel blades to achieve 2 micron full width shavings.

Alloyed steels are going to offer wear resistance at the sacrifice of ultimate keenness. Wear resistance, also known as sharpening stone resistance, makes them harder to sharpen requiring tooling and effort specifically meant to sharpen alloy steels. They wear longer, but many users including myself simply prefer a keener edge even if that means resharpening more often.

Modern steels do have a benefit of consistency and they do make fantastic high carbon steels as well as alloys so it is not safe to assume that modern means alloyed.

Alloy steels are a benefit to the maker, certain alloys are made specifically so that they can be mass produced without giving the producer as much grief as a high carbon steel.

[Kees Heiden]

John, did you read the study i posted about above? It doesn't anwers all your questions, but at least it is a start. For example the remarkably high hardness values of the mortise chisels.

I for sure don't think ALL 18th century chisels were great. If I remember the Seaton chest book correctly, then quite a few of those chisels and plane blades were cracked or broken! A regular Lee Valley customer who complains about a shooting plane being a few thou out of square, wouldn't be very happy with that chisel set! But from personal experience I know that you can get very good tools from the 19th century, even from the early 20th. I have quite a few 19th/early20th century Nooitgedagt chisels and plane irons which are easy to sharpen but have remarkably good edge retention. Even more important, when sharpened to a reasonable bevel angle of close to 30 degrees, the plane blades don't chip, they wear in a normal way. But I have had some duds too, mostly way too soft.

[Kees Heiden]

Oh, and here are some modern high end chisels. And this is just the start, in Japan you can spend a lot more when buying something special from a famous blacksmith.

https://www.fine-tools.com/tasai-chisels.html

[Derek Cohen]

Five years ago Derek Cohen got me started buying 19th century English chisels when he made a remark about them being inappropriate for study because they were unavailable. Since then I have bought seven such chisels. Five of them predate 1850.

Hi Warren

The context of my comment is that (1) such vintage steels are not common. You may have purchased a few - may even have access to a few more - but they cannot be obtained in a way that puts them easily enough in the hands of many. And (2) to which brand(s) are you referring? There are many. Are they the same?

I have rarely seen at a local swap meet a chisel older than 65 years (i.e. circa 1950).

The point is that testing is only helpful if the results may be used by others. In the case of recommending chisels following a review, then the chisels need to be available to the majority of the public, not just a few.

This is different from whether there is something to learn from chisels made in the 1800's. I believe modern manufacturers could replicate, for example, a Ward (I have a bunch of these in mortice chisels, and have pointed out that they are excellent blades). To some extent the steel type is available - in the form of Japanese chisels with laminated blades. However, the chisel design is quite different. As you pointed out, a Western styled chisel built in the fashion would be hellishly expensive - much more than any LN or Veritas or Blue Spruce, which are considered at the higher end of production chisels these days. Who would purchase them to make them worth manufacturing?

I think that you are referring to more than the steel, however. I think you also refer to chisel design - you believe that chisel design has taken a step backwards. I am inclined to agree with you through logic rather than experience. Still, I am aware that this is such a personal issue ... ask just those on this forum to say what they consider to be the ideal design, and you will get a dozen different replies. Perhaps they can only comment on what they know, what they have used, and they know not what they have not used. So this is where I hit the ball back to you ... will you explain what it is about the olde chisels you like that is missing in, say, a LN, a Veritas, and a Blue Spruce?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Sergey Petrov]

It is quite easy to do the described analysis. I have access to a lab and do such analyses often. The alloying elements (and carbon content as part thereof) will be definitive answer. Grain size , bar inclusions common to older forged steels, can be measured. But if the chisels are forged, it is more the directional properties/features, degree of cold work, section reduction between reheating steps, etc that are of interest. So the grain size question will not be answered conclusively and will leave the door wide open for opinions. Hardness can be measured easily and conclusively. The Crystal structure, or rather the phase morphology would be ferrite, cementite, pearlite, bainite and martensite or a mixture thereof in some ratio.

I have older Sheffield chisels, unsure of date and could do the above analysis for fun. It is the specteometric spark analysis that costs 30-50usd or so, the rest I can do for minimal cost.

[george wilson]

I was interrupted in my last posting by supper. Starting with the great difference in THICKNESS in my 1860's chemistry book and my more than twice as thick 1903 by he same authors(or company is more likely!)

A lot of the 1860 book is used up with phrases such as "The chemical process in this is not well understood". In the 1903 I have not yet run across that phrase. This shows the vast difference in knowledge accumulated in just those 43 years.

Early on, as in the 18th. C., once crucible or CAST STEEL was even INVENTED (They relied upon silicon inclusion infested BLISTER STEEL before the homogenized crucible or CAST STEEL came along),identifying the carbon content of a batch was purely done on the basis of an experienced person. Sorry for the huge sentence! My old head is not at its best this morning!!

Steel samples were broken by this "tester",no doubt a highly experienced old hand. The grain structure told him ABOUT how much carbon was present in each broken sample. Let me remind you that at this early time, they did not even know WHAT was making the steel capable of hardening. They included in their recipe odd ingredients such as the urine of a red headed boy, the urine of a wine drinking friar, and assorted other things which had no effect at all, and just burned off or evaporated under heat.

The broken samples were sorted into 3 or 4 different categories. I can't offhand recall all of them, though years ago i posted them here more than once. The lowest carbon content made the grains of the sample larger. It was classed as "spindle steel". Today, we'd say that was about .50% carbon ( 1/2 of 1% ). Hard enough to resist wear, but still tough enough not to snap off. The next was "Knife steel". Its grains were smaller. Finally was "razor steel", from which razors and files could be made, and anything else that needed to get very hard and take a very keen edge.

That's about it as far as how tool makers could select their materials. This is not to say that tools made from these steels could not be excellent. A LOT can be said about PERSONAL SKILL in judging those steels in the first place. Much can be said about the REPUTATIONS that steel makers could accrue. These natural quality "filters" allowed tool makers to supply excellent products. This was also highly driven by the customers being professionals for the greatest part, who DEMANDED the highest quality from their favorite makers,or they would go else where.

All of this process went back to where the ore came from. At that time, ore from Sweden was the favorite. The English didn't know it, but their own use of coal added very undesirable elements like sulphur to the finished steel. In Sweden, they still had vast reserves of wood, and used charcoal, which is free of sulphur. I was recently reminded of this when, several months ago,I suckered myself into buying a 19th. C. Sheffield pocket knife, still in bright and shiny condition. The condition was what persuaded me. But, bear in mind, unused tools sometimes mean that they were never used because they were BAD!! When I got the blade ALMOST razor sharp, tiny pieces of the edge would crumble off! The maker must not have chosen steel of a Swedish origin! I need to use a steeper angle in sharpening it. Blacksmiths use terms like "hot short" to describe steel that crumbles when they are trying to weld it.(I MAY be getting some terms somewhat wrong here as my memory isn't what it used to be when younger). I need to go back and re study some things. But essentially I am correct in describing the curse of sulphur which plagued English steel for a LONG TIME. I think this type of thing contributed to the excessive splitting open of the hull of the Titanic when it hit that iceburg.

Swedish iron was sold by the ton, and there were different grades of it as well. The tool maker had to get all these ducks in a row to make the finest product. And, no doubt, the finer tools cost more. The difference in cost of the grades of Swedish steel seem trivial to the modern reader, but even in 1953 you could book passage to Australia for ten pounds! Just what the quality of that 10 pound passage was,I don't know. Maybe they gave you a rope and a life ring to hold onto while you were towed behind the ship!!

I had better remark that I have used a lot of English tool steel made in modern times, and have had no trouble with it. The problem I described date to a very long time ago. But, the subject essentially, is the use of antique tools.

[John C Cox]

Somehow - I missed the study from Colonial Williamsburg...

Its interesting how much the quality of the tools varied - from very good even by today's standards to basically mushy trash. The cheapest Harbor Freight chisels are far better than the worst ones listed there - which barely passed 25Rc.... And with tools being imported from England by sea - you had little hope of having recourse with the manufacturer for poor quality.

And that answers another tangential question of mine... If someone like me is after quality users - it sounds like you better have some way to evaluate the hard edge before you buy... Hardness chisels or a pocket knife or something where if it skates it's good and if it grabs it's too soft... And hope you don't get one of George's crumbly steel examples..

On their testing.. I think that it's great that they did what they did. They do ask quite a few questions which are probably interesting from an archaeological perspective. For example - they spent considerable time on the slag analysis and relatively little on the steel. They may be able to use the slag analysis to track it back to some specific ore deposit or correlate it with other historical tools.. But - I honestly can't think of a good reason that the slag analysis would help me to understand what made their best tools good...

Thanks

[Warren Mickley]

I looked at the Barr Quarton website after blacksmith Barr was mentioned in another thread. So called "timeless tools". Here is a picture of his cabinetmaker chisels.
barr cabinet chisels.jpg
He seems like a skilled artisan, serious about making traditional tools. However, I can't imagine where he got the impression that cabinetmakers used such heavy tools. He obviously did not look at historical literature or extant examples. Does anyone imagine he sought out skilled cabinetmakers? Barr's four piece set is listed as 5 pounds. The 11 chisels on my bench right now weigh together 2 pounds 3 ounces, around three ounces (90 grams) apiece, not a pound a piece. This is what I mean by someone not aiming in the right direction. I don't know if he has tried to duplicate the steel or heat treatment of traditional tools, but I am skeptical.

My experience with 19th century tools goes back to 1975. I worked briefly (1978) in a woodworking shop at a National Historic site. The first day the other guy in the shop was anxious to see how well I could sharpen; I picked a 19th century chisel to show off my skills, even though contemporary chisels were available. I don't know where people are finding clunkers.

[Dave Anderson NH]

There are always clunkers out there new and old. In some cases for the old tools which folks think are bad/soft the problem might be someone who machine sharpened and drew the temper out of the steel. Lots of folks don't know enough to carefully grind back to the good steel.

Warren, I agree with you on the Barr tools which I have seen in person and tried some years ago. His workmanship and the quality is top notch, but the tools are heavy and clunky to use. I have relatively small hands and Barr's chisels were very uncomfortable in my hands because of the handle diameter and shape. The steel he uses also holds and edge well.

[Jeff Heath]

I have assembled a quality mixed set of vintage chisels and gouges over the years that I'm quite happy with. Mostly Greenlee ( I have a full set of bench and longer paring chisels....all Greenlee) with a smaller assembly of Stanley 750's (4 chisels) that I also acquired one at a time, when they were cheap and available (a rare occurrence these days). I also have a few Witherby and Swan chisels/gouges in different sizes, and a couple of old Buck's as well. I pick them up at swap meets and garage sales, when I can, and don't think I've ever paid more than $10 for any of them....possible exception being a $25 3/8" NOS 750 that I just had to have that day (not sure why).

I've only gotten one clunker over the years that was relegated to paint can opener because it just wouldn't hold an edge, no matter how many times I ground it back, looking for a harder edge.

I've got 1 newish (3 years old) 1/10" mortise chisel from Lie Nielsen for planemaking, and I just finally received, after a very long wait, 2 brand new pig stickers from Ray Isles. 1/8" and 1/2". They are spectacular, with awesomely massive beech handles that I love (I have very large hands). I've been whacking the heck out the 1/2" chisel opening up bench planes this past week, and I still haven't made a mark on the edge. Very high quality steel (D2) and extremely durable. But, at $99 apiece, it was a major splurge for me. Best mortise chisels I've ever used, though.

I think someone who spends a lot of money on an expensive, new set of chisels is going to be hard pressed to assemble a finer quality chisel than my older Greenlee's. They were not all found in great shape, and I, of course, had to regrind bevels, flatten backs, and get them honed, but now that the hard work is done, they are a pleasure to use, and they hold their edge extremely well.

[Larry Frank]

To a steelmaking metalllurgist, the slag is an extremely important part of producing quality steel. I made high quality bar steels for a lot of years and spent a lot of the time designing the slags to fit the grades. The wrong slag would result in poor quality steel. The relationship of the slag and liquid steel is extremely complex.


Should anyone on this forum care about this...NO.

[george wilson]

Please note that I did not say that all old(very old!) tools are bad. I have several 18th. C. chisels that work just fine. It all depended upon the criteria I mentioned in my last post being met: Good iron to start with, excellent personal skill in grading finished steel,etc..

Crumbly steel has too much sulfur in it. Not necessarily related to hardness.(A heavily generalized statement,probably not totally accurate!)

[Ray Selinger]

"and you will get a dozen different replies " and that is from only six people.