Narex Chisels- Mini review

[Jacob]

I can't say I've read anything of interest from you two to form an opinion. Do you come here often?

 

[andy king]

That's it. Thanks for that it saves me having to explain yet another thing to BB,* which can take up such a lot of time!
If you don't have a 1/2' mortice chisel you either have to alter the whole design to match the chisel or end up with a funny little inconvenient shoulder detail with every M&T, and there may be hundreds in a common job.
1/2" mortice chisels usually are 1/2" and you can scale off your gauge setting instead of matching it to a chisel.
NB I did quite a few doors and windows entirely by hand when I started out, using a modern Marples sash mortice chisel (not unlike the Narex but with a much better handle - yellow plastic) as I couldn't afford a proper one and ebay hadn't been invented.

In the example illustration posted, common sense would dictate that the flat area on the mould should be matched and machined to a suitable chisel of close dimension to your actual desired dimension for example, 12mm as opposed to 1/2in isn't the end of the world! - any minor discrepancy is easily lost in the glazing rebate making it a little deeper /shallower accordingly, therefore eliminating an 'inconvenient shoulder detail' assuming the scenario of '100 mortices' you referred to, which would imply you are machining your own stock?
Even a repair can be done in similar fashion - machining a slightly deeper/shallow rebate will give a step discrepancy of new to old (and i'm talking the same fractional discrepancies as the chisel argument) but will then be lost in the back putty when glazing.
That said, if i had to cut 100 mortices, i doubt i'd be doing them by hand!

Andy

 

[Jacob]

....

In the example illustration posted, common sense would dictate that the flat area on the mould should be matched and machined to a suitable chisel of close dimension to your actual desired dimension for example, 12mm as opposed to 1/2in isn't the end of the world! - any minor discrepancy is easily lost in the glazing rebate making it a little deeper /shallower accordingly, therefore eliminating an 'inconvenient shoulder detail' assuming the scenario of '100 mortices' you referred to, which would imply you are machining your own stock?
Even a repair can be done in similar fashion - machining a slightly deeper/shallow rebate will give a step discrepancy of new to old (and i'm talking the same fractional discrepancies as the chisel argument) but will then be lost in the back putty when glazing.
That said, if i had to cut 100 mortices, i doubt i'd be doing them by hand!

Andy

It wasn't about making do, which obviously is perfectly possible, as you describe. It was about accuracy in chisel widths.
Some of the posters above seem to think it doesn't matter, that they never are accurate anyway and that early makers couldn't be accurate on their grindwheels. I was saying it does matter and that a 1/2" chisel should be exactly 1/2", or you could hit problems, and that they usually are reliably accurate, such that you don't need to measure them and you can set your gauge to a scale quite safely.
Just to be really pedantic I've measured my 7 very old mortice chisels (got to get some work done :roll: ) and with two exceptions they are all within 0.1mm.
The seven are nominally 1/8, 1/4, 5/16, 2@3/8, 2@1/2, inch.
The 5/16" measures 7.7mm instead of 7.9 (0.2mm under) which is just about OK, but it is old and worn.
One of the 3/8" measures 10.2 instead of 9.5 which is a big difference, but this one has a stroke through the makers name (Marples) which means factory reject, presumably because of the width.
So only one out of six varies by more than 0.1mm from accurate but isn't far out in practical terms.
The others are all from dead on to very slightly over sized by less than 0.1mm, which is fine in woodworking terms, with a slight bias in the right direction IMHO.

PS This random collection of old chisels (except for the two exceptions, one being worn out and the other faulty) are just as accurate in width as the Narexs per Matthew's figures. And so they should be!

 

[bugbear]

That's it. Thanks for that it saves me having to explain yet another thing to BB,* which can take up such a lot of time!

*Mind you he does listen, sometimes:

...Er. Yes. That's the method I use too....

:lol: :lol:

Andy T's picture was far more helpful than your unsupported assertions. If you don't want to explain things, perhaps forums are not for you.

And (just to be clear) my knowledge of how to mark and cut mortise and tenons was not gained by listening to you.

I read a book.

I have learnt a couple of things about windows from you.

BugBear

 

[condeesteso]

And to think that in the beginning this was about Narex chisels, and a quite useful review...

 

[Jacob]

And to think that in the beginning this was about Narex chisels, and a quite useful review...

So? The discussion has been largely about the apparent lack of precision in the width, as posted by the OP in his review, and has stayed pretty much on topic throughout. Pretty good compared to some threads.

 

[Allylearm]

And to think that in the beginning this was about Narex chisels, and a quite useful review...

So? The discussion has been largely about the apparent lack of precision in the width, as posted by the OP in his review, and has stayed pretty much on topic throughout.

My thoughts is these chisels are just modern variants from euro land that do not aspire to meet a good standard of manufacturers tolerence they are what they are a cheap variant. I will stick with my old British made chisels thank you very much.

Whats next the expensive yank planes are not flat. What is the world coming too.

 

[bugbear]

And to think that in the beginning this was about Narex chisels, and a quite useful review...

So? The discussion has been largely about the apparent lack of precision in the width, as posted by the OP in his review, and has stayed pretty much on topic throughout.

My thoughts is these chisels are just modern variants from euro land that do not aspire to meet a good standard of manufacturers tolerence they are what they are a cheap variant. I will stick with my old British made chisels thank you very much.

You might want to read back in the thread where matthewwh measured a number of these chisels rather more carefully than the OP and found that they are (in fact) accurate to width.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

......

You might want to read back in the thread where matthewwh measured a number of these chisels rather more carefully than the OP and found that they are (in fact) accurate to width.

BugBear

Different (in fact) chisels! We await our OP's second attempt with baited breath. :shock:
Anyway Matthew's measurements produced pretty average results no better than my oldies, but that's OK - good enough for woodwork.

Just looked at my faulty chisel - the laminated face is semi-detached (fine crack) so maybe that is why it was rejected and then was never ground to size.

 

[Harbo]

I am just amazed at these people who can give judgement on a product that they have never seen or handled in the flesh!
This started off as a review by somebody that actually bought that them and liked them.
Spoiled by the usual contingent that takes great distorted pleasure in knocking anything new!

Rod

 

[Jacob]

Ooops sorry didn't realise is was just a game!

 

[condeesteso]

Hi all - i think there is mileage in this thread yet. I just nipped out and got my older set of 3 MHG mortice chisels (from Rutlands, and got before I even knew about the Narex). The MHG are £23.95 each... significantly more than the Narex at around £15 (depending on exact size).
They look like this:

I did a size check:

Right at the cutting edge, with my Mitsutoyo which I trust within .01mm:

13mm = 12.83
9mm = 10.04
6mm = 5.77

Not bad, not stunning in the case of the 6mm... do I care? Never ever measured them til this came up!

What I liked about the MHG was the blade machining - no polishing, no nasty lacquer (which I have seen on their b/edge sets and I truly hate).
One difference that stands out against the Narex, is the very beefy handle of the MHG. BUT I did think the Narex blades looked really well machined, though I can't say either looks better and don't have a Narex in front of me.
As for edge performance, I would need to test one against the other - Jim has one of Matthew's samples, so I may try them head-to-head.
If anyone else would like to do that instead, my MHG v the Narex... seriously let me know. I'm sure Jim / Matthew wouldn't mind and it would be a truly unbiased comparison then.
But without being able to test edge v edge, the Narex looks a really well-made bargain to me. (But maybe watch out for the Rutlands 20% offers as that closes the gap a fair bit.)

And the pencil supporting the 13mm? It's a Caran D'Ache of course.

 

[Jacob]

........
13mm = 12.83
9mm = 10.04
6mm = 5.77

Not bad, not stunning in the case of the 6mm... do I care?

It's the 9mm which is most out - much too far (you should care!) and the 6 isn't good. Does it say 9mm on it? Just file it off and put 10 instead.

...e very beefy handle of the MHG. ......

but very slender necks for mortice chisels.
Don't buy em!

 

[condeesteso]

very sorry Jacob - that was me. It's a 10mm of course, here measuring 10.02mm. I think I was being slack when I got 10.04:

And here's the neck on the 10mm:

Fancy trying one?

 

[Dodge]

Ok here we go - just to set the record straight

I own a set of Narex 8112 Mortice Chisels and a set of Narex 8116 Cabinet Makers Chisels - I bought these with my hard earned dosh through my own choice having reviewed what was currently for sale on the market.

I am a professional cabinet maker with over 30 years under my belt since selling my first piece of commissioned furniture, I have also had over 100 articles on furniture conbstruction published in The Woodworker Magazine and Practical Woodworking Magazine (Before its demise!) over the last 10 years as well as having demonstrated at The Alexandra Palace & Stoneleigh Woodworking shows on many occasions - I believe this therefore enables me to make an educated and informed decision!

Using my Narex chisels today I took the time to measure them with my digital vernier callipers and the results are below:-

Narex 8112 Mortice Chisels

4mm - 4.02mm
6mm - 5.99mm
8mm - 7.98mm
10mm - 10.00mm!

Narex 8116 Cabinet Makers Chisels

6mm - 6.01mm
10mm - 10.03mm
12mm - 12.01mm
16mm - 15.98mm
20mm - 19.99mm
26mm - 26.03mm

Now I'm sure that you can see that all the chisels are within 3/100 mm which I believe if more than acceptable!!

I also measured the Kirschen Chisels which I own and use - these measured as below:-

6mm - 5.82mm -0.18mm
10mm - 9.85mm -0.15mm
16mm - 16.07mm +0.07mm
20mm - 19.94mm -0.06mm
26mm - 25.92mm -0.08mm

You can therefore conclude that my Narex are much more accurate than my Kirschen chisels so come on guys lets cut the rubbish and put this to thread to bed. I have actually owned the Kirschens for about 8 years and guess what? - I had never previously measured them - nor found their inaccuracy to be a problem!

Anyway - I was also machining some premium quality oak today (Moisture content measured at 10.82%) - after thicknessing I measured the thickness of an off-cut before leaving it on the bench - I re-measured the thickness of the oak again after a couple of hours and the thickness had changed by 0.09mm so what is the problem with a chisel being 3/100mm different to what it purports to be!

I'm sure a certain member will find a way to twist and knock what I have posted but do you know what - I really like my Narex Chisels so I don't give a damn! Oh and I would strongly recommend them through my personal experience in using them!

Sorry to those I have bored with this post but up until now I had actually enjoyed being a member of this forum but one or two people are really just doing their utmost to destroy it by naffing off the genuine members - SHAME ON THEM!!!

 

[jimi43]

Sorry to those I have bored with this post but up until now I had actually enjoyed being a member of this forum but one or two people are really just doing their utmost to destroy it by naffing off the genuine members - SHAME ON THEM!!!

Don't be sorry Dodge mate...I think there are many more here who are equally cheesed off to the back teeth with the childish way thread after perfectly good thread is destroyed in this way.... :roll:

Jim

 

[condeesteso]

"and put this to thread to bed"
But let's not overlook the fact that the OP was not simply about measuring the width of a mortice chisel. And someone we know is now all smug cos us lot are getting the verniers etc out, taking pics etc, all for a couple of thou.
The thread was really about Narex chisels (mortice specifically)... it just got dragged into a ruler-fest.
I await the 'last word' on this thread with no interest - I'm off elsewhere.

 

[Mark A]

I really don't understand why there is an issue over the width of a chisel varying by a few thou, especially when wood is a natural material which fluctuates dimensionally depending on its moisture level, as Dodge pointed out above.

Thanks everyone for the comments praising the quality and value of the Narex chisels because I've just added a set to my Christmas list!

 

[Jacob]

I really don't understand why there is an issue over the width of a chisel varying by a few thou, especially when wood is a natural material which fluctuates dimensionally depending on its moisture level, as Dodge pointed out above.

Thanks everyone for the comments praising the quality and value of the Narex chisels because I've just added a set to my Christmas list!

The issue was that the OP seemed to have Narex chisels with very random widths; more than a few thou. He himself asked about this "....in case ppl wanted to raise the fact that the 6mm chisels is surprisingly smaller than stated" but nobody commented.
The consensus seemed to be that the width of mortice chisels didn't matter, nobody really cared.
My point was that it did matter, and a 1/2" (or 10mm) nominal chisel which wasn't close to 1/2" (or 10mm) was a liability and should be binned.
Basically the "don't care either way" lobby seems to be in the ascendant but my guess is that for them it's all just a game as they don't really do a lot of mortices by hand anyway.

 

[bugbear]

My point was that it did matter, and a 1/2" (or 10mm) nominal chisel which wasn't close to 1/2" (or 10mm) was a liability and should be binned.

I guess it is about the tools after all.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

BugBear