RogerP
Established Member
Just looked at a few Stanley chisels I have (of about the same age) and find they are not marked with their size.Bod":122dwqk9 said:
So I guess these are the same and he simply measured them.
stanley chisels
- Thread starter skeetstar
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
So I guess these are the same and he simply measured them.
From similar "vintage" chisels in my possession... they were marked with the name and the size in some sort of etching on the surface. This will only survive if carefully treated - a quick rub with abrasive paper would easily remove it. So no surprise that many appear unmarked. Some of these markings are just visible in the original listing pictures.
As for the sizing, my Stanley chisels bought in the 1970s were made and marked in metric - the 12mm is 12mm not 1/2" and the 18mm is not 3/4". There was a general expectation around in the 1970s that metrication was about to happen - but at risk of going too far off topic, I don't think it has yet achieved the general acceptance that some people expected.
As for the price, I agree it's high but they are good tools and worth the money. I'm keeping mine!
As for the sizing, my Stanley chisels bought in the 1970s were made and marked in metric - the 12mm is 12mm not 1/2" and the 18mm is not 3/4". There was a general expectation around in the 1970s that metrication was about to happen - but at risk of going too far off topic, I don't think it has yet achieved the general acceptance that some people expected.
As for the price, I agree it's high but they are good tools and worth the money. I'm keeping mine!
David C
In Memorium
The shape of the backs of those chisels, result from several factors.
Hollow stones, poor technique and possibly the "lifting" to which Jacob refers.
All these things should be avoided like the plague.
Flatness of both length and width, adjacent to the edge are most desirable.
This flatness allows wire edges to be honed away correctly.
Good polish here, ensures a sharper edge. The discerning craftsperson will appreciate the difference!
David
Hollow stones, poor technique and possibly the "lifting" to which Jacob refers.
All these things should be avoided like the plague.
Flatness of both length and width, adjacent to the edge are most desirable.
This flatness allows wire edges to be honed away correctly.
Good polish here, ensures a sharper edge. The discerning craftsperson will appreciate the difference!
David
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Which is exactly what you get with the "lifting" which I keep attempting to describe, which everybody used to do before the impossible flattening fashion crept in.David C":2nb7blgw said:
I think we are in agreement here Dave!
NB "lifting" is more often just a change of emphasis of pressure towards the edge, not necessarily an actual lift with a gap (unless the tool is very convex in which case there is no alternative)
Trafalgar
Established Member
With modern abrasives one can flatten and polish a set of four or five bevel edge bench chisels (all you'll ever need) before morning break. Barely one morning out of one day of one's working life. If you have a package of 220 grit or higher sandpaper and a tablesaw or a jointer you have all you need to get this chore out of the way. Done once and it's done for good. Once the first inch or so is flat they'll stay flat and polished all the way up to the last of the hardened steel as long as the chisel is registered flat when backing off. The stone itself doesn't have to be perfectly flat unless you want to back off from end to end. Back off on the ends and corners of the stone and the middle will take care of itself. There is really never a need to run the chisel's back from end to end on a honing stone. In fact, I'd highly recommend against it. Why put that sort of premium on perfect flatness of stone? There's no need to, it's just a make-work project in stone maintenance. Over the small, relevant area needed to back off the burr, the vast majority of hard natural stones are functionally perfectly flat. It matters not one whit that a stone might be out a few thous over a length of eight inches or so.
Tony Zaffuto
Established Member
I think Jacobs got it spot on-lifting is accidental and the workman knows not it happening. I'm also in Charlie's camp of flattening the first inch or so-go longer and the parts of the chisel not always on the stone come into play.
Here in the states, there are a number of electric powered sharpening methods touted about. To my way of thinking flattening should never be done on a powered flat wheel, first because it is a gross waste of money to buy a piece of equipment to do that when flattening is easily accomplished on stones on a one time at best and very infrequently at worst. The second reason is the difficulty of holding flat against the wheel is magnified many times. Sometimes I wonder if these craftspeople do it just to say they do it, or sharpen to actually use their tool?
Here in the states, there are a number of electric powered sharpening methods touted about. To my way of thinking flattening should never be done on a powered flat wheel, first because it is a gross waste of money to buy a piece of equipment to do that when flattening is easily accomplished on stones on a one time at best and very infrequently at worst. The second reason is the difficulty of holding flat against the wheel is magnified many times. Sometimes I wonder if these craftspeople do it just to say they do it, or sharpen to actually use their tool?
Similar threads
