recent haul - Charnley stone? Side snipe?

[caroleb]

I was lucky enough to pick up a few bits this weekend. Amongst the rebate planes and such were a few better bits. And a few unknown bits.
A natural stone of some sort - any ideas?

And these planes - a side snipe by I Sym - maybe early 1800's? I think this may be a bit unusual?

And these two Moseleys -

Any ideas on the stone?
There is also a very unusual modern scribing device of some sort - maybe user made but I have no idea. I will get a pic and post here to see what you all think?
And in particular, Toolsntat - whaddya reckon?
Also a complete(?) set of Flathers bits - from 1 1/4 inch to 1/4 inch. And they all look unused.

Mods - I am sorry - I have no idea how to reduce the pictures. If you need to bring 'em down to size please feel free. I would do if I knew how to ; do they pose a problem?

Is the stone a Charnley Forest?

Thanks

 

[Cheshirechappie]

BPM II gives dates for John Sym (mark - I SYM) as 1753 - 1784 at Almonry, Westminster, London; and 1785 - 1802/3 at 3 Dean Street, Westminster. Shame about the wedge and the split boxing, but after 200 years....

I like the centre bits. That's quite a nice graduated set.

 

[caroleb]

CC - I had looked for I Sym but came up with John Sym and assumed it was later. The boxing appears OK , the picture doesn't do it justice- it has slightly moved but is in one piece (read two pieces - one either side of the blade) and the blade is in great condition. The wedge is heartbreaking. It is almost certainly original to the plane but has had a hard life. The Moseleys are marked with just Moseley - not an initial or an address. Any idea on a date? (Actually one says 'Moseley' and the other 'Moseley and Co'.)

Thanks

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Moseley is an 'interesting' one. BPM II gives about 12 different Moseley firms, with dates ranging from 1778 to 1914, but none of the marks are plain 'Moseley' or 'Moseley & Co'. Most are Moseley with an address, or 'Moseley and Son', sometimes also with an address. There's also 'Moseley late Mutter' and 'Moseley & Hawksworth'.

Maybe BPM III is more specific. Can anybody help?

 

[AndyT]

Moseley is an 'interesting' one. BPM II gives about 12 different Moseley firms, with dates ranging from 1778 to 1914, but none of the marks are plain 'Moseley' or 'Moseley & Co'. Most are Moseley with an address, or 'Moseley and Son', sometimes also with an address. There's also 'Moseley late Mutter' and 'Moseley & Hawksworth'.

Maybe BPM III is more specific. Can anybody help?

It certainly is - there are five and a half pages on the various Moseley businesses, which are described as being all related. Summarising a lot, it lists two marks of "MOSELEY & Co" as belonging to Moseley & Kingdon, at 16 New St Covent Garden in 1805 and four marks of just "MOSELEY" as belonging to John Moseley at that address from 1809 to 1818.

If you can take clearer pictures of the marks I will check that they do tally.

 

[caroleb]

This is the scribe thing

And photo's as requested

Thanks guys - much appreciated.

 

[toolsntat]

Hey up Caz.
Nice haul 8)

No idea on the scribe gubbins.

I thought the Moseley & Co was a rework to make a FOLLOW ON BEAD until you can clearly see the extra third strip of boxing.
It is out on its own away from the cut of blade, if it was a rework I doubt it would be in one length and that far away from the edge of the blade/mouth :idea:

Nice group of Flather centre bits 8)

Hard to say on the stone from the picture but I guess possibly not a Charnley

Andy

 

[AndyT]

Those marks do look like the ones I was describing.

 

[caroleb]

Andy T
To clarify - that dates the planes fairly accurately at 200 odd years old, correct?

Thanks for your assistance.

Caz

 

[bugbear]

The stone texture looks a bit Washita-ish to me, although I've never seen
a washita with that many cracks.

Certainly not Charnley forest. Almost everything's wrong for that.

Perhaps the stone could be cleaned up
and photographed in better light, then
we might have a better chance to ID it.

BugBear

 

[AndyT]

Andy T
To clarify - that dates the planes fairly accurately at 200 odd years old, correct?

Thanks for your assistance.

Caz

Weellll... there's a chance.

The firm of Moseley goes back a long way. They published catalogues proudly saying "Established AD 1730" but according to BPM III there is no other evidence to back that up. John Moseley was a London maker in the C18th and they were a big operation throughout the C19th, with several retail and wholesale locations, with a great variety of different marks. At least in this case they did use different marks for their different operations - others, such as Madox, seem to have stuck with the same mark through the years.

It's worth noting that the business was sold to Marples of Sheffield in 1892, with London production ceasing by 1904. Marples continued to offer customers the option of having their planes marked "Moseley" if they wanted - or "Ibbotson" if they preferred - this is clear as late as the 1938 catalogue. But, according to BPM, the mark that Marples registered as a trademark was "Moseley & Son" rather than "& Co" or just "Moseley".

The book also has a note saying "Marks have been allocated to the period when use commenced. In many instances, usage extended into later periods."

So it's best to think of these marks as being just like modern brands, a portable, transferable indication of quality - like your Clark's shoes which can be made in China, not Somerset, but still be Clark's shoes. Not at all the same as the exceptional, tiny operations where the mark is actually the mark of the maker, rather than the owner. (I'm thinking of people like Carter, Holtey, Philly, Tomes.)

But regardless of all that, if they were mine, I would think of them as properly old!

 

[caroleb]

BB

Thanks for your input - these are the best I can do at the moment - taken on a phone. I have tried to get one dry and one wet.
The other one turned up this morning. Is a little bit dished on one side, worth flattening or leave it dished?:wink:

and the new one

 

[bugbear]

Still not sure about the "old one" but the new one does
indeed look very much like a Charnley Forest.

I'm not sure these are great woodworking stones;
the finish is smooth, but - oh dear - the cutting rate
is extremely low.

The straight razor fraternity love them though.

BugBear

 

[caroleb]

BB
Thanks mate - to be honest they will go in the for sale box; maybe I'll advertise them on one of the razor/knife forums?

The grainy one I am unsure of - I am probably oversimplifying things, but with all that variation in colour and to some extent texture, is it not likely that the grit will alter from part to part? It does not look very consistent to me. I am going to have to take cover after saying this but; I grind my primary bevels on a 180g sanding belt on an old belt sander. It works well for me when followed with a ceramic spyderco number6k or thereabouts.
So to finish my education on these matters - does the variation in colour and appearance of the stone alter the grit?

Thanks folks.

Caz