Preservation or Utilisation? Antique Tools

[Rhyolith]

Like many people on here I own a lot of very old tools, many over 100 years in age. They are beautiful, often irreplaceable and regularly out perform their equivalents in todays world (or are no longer made at all).

Something I keep dithering over is what my responsibility is with these glorious antiques: Do I preserve them for future generations or use them as their makers intended? Both of these courses of action have their merits. Preserving antique is a no brainer regardless, but tools are made to be used and using a tool it inevitably going to wear it down in some manner; and of course there is the ever present danger of a clumsy moment! So is it less selfish to not use them at all and thus ensure they are totally preserved for future generations to appreciate?

What do people think? Use or Preserve?

Note: I am only really talking about the old and really exceptional items. The Millers Falls No.87 here is an example:
Millers Falls No.87 by Rhyolith, on Flickr

 

[Argus]

Many of my tools that I've accumulated over the last 40 odd years are pre-War.... many pre First War, most pre-Boer War, some go back before the Crimea War.

They all work for their living and are looked after, cared for and sharpened as most of the previous owners did.
When I give up, I'll make sure that they go to workers who will carry on with them as they deserve and add their name stamps to mine.

If it works and I have a use for it then I will use it..... new or old.

 

[AndyT]

In general, I think it's ok to use antique tools for their original purpose. Of course, my usage as an occasional dabbler in woodworking is only ever going to be very light usage. I don't think I will wear out any of the tools in my care.

I'd draw the line at anything really historic - early 18th century planes for instance, where the 19th and 20th centuries provide plenty of alternatives.

A consequence of this is that I will only do the minimum of restoration to put a tool back into the sort of condition it would be in if it was still in use by a competent tradesman. So gross dirt and rust come off but all signs of honest ageing are retained. In general, that is - there will be odd exceptions.

 

[ED65]

This is an interesting subject, one I've seen discussions on before on knife forums and gun forums a few times over the years. You should expect some lively debate on the topic!

I think the arguments are nearly always going to be similar regardless of the tool, although with guns there is the unique chance that use could lead to an explosion which thankfully we don't have to worry about :mrgreen:

Personally I think there are almost no good reasons not to use a tool you own assuming it's in good working order. This is even if the tool is rare, unless using it would seriously impact its condition or outright damage it. I think this reasonably unlikely with any tool most would care to use in the first place. I don't buy into the notion that you shouldn't use something simply due to its age. That's being precious about them, in a way that's not really warranted: these things were made to be user tools, not pretty shelf ornaments, and within reason this is what they should continue to be.

Obviously if you go back far enough (18th century and older) and the tool is a rare or possibly sole survivor, then a reasonable argument could be made that it's best to preserve it for history, but those would be few and far between except for the very fortunate of deep-pocketed.

 

[Water-Mark]

In times like these i always look to toy story for guidance.

 

[JimB]

What would the tradesmen who used it before think? I suspect they'd go for using it. A tool not used isn't really a tool though...

 

[bugbear]

It depends entirely on rarity, not age.

Further - consider recent debates on cap-iron position or (of course) sharpening. If all
old tools are disassembled, cleaned, and tuned using modern techniques, materials and assumptions,
where would we look for evidence of old tuning techniques?

Use the common, preserve the rare.

BugBear

 

[Cheshirechappie]

One way to 'understand' tools is to use them for their intended purpose - indeed, some would say they can't be properly understood unless they're used. Most of the time that's perfectly acceptable with old tools, but as pointed out above, it may be inadvisable with particularly rare ones. The way round that problem is to make a replica and use that, which has the advantage that one uses the tool in it's 'as-new' condition, free of the inevitable damage, distortions and wear of age.

 

[Corneel]

My oldest tools (that I am aware of) are these 18th century tongue and groove planes from Ary den Hengst who worked in Rotterdam. Don't use them much, it's a very narrow size, but they have come in handy from time to time. So my vote: Use it.

 

[mseries]

Use it. The makers made them to be used, they have gone to the trouble of making it, you owe it to them. Tools are to be used.

 

[Bedrock]

I am very much in the "use it" camp. Look after it, and hope that when you pass it on, the next owner will appreciate it's quality. After that it is a question of whether you like owning something old or whether you feel like being an off-shoot to the museum service.
Surely, a tool is valued for it's quality in use. It is not a picture or a ceramic, valued for its aesthetic qualities.
By contrast, I own a Chinese wine bowl which cost me very little, and is reckoned to be 1000 years old. It is simple in design, but not of great beauty, nor, obviously do I use it, but I enjoy the fact that it is that old, and has survived more or less intact.

 

[AJB Temple]

Use.

 

[MusicMan]

I'm with Bugbear. Use, unless is it so rare that we need to preserve evidence of original settings. In which case it should be in a museum, where it can be conserved properly, but there are not many museums that would take tools.

Keith

 

[DTR]

In times like these i always look to toy story for guidance.

=D>

 

[Rhyolith]

One way to 'understand' tools is to use them for their intended purpose - indeed, some would say they can't be properly understood unless they're used.

I think thats a critical point and not just true of tools. If an item is locked safety away in a glass cabinet is anyone really going to benefit from it? Even if it is in "perfect" condition. This is in many ways a massive flaw with the traditional concept of a "museum".

I do think that to understand the "tool" element of a tool you defiantly have to use it... but what if the item's purpose not a tool anymore? For example my Black and Decker "gutt buster" drill: it works fine and is very much useable, however I intend to have it on the mantle piece or on show in some similar capacity as I believe the interest and pleasure people (and me) will get from this is greater than the negligible practical need for a drill that size. Hence although its still a functional tool, its use is now an ornament, thus a new understand of it as such is established.
Black & Decker 3/4" Drill by Rhyolith, on Flickr

Use it. The makers made them to be used, they have gone to the trouble of making it, you owe it to them. Tools are to be used.

Surely, a tool is valued for it's quality in use. It is not a picture or a ceramic, valued for its aesthetic qualities..

As in the example above, this can change and there are not shortage of examples where it does. Indeed even if we ignore the modern trend of using antique tools as ornaments, old tool makers seem to have regularly gone out of their way to make the tools beautiful (preston is a good example of this), this brings no practical benefit functionally to the tool. I imagine it was done to help sell the tools (quality is perceived in beauty as well as its functional effectiveness), but also as a physical form of the makers pride in their work.

It depends entirely on rarity, not age. ......
......... Use the common, preserve the rare. ......

The only issue there is what is "rare"? For example, I would class a Lie Neilsen No.8 as pretty rare (I have never seen another), but when you start talking about 18th century braces and so it suddenly does not seem rare at all... so where is the line? When there is 1-2 left

This is an interesting subject, one I've seen discussions on before on knife forums and gun forums a few times over the years. You should expect some lively debate on the topic!

I think its a interesting topic too, and one I am very interested in hearing opinions on

 

[sunnybob]

Ryolyth,
Buck Rogers said can he have his ray gun back please?

 

[AndyT]

We're all woodworkers, or we wouldn't be on this forum, so for ordinary woodworking tools, it's easy to say 'use it.'
But Rhyolith's big old drill makes me think a bit wider.

I don't have a collection of cooper's tools, but I know people who have. It's just not feasible for them to have a go at making barrels - they would struggle to get suitable materials, and the work is much harder than other sorts of woodworking, in the physical sense and in the level of difficulty.* But I want the tools to be preserved, so that the historical knowledge of just how it was possible to make millions of beer-tight containers over thousands of years is also preserved.

The same argument applies to other trades, not just the woodworking ones.



*Indeed, Ken Kilby wrote on the first page of the standard book on The Cooper and His Trade

"Robinson Crusoe was able to make anything but he never made a barrel. There are no amateur barrel makers. Coopering is a skill acquired through years of sweating, muscle-aching, back breaking labour 'at the block' as coopers say."

 

[Bedrock]

There's a point, but probably a very subjective one, where you tip over into industrial archaeology. Having said that, Victorian pumping stations, steam locos, and the like are, in my view, much the better for being fully restored and used, even if the original purpose is no longer viable.
The question of aesthetics is another subjective, but any of the many marks of Spitfire, the Vulcan bomber, or the Concorde, are undeniably beautiful, even if efficiency, rather than beauty was the intention of the designers. Again, I would much rather see them up in the air, and hear their sounds, than see them as a static display.
For woodworking tools, I agree with Rhyolith, in that I suspect that the larger part of the design purpose was efficiency and then pride in producing an attractive quality artefact. Cars are probably a blend of all these factors, in that the cars which have become "classics" are generally those which perform well, but also were designed to be beautiful in their own right. The original E Type Jaguar comes to mind.
Something that is designed to be cheap, usually looks it. But where does that leave the original Fiat 500, the Beetle or the original Mini?

 

[heimlaga]

I use my old tools but I try to be careful and respecthul so that they can serve many generations after me.
However there are a few inherited tools that I don't use. Grandfather's log scribe and log dogs and great-grandfather's moulding planes and great-great-grandfather's jointer plane and workbench and things like that. Of cause there is a big pile of spare tools and parts in the garage attic just laying there because I find them to be worth preserving insted of thrown away. However I have resold all collectibles I have come across to get money for tools to use so there is nothing valuable nor collectible in that pile. Just ordinary tools and a bit of spare parts.

Some of my machines would probably qualify as antique but to me continous use is the best guarantee for survival. I have upgraded them to modern standards as respectfully as I can. Old parts no longer in use for instance the old bandsaw guards are in storage in a barn.

 

[Bm101]

Even if I'm just starting to learn a little bit about the vast amount I don't know, every time I pick one of my Grandads tools up I feel just a little pride that he'd be happy I was using them if he was around. I felt the same quiet pride when my Dad gave them to me to use. My Grandad was a whaler, not a woodworker, but I think probably he was skilled like many of his generation because there was no option to buy. The money didn't exist. You fixed it, you kept every screw in tobacco tins, you looked after your gear because that was the way. I'm not sure people did woodwork as a hobby. You either did it for a trade and grafted your a*se off, you did it to make do because there was no option to call in a tradesman or you called in a tradesman and had them coming round the backdoor to get in. Not sure what a lot of them fellas would make of the sharpening debates on here either to be honest. I think they'd be bemused to say the least.
He was a dab hand at the old scrimshaw. All those nights on the ships I suppose. My old fella has a load of old b/w photos of his Dad up on the whalers, factory ships, etc. Thinking about it I should get them scanned and sent off to some photo archive.
Tools are for using.
I wouldn't have a clue about antique tools that should be kept for posterity, I can see the strength of the argument for preservation but generally how often do they come along for the general woodworker? As always its choice. If you want to put your drill on display, good luck to you. Who's to judge?