Further adventures in second hand land

[memzey]

A few weeks ago I made my first sacrifice of a Sunday morning lie in to potter around the bric a brac of a local boot fair in pursuit of some decent, old and predominantly English made hand tools. My outcomes for that day are captured in another thread but suffice to say a bug was well and truly caught by yours truly and I haven't missed one since! Someone should have warned me I was on a slippery slope!!! Anyway I have since purchased much that I am truly please with but wanted to share the following items with my fellow board members for comment and review:

First up a really nice dovetail saw with a stamped mark of "Johnson Cast Steel"

I am not familiar with this maker - can anyone shed some light on it? It is well balanced and extremely comfortable in the hand.

Next up some set squares. The three smaller ones are Moore and Wright while the larger (6 inch) one is Rabone Chesterman:


They are all square inside and out as far as I can tell.

Next up is a very fine oil stone - much finer than the combi stone I picked up in my first outing. It feels almost like glass to the touch. I expertly dropped it to remove a chip from the corner thus revealing to you all the true colour of the stone:

Would anyone care to hazard a guess on the type of stone this one is? It has the hairs on my arm in quite a nervous state.

On the topic of stones: I picked up a mixed box of small stones. One of them is of triangle profile:

Could this be used to sharpen saws?

A really nice Sorby chisel


I have a feeling it's a bit younger than some of my earlier purchases. Anyone care to guess its age?

A "fabulous?" marking knife Again not a maker I'm aware of but would be glad to hear from someone who is.

Mortise and bevel gauges from W Marples & Sons. These are in really good condition:



An unusual little vise which I have screwed to my work top. The threads actually run over the bench rather than under it which is a new one on me but not a problem. Cost me a fiver though so it's the priciest thing I've bought to date:


A couple of pairs of Record cramp heads (£1 each)


#4 and #5 Stanley hand planes with wooden totes and really nice, flat soles and square mouths:


The #4 has a screw missing for the back handle. Any ideas where I could get one?

From top to bottom; a wooden thing with a sharp metal bit I bought by accident, a cast steel Robt Sorby, a Marples and an awesome Ward and Payne: (I think this might be the best chisel I have bought so far)


Now for one I am really pleased even though I'm not entirely sure I know what it's for; my new/old Disston back saw:

Why, other than my regular ignorance, am I unsure what it's for? It's much bigger than any tennon saw I have seen before. It's a real lump but dead straight and well set. Is there another type of back saw that's bigger than a tennon of which I am unaware? Oh and as for why I'm particularly pleased with it; it has cleaned up an absolute treat:




Now a bit of a curiosity: I think it's a dovetail marking gauge - can anyone confirm? I think it was owner made as it has no makers mark:

So do we think there is anything in this lot that is interesting or is it all toot? Please bear in mind that apart from the vise (£5), the Disston (£2.50) and the Jack plane (also £2.50) everything was a pound or less.

 

[Noggsy]

Some cracking finds there memzey. The Disston saw looks lovely, with great figuring in the burr (oak?) handle. The wooden thing you mention is a spokeshave (assuming you weren't taking the mick). Paul Sellers has recently blogged quite a bit about them if you're interested in cleaning it up. Keep looking, you seem to have a knack for it - have you been taking lessons from Jimi?

 

[hanser]

I think you're gloating (hammer) :mrgreen: Nice finds!

 

[memzey]

No lessons Noggsy just pot luck I think! I must confess to knowing that the wooden thing is a spokeshave - I am just childishly reflecting on its apparent lack of usefulness to me at this point in time and the accidental way in which I came to own it (it was in a box with some chisels which i did want). I suppose in the fullness of time it may be of some use to me yet so I am keeping it for now.

And as for gloating; how very dare you Hanser!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

To find that lot on our car boots you'd have to wade through 500 tons of second hand clothes, games with bits missing and Chinese tat. I sometimes look at the whole car park and think to myself that I wouldn't give £50 for everything there.

 

[bugbear]

From top to bottom; a wooden thing with a sharp metal bit I bought by accident, a cast steel Robt Sorby, a Marples and an awesome Ward and Payne: (I think this might be the best chisel I have bought so far)

I think that Ward may be the best chisel you buy in a very long time...

BugBear

 

[Cheshirechappie]

From top to bottom; a wooden thing with a sharp metal bit I bought by accident, a cast steel Robt Sorby, a Marples and an awesome Ward and Payne: (I think this might be the best chisel I have bought so far)

I think that Ward may be the best chisel you buy in a very long time...

BugBear

Quite possibly - but I think one of the other chisels (the top one, just below the spokeshave) is a more interesting one. In the book 'The Tool Chest of Benjamin Seaton' on page 66 there's a chart showing the development of chisel shapes over the years. The shoulder shape, thin section and large bolster of the one in the photo correspond with a date range from that chart of early to mid 19th century. It will probably have a slight taper in it's length from shoulder, increasing in width to the cutting edge, a taper in thickness from edge to shoulder, and sides that are close to, but not quite, square to the face and back. The handle is a more recent addition - chisels didn't have ferrules until a reliable way of making seamless tube was developed in the mid 19th century, so it would originally have had a (craftsman-made, usually) octagonal handle tapered from bolster to striking end.

I think that chisel is between 150 and 200 years old. Chisels that old are not rare, but they're not all that common, either. Nice find!

 

[jimi43]

Interesting observation CC and well spotted! I have looked at P66 again and concur that you have it spot on! 8)

I hadn't got to that bit of the book yet...what a mine of information it is!

Is there such a comparison of the various handle shapes...going back to the WARD thread a minute. That barrel shaped boxwood design is significant because if we could work out the dates of the earliest examples of such a handle we might be better positioned to date that chisel.

Jimi

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I don't know of any historical comparison of chisel handle shapes that could be used for dating purposes (which doesn't mean there isn't one somewhere!), but I did find a catalogue page reproduction in 'Dictionary of Woodworking Tools' by Salaman (2nd edition, 1989), showing the chisel handle shapes available from (as luck would have it!) Ward and Payne in 1911 (Fig.197, page 132). The 'Best Carving Pattern Box Chisel Handle' is shown very clearly, so was certainly available commercially in 1911. I'm pretty certain it had been around for some time by then, though.

 

[Bedrock]

Memzey
Try G&M Tools at Ashington, or Lee Tools at Yapton, both in West Sussex for the missing screw. It may cost you a couple of pounds, but they usually have all sorts of bits and pieces like this.

Mike

 

[memzey]

Cheers Bedrock I will do just that!

Just to add to the observations of my far more learned comrades above - the Sorby does feel very old. Its makers mark is also markedly different to my other Sorby which is pictured further up.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Tenon saws - they were in times of old made up to quite large sizes. The Benjamin Seaton toolchest mentioned above has a 191/2" tenon saw (though personally I think that's just showing off). Saws of 14" bladelength are quite common, but 16" ones turn up from time to time. I suspect that the larger ones were favoured by joiners in the 19th century for window and door work, but they fell out of favour a bit as most of that work became mechanised in the late 19th and 20th centuries. There's a website called The Disstonian Institute which gives very thorough information to allow dating of Disston saws, and all sorts of other interesting snippets.

On the Sorby mark, things could get complicated. There were at least four Sorby lines (the Sorby family being something of a Sheffield dynasty).

First up are I Sorby (sometimes with a jester or Mr Punch trademark), being the firm founded by Isaac Sorby in the early years of the 19th century, and later absorbed into Sorby and Turner, Turner naylor and Co, and Turner Naylor and Marples. (I think the firm of William Marples ended up still using the I Sorby trademark into the 1930s.)

Then there's I&H Sorby - John Sorby and Sons (sometimes with the 'Golden Fleece' trademark device). They traded from about 1824 till about 1884.

Then there's Robert Sorby (Kangaroo trademark), who started in 1828 and are still trading - your small chisel looks to be one of theirs, maybe a 1950's or 1960's product, judging from the washer between bolster and ferrule.

Finally, there's W. Sorby. I don't have any dates for him.

There were lots of other Sorbys too; one of them became the founder of modern scientific metallurgy. Several of them served as Master Cutlers in Sheffield at various times.

(Edited to correct date of registration of Robert Sorby, which had been stated incorrectly as 1860)

 

[memzey]

Thanks everyone for taking the time to look at and respond to this post with their informed contributions. I have taken some more photos to see if that helps to clarify the age of any of these items. Firstly the Sorby chisel:

Cheshirechappie is quite right; there is a slight taper in the chisel from shoulder to point as depicted in the photo below:


It does also flare out to a wider point from a slightly narrower shoulder by about an eighth. Here is a picture of the extremely bold makers mark:


And a couple of the Ward marks:



I have measured the Disston and it is indeed 14" long. I have no idea what that means with regards to its age but judging the heel of the blade I'd guess it has been sharpened plenty of times:


I don't know if this was intended or done by accident by the last person to sharpen the saw but there appears to be a pattern in the teeth where some are marginally longer than others as you can see in the above photo. What do you guys think; done by accident or design?

 

[memzey]

I followed the advice given above and went to the Disstonian website for more information. I now think this saw is a 14" number 5 Disston backsaw made between 1918 and 1940. The original clue was the shape of the handle but the website also carries illustrations of blade etchings. Upon closer inspection I noticed there was indeed an etching buerried beneath the grime. I thought I'd take a bit of a gamble and try to clean it up with the old autosol and foil trick which I think worked ok:


On the topic of saws; does anyone care to share an opinion on whether the triangle profile stone could be used to sharpen these saws up? Although I hadn't posted it earlier I have actually picked up a few saw files along the way as well including a Tyzack with which I think it would be cute sharpen up my DT saw by the same maker:




What do we think; are these files or the earlier stone likely to be good for the task at hand?

 

[AndyT]

The files are what you need to sharpen a saw. Their cross section is subtle - it's not just a triangle; there are teeth across the points as well. These give neatly curved bottoms to the gullets. Sharp edged gullets would be vulnerable to cracks starting from the internal corners.Also, a file is long enough to hold consistently at the right angle while making a forward stroke - the little slipstone would be too short.

So what are little slipstones for? As far as I know they are for sharpening the shaped cutting edges found on carving tools and I think a triangular one would be useful on a V tool.

Some shapes are also useful for sharpening moulding plane irons.

Some other snippets: why a bigger saw? Just to keep it in scale to the work. Your one I would say was right for a joiner rather than a cabinetmaker, but I have a very similar saw which I like so much that I use it on small stuff as well.

You'll know from the Disstonian Institute that the handle is probably applewood, not oak. The long and short teeth are by accident not design and are sometimes called "cows and calves".

Welcome to the world of old tools!

 

[memzey]

Thanks Andy - I have well and truly landed here with a bump! I took your advice given on my previous thread and mixed up a batch of restorer which I have used on some bits and bobs - very handy. Is this the right way to go with respect to restoring the older chisels above as well? I don't want to make a mess of them as their age makes them a bit special to me.

 

[bugbear]

The long and short teeth are by accident not design and are sometimes called "cows and calves".

Yeah - I would NOT start your saw sharpening career trying to fix those teeth. That's quite a tricky job.

Find a less valuable, and better sharpened example to practise on.

BugBear

 

[MIGNAL]

Yep, for experienced sharpeners only!

 

[memzey]

Well then I am in need of some guidance from an experienced sharpener then! Anyone in the St. Albans area willing to show me how it's done? It's probably a bit less interesting but does anyone know the provenance of the Johnson DT saw? I can't quite explain why but it feels really well made. The previous owner must have thought so too as he carved his name in the foot of the handle which you might not do for a lower quality tool?

 

[AndyT]

Thanks Andy - I have well and truly landed here with a bump! I took your advice given on my previous thread and mixed up a batch of restorer which I have used on some bits and bobs - very handy. Is this the right way to go with respect to restoring the older chisels above as well? I don't want to make a mess of them as their age makes them a bit special to me.

I'm glad you asked that. Often, all that old tools need is a wipe over with a damp cloth to get the loose dirt off. If you over clean an old tool you get something which does not look old any more, and if age was part of the appeal, you've lost much of the pleasure of owning the tool. So it's always best to go slowly and think before doing anything irreversible.

The trouble is, wiping off loose dirt does not make a great photo essay or YouTube clip, so it's easy to get the impression that all old tools need the same full-on treatment - they don't.

In my opinion, in general, you should aim for tools which look like they have been used and cared for by a conscientious owner. Steel can be darkened / patinated / tarnished but should not have loose rust. Handles should be smooth and clean. Moving parts should move. Cutting edges, if the tool is to be used, should be sharp. A tool should not make your hands or work dirty.

(As an example of old tools in superb condition which still look their age, have a look at this recent find by Gary "Hackney Tools" - http://hackneytools.com/2014/08/good-times/)