Good morning folks,

It seems that all chisel makers use the same nomenclature for sizing
their chisels, but mean different things by the same designation.  Pfeil
gouges for a given size seem much more curved than do Henry Taylor. I
don't really have good enough info to see how buck, addis or dastra
compare (but if you want to support good scientific research... oh,
nevermind).

Does anyone know of a comparison chart, or rule of thumb for comparing
chisels?  Pye and Hall, and probably other teachers, have suggested sets
for different tasks, but those suggestions seem to assume a specific
manufacturer.

A few quick stabs to some soft wood were measured for width and depth,
and I calculated radii of curvatures that seemed to be all over the map
(but again, I have small sample sizes).  Are carving gouges supposed to
cut circular forms, or some other conic section?

Thanks all,
cur

------------------------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is that carving gouges are made to a circular radius.

But the truth of the matter is that whether or not they actually are,  
it doesn't make any difference. Unsolicited advice follows.

Jim's rule of thumb for selecting gouge size: Use the smallest gouge  
that is practical for the cut you are making. When carving in hard wood  
it is necessary to use small gouges and take thin cuts. I usually have  
a roll-up with about 20 gouges in it open in front of me while I work.  
I usually start with about a 1/4" gouge that is one of the deeper  
sweeps. When I get the approximate look I want I will switch to a  
shallower gouge to reduce the tool marks.

Wider gouges are more difficult to push and there is a lot more chance  
of breaking out material you didn't want broken. I mostly use larger  
gouges on finishing cuts to remove tool marks.

  But of course it matters a lot how big the carving is to begin with.  
Life sized stuff will require bigger gouges to start, and then smaller  
ones to finish. Small stuff is just the opposite.

You can do almost anything with a dozen gouges of varying sweeps and  
widths.

On May 25, 2007, at 9:49 AM, mimulus@p... wrote:

> Good morning folks,
>
> It seems that all chisel makers use the same nomenclature for sizing
> their chisels, but mean different things by the same designation.   
> Pfeil
> gouges for a given size seem much more curved than do Henry Taylor. I
> don't really have good enough info to see how buck, addis or dastra
> compare (but if you want to support good scientific research... oh,
> nevermind).
>
> Does anyone know of a comparison chart, or rule of thumb for comparing
> chisels?  Pye and Hall, and probably other teachers, have suggested  
> sets
> for different tasks, but those suggestions seem to assume a specific
> manufacturer.
>
> A few quick stabs to some soft wood were measured for width and depth,
> and I calculated radii of curvatures that seemed to be all over the map
> (but again, I have small sample sizes).  Are carving gouges supposed to
> cut circular forms, or some other conic section?
>
> Thanks all,
> cur
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> -
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
> To change your subscription options:
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ:
> http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/archive/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/archive/
>
> OldTools@r...
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
>
Jim Thompson, the old millrat in Riverside, CA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

mimulus asks -

> It seems that all chisel makers use the same nomenclature for sizing
> their chisels, but mean different things by the same designation.
> Pfeil gouges for a given size seem much more curved than do Henry
> Taylor. I don't really have good enough info to see how buck, addis or
> dastra compare (but if you want to support good scientific research...
> oh, nevermind).
>
> Does anyone know of a comparison chart, or rule of thumb for comparing
> chisels? Pye and Hall, and probably other teachers, have suggested
> sets for different tasks, but those suggestions seem to assume a
> specific manufacturer.

There is "London Pattern" and "Swiss Pattern" that seems to (mostly)
apply. So all English are close to each other in radius and all Swiss
are close to each other. Seems to me they are off by about one size
so #3 of one is similar to #5 in the other. Can't remember which is
which though.

Dennis Heyza Macomb MI
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  cur wrote (in part):

>... Pfeil gouges for a given size seem much more curved than do
>Henry Taylor. I don't really have good enough info to see how buck,
>addis or dastra compare ..

>Does anyone know of a comparison chart, or rule of thumb for comparing
>chisels?  Pye and Hall, and probably other teachers, have suggested sets
>for different tasks, but those suggestions seem to assume a specific
>manufacturer.
>
>A few quick stabs to some soft wood were measured for width and depth,
>and I calculated radii of curvatures that seemed to be all over the map
>(but again, I have small sample sizes).  Are carving gouges supposed to
>cut circular forms, or some other conic section?

As Dennis has observed, there are two current sweep charts for
carving tools, at least among Western manufacturers.

In the London Pattern, gouge sweeps #3 through 9 are portions of arcs.
Also, within any given sweep, the arcs are proportional. In other
words, the width and depth have the same proportion to each other for
each size within the sweep, rather than all being a portion of an arc
defined by the same radius. I've worked out a practical method for
ascertaining the radius which defines each of these sweeps and sizes,
and it can be found here:

http://www.planemaker.com/articles/gouges.html

In the London Pattern, gouges # 10 and 11 are "U" shaped gouges,
called fluters and veiners respectively. As far as I know, all
British and American carving tool manufacturers, at least
historically, followed the London Pattern. Though, of course,
there have always been some variations due to die wear and
differing grinding and glazing practices.

I've not worked as much with the Continental Pattern, but did
download and print out the Pfeil chart as found on Woodcraft
Supply's website. There are some differences between this chart
and the London Pattern, complicated by the fact that they are
sized in millimeters.

Though the chart seems not to be very accurate, I believe that
sweeps #2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are intended to be portions of arcs.
They are also proportional, as discussed regarding the London
Pattern.

The CP #2 arc is slower than the LP #3, so may correspond most
closely to the LP #2 1/2. The CP #3 sweep appears to be virtually
identical to the LP #3.

The CP #5 does not correspond directly to any LP sweep, being
noticeably slower than the LP #5, with a multiplier of,
approximately 1 1/2.

The CP #7 also does not correspond directly, but is slighly slower
than a LP #6 with a multiplier of about 15/16.

The CP #8 falls roughly between the LP sweeps # 7 and 8, with a
multiplier of about 19/32.

Finally, the CP #9 sweep appears to be virtually identical with
the LP #9. I.e., they both approximate semi-circles.

Afraid that isn't very tidy and is subject to differing inter-
pretations, but I'm hoping it will be a starting point.

As far as I know, the Swiss, German, and French carving tool
manufacturers all tend to follow the Continental Pattern.

Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doc McConnell writes:
> In the London Pattern, gouge sweeps #3 through 9 are portions of arcs.
> Also, within any given sweep, the arcs are proportional. In other
> words, the width and depth have the same proportion to each other for
> each size within the sweep, rather than all being a portion of an arc
> defined by the same radius.

A check of the full sized 'Sheffield pattern' outlines in the back of
Chris Pye's book on wood carving looks just as described -- the arc
depths and widths appear proportional.

Comparing some Pfeil gouges to these indicates that the Continental
pattern is sometimes flatter than London, sometimes not:
   Pfeil      Sheffield
   3x12       4x12
   3Fx8       5x8
   5x16       5x16 (just under 5, like 4 3/4)
   5Fx16      5x16 (just under 5, like 4 3/4)
   7x14       6x14 (just over 6, like 6 1/4)
Addis 5x5     6x5
H Taylor 3x8  3x8

As usual, I'm not sure just what to make of this in a practical manner,
other than to have some chisels with me when I shop for new ones.

cur - an old peacenik who's come to apprecate vet's efforts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 28, 2007, at 10:28 AM, mimulus@p... wrote:

> Doc McConnell writes:
>> In the London Pattern, gouge sweeps #3 through 9 are portions of arcs.
>> Also, within any given sweep, the arcs are proportional. In other
>> words, the width and depth have the same proportion to each other for
>> each size within the sweep, rather than all being a portion of an arc
>> defined by the same radius.
>
> A check of the full sized 'Sheffield pattern' outlines in the back of
> Chris Pye's book on wood carving looks just as described -- the arc
> depths and widths appear proportional.

I must ask, proportional in what way? I find this confusing. For every  
sweep, the widths are all over the place. I am missing something.

>
> Comparing some Pfeil gouges to these indicates that the Continental
> pattern is sometimes flatter than London, sometimes not:
>    Pfeil      Sheffield
>    3x12       4x12
>    3Fx8       5x8
>    5x16       5x16 (just under 5, like 4 3/4)
>    5Fx16      5x16 (just under 5, like 4 3/4)
>    7x14       6x14 (just over 6, like 6 1/4)
> Addis 5x5     6x5
> H Taylor 3x8  3x8
>
> As usual, I'm not sure just what to make of this in a practical manner,
> other than to have some chisels with me when I shop for new ones.
>
> cur - an old peacenik who's come to apprecate vet's efforts.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> -
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
> To change your subscription options:
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ:
> http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/archive/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/archive/
>
> OldTools@r...
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
>
Jim Thompson, the old millrat in Riverside, CA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------