I was suggesting "firmer chisel" came from the French 'former'. It's
alittle more compliqu=E9 than I thought...

Chris Schwarz's blog on Moxon's twin screw vises got me sidetracked
ontoa document titled "Des principes de l'architecture, de la sculpture,
dela peinture, et des autres arts qui en d=E9pendent [microforme] : avec
undictionnaire des termes propres =E0 chacun de ces arts" (I swear!)
byAndre Felibien ( 1619-95). Apparently Moxon took him as an authority.

It is available online in 3rd edition here: http://ia341312.us.archive.-
org/0/items/desprincipesdela00feli/desprincipesdela00feli.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/35bnbqp

and in 1st edition here: http://www.archive.org/details/fre_b1886870
http://tinyurl.com/2ur4l8c

I've only looked at the 1st.

Felibien's list of essential carpenter's tools includes this : "Les
Ciseaux pour =E9baucher les Mortaises , qui s'appellent Ebauchoirs
enterme de Charpenterie; leur manche est de bois avec virolles par
lesdeux bouts." which Babelfish translates "Chisels to outline the
Mortises, which s'ebauchoirs in term ofCarpentry call; their handle is
of wood with rings by the two ends."

So according to him, ebauchoir was the French term for "mortise
chisel",being a chisel with a ring-reinforced handle. No mention there
of firmeror former, but it seems it's a heavy hitter... (According to
the LaRousse translator, =E9baucher also means to (take)form, to start
up, sketch out or rough, which is the meaning I'd thinkmore appropriate
than outline.)

But in Felibien's dictionary, we also find "fermoir", of which he
saysprecious little: "C'est un outil de fer ac=E9r=E9, & une espece de
ciseau servant auxMenuisiers. Il y en a de diverses grandeurs." which
Babelfish translates "It is a sharp-edged iron tool, & a species of
chisel being used for theCarpenters. There are various sizes of them."

However, the illustration on P.185 shows it to be a chisel which is notparallel-
sided, but tapers continuously in width from edge to handle, bya ratio
of approx. 4 to 1.

I believe this is exactly the chisel type Alex Bealer describes in
OldWays of Working Wood, saying: "The firming or forming chisel is used
almost invariably with a woodenmallet, its function being to rough out
mortises and occasionally toplane a surface on a component .... Firmers
usually have a rather heavyblade of varying width with a basiled edge."
(which he gives as 30 deg.)

Bealer goes on to describe a knife-edged paring chisel which he says
ispushed "...to pare rough surfaces, such as the inside of mortises
whichhave been earlier formed by firming chisel and mallet." I was
struck tosee his mention of a paring chisel sharpened on both sides
(which I hadpreviously doubted): I had just minutes earlier noted
Felibien'sillustration of a parallel-sided chisel with two bevels.

So it seems we have agreement between these two authorities that
twochisel types were used to work mortises:
1. the firmer chisel, with a blade which tapers in width (and may or
   maynot sport butt rings), used to rough out mortises, and
2. a paring chisel, bevelled on both sides, used to trim the
   mortise toa fit

FWIW Don --You call that a knife?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 27, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Don Schwartz wrote:

> However, the illustration on P.185 shows it to be a chisel which is  
> not
> parallel-sided, but tapers continuously in width from edge to  
> handle, by
> a ratio of approx. 4 to 1.
>
> snip, snip, snip
>
> 1. the firmer chisel, with a blade which tapers in width (and may or  
> may
> not sport butt rings), used to rough out mortises, and
>
> 2. a paring chisel, bevelled on both sides, used to trim the mortise  
> to a fit

I am confused by the term width here.  Do we (hopefully the collective  
we) have a term discrepancy here?  To me 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5 mm, etc  
refer to the width of a chisel.  The 'bevelled on both sides" to me  
refers to the sides whose separation is that width.  Thus the other  
dimension is the thickness in my terms.  So, the bevel runs from the  
top to the bottom (where the cutting edge is).  So what everyone (I  
hope) calls a pigsticker is much thicker than it is wide, and may  
indeed taper in thickness from edge to handle.  I guess all but fine  
parers also taper that way somewhat.  Have I had it wrong all along?

--Scott

-------------------------------------------------
Scott Stager
Columbia Missouri

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

Scott Stager wrote:

> I am confused by the term width here.  Do we (hopefully the  
> collective we) have a term discrepancy here?  To me 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5  
> mm, etc refer to the width of a chisel.  The 'bevelled on both  
> sides" to me refers to the sides whose separation is that width.   
> Thus the other dimension is the thickness in my terms.  So, the  
> bevel runs from the top to the bottom (where the cutting edge is).  
> So what everyone (I hope) calls a pigsticker is much thicker than it  
> is wide, and may indeed taper in thickness from edge to handle.  I  
> guess all but fine parers also taper that way somewhat. Have I had  
> it wrong all along?
>
> --Scott

All:

I agree with this width/thickness terminology.  I have unused,  
unhandled, prewar, European pigstickers that taper in width  
dramatically - I want to say from 3/4" (13 mm?) at the cutting edge to  
less than 5/8" further up toward the tang.

Ed Minch
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whew, I'm glad I wasn't really confused :0)

What started my confusion by the earlier post was the following:

> However, the illustration on P.185 shows it to be a chisel which is  
> not
> parallel-sided, but tapers continuously in width from edge to  
> handle, by
> a ratio of approx. 4 to 1.

To me 4 to 1 means a chisel with a 1/2" wide cutting edge would narrow  
by 1/8" every inch of length (1/4 * 1/2).  That works out to narrowing  
by 8/8 in eight inches of length making it minus 1/2" at the bolster -  
Obviously not :0).   What am I still misunderstanding?

I looked closer at the small pigsticker (5/32") I wrote about a week  
or so ago and yes, it visibly reduces slightly in width from cutting  
edge to bolster.  My naked eye says it maintains width for about 1/2  
of the length and then tapers slightly to the bolster.

On May 27, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Don Schwartz wrote:

> Yes! My largest pig-sticker measures 37/64" in width (along the  
> cutting edge), but is only 17/32" nearest the bolster.
> As well, it tapers from the 37/64" edge width to 33/64" at the back.
> Finally, it tapers from 5/8" at the cutting end to 27/32: nearest  
> the bolster.
> This is a Sorby chisel, well-used., but with about 7-1/2 " of blade  
> remaining.
>
> Don
> Calgary
>
> You call that a knife?
>
> On 5/27/2010 6:33 AM, Ed Minch wrote:
>>
>>
>> Scott Stager wrote:
>>
>>> I am confused by the term width here.  Do we (hopefully the  
>>> collective we) have a term discrepancy here?  To me 1/4, 3/8, 1/2,  
>>> 5 mm, etc refer to the width of a chisel.  The 'bevelled on both  
>>> sides" to me refers to the sides whose separation is that width.   
>>> Thus the other dimension is the thickness in my terms.  So, the  
>>> bevel runs from the top to the bottom (where the cutting edge is).  
>>> So what everyone (I hope) calls a pigsticker is much thicker than  
>>> it is wide, and may indeed taper in thickness from edge to  
>>> handle.  I guess all but fine parers also taper that way somewhat.  
>>> Have I had it wrong all along?
>>>
>>> --Scott
>>
>>
>> All:
>>
>> I agree with this width/thickness terminology.  I have unused,  
>> unhandled, prewar, European pigstickers that taper in width  
>> dramatically - I want to say from 3/4" (13 mm?) at the cutting edge  
>> to less than 5/8" further up toward the tang.
>>
>> Ed Minch
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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://swingleydev.com/archive/faq.html
>>
>> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>>
>> OldTools@r...
>> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>>

-------------------------------------------------
Scott Stager
Columbia Missouri

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

>> Scott Stager wrote (heavily snipped):
>> I am confused by the term width here.  

> Don adds:
> I thought it might be helpful for people to be able to directly link
> to an image of Felibien's (menuisier = very roughly, joiner) chisels:
> http://planemaker.com/photos/fel-cis3.jpg

And for your enjoyment:
http://www.wenzloffandsons.com/temp/chisel01.jpg
With a close up of the shoulder detail:
http://www.wenzloffandsons.com/temp/chisel03.jpg

This chisel doesn't appear as if it was ever finished. An oldie.

Take care, Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott Stager wrote (heavily snipped):

> I am confused by the term width here.
Scott et al,

I thought it might be helpful for people to be able to directly link to
an image of Felibien's (menuisier = very roughly, joiner) chisels:

http://planemaker.com/photos/fel-cis3.jpg

As you can see, A & B are labeled Ciseau (chisel) while C&D are labeled
Fermoir. Most French dictionaries identify fermoir as a clasp, such as
on a book/bible, while a few include a generic definition indicating
some sort of woodworking chisel. For example, Cotsgrove's 1611 "A
Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues_, has this definition
under an alternate spelling: "Fremoirs: m. Theclaspes of a booke; also,
a Joyners Straight Chizells."

I would caution against assuming the Ciseaux are analogous to paring
chisels while the Fermoirs are similarly analogous to firmer chisels.If
we follow Moxon's distinction (paring chisels are pushed by handor
shoulder and clean up the irregularities, etc. left by
the"formers,"which are driven by mallet), then this distinction isn't
consistent within Felibien. For example, one double hooped chisel,
clearly intended to be driven with a mallet by the carpenters, islabeled
"Ciseau." Based on this alone, I think we need to be care- ful about
assuming such analogies.

I would also be cautious about labeling a skew chisel (D in the
illustration) as a chisel for heavy stock removal through driving with a
mallet. Seems somewhat counterintuitive to me.

Additionally, the label of B, "Ciseau de lumiere," throws somedoubt, in
my mind, as to whether it would primarily be viewed as a paring chisel.
Elsewhere in the text, Felibien describes this chisel as being used to
pierce the wooden body of planes in orderto create a place for the
irons. In other words, to create plane escapements. And, indeed,
additional research indicates that Lumiere meant not only light but
plane escapements as well.

Finally, I think there is some reason to question whether the
description of chisel A, "Ciseau, il y en a =E5 deux biseaux"actually
means a double bevel creating a knife edge. It may mean that (which
would be consistent with other early definitions of the term biseau),
but there is another possible reading. If one looks at the various
descriptions of tools in Felibien, inevery other case, they've focused
on significant features and/orusages of those tools, rather than on the
existence, location andnature of the bevel, if any, which defines the
cutting edge. Forexample, I believe the chisel, D, labeled "Bec d'asne,
is so named, largely because of it's overall appearance. Bec d'asne
literally means ass/donkey's beak, or face. Similarly, in the section
onturning, a tool we would describe as having a diamond point islabeled
"biseau." I think it safe to say this refers to the overall shape of the
tool rather than it's having ground/honed bevels which define the
cutting edges. Along these lines, I think it possiblethat the "deux
biseaux" may actually refer to the double shoulders,which is what
distinguishes Chisels A and B from the others. (Also, other sources hint
that the term, biseau, could sometimes refer tostopped chamfers, facets,
etc. in various trades.)

And, even if Felibien intended this to indicate a knife edge, it would
not necessarily follow that anglo/american paring chiselstraditionally
had this feature. Moxon does not indicate this, nordoes any other older
reference which I have consulted. What Bealer seems to forget is that,
historically, deciding toreshape a chisel to a knife edge wasn't as
simple as grinding it so. Historically, most such chisels were laminated
with steel laidon/into one face, so such a regrind would have resulted
in the edge falling in the iron portion of the blade. Along these lines,
Sheraton indicated that carving chisels had the steel sandwichedbetween
two layers of iron in order to accommodate the knife edge.

Hope this has been of some interest.

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

Scott Stager writes:

> > I am confused by the term width here.  Do we (hopefully the collective  we) 
have a term discrepancy here?  To me 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5 
> > mm, etc  refer to the width of a chisel.  The 'bevelled on both sides" to me
  refers to the sides whose separation is that width. 
> > Thus the other  dimension is the thickness in my terms.  So, the bevel runs 
from the  top to the bottom (where the cutting edge 
> > is).  So what everyone (I  hope) calls a pigsticker is much thicker than it 
is wide, and may  indeed taper in thickness from edge 
> > to handle.  I guess all but fine  parers also taper that way somewhat.  Have
 I had it wrong all along?

Whatever the derivation of the word "firmer", Charles Hayward appears, in "Cabin
et Making for Beginners", to define a firmer chisel 
as one which "is sturdily built so that it will stand up to fairly heavy work su
ch as chopping dovetails etc."  He illustrates such 
a chisel as being thick in section with, so far as one can tell, parallel sides.

Concerning mortising, he says that "This involves heavy chopping work and a stro
ng chisel is therefore needed.  Two patterns are 
available, the heavy mortise type and the sash mortise. The latter is suitable f
or cabinet work, being rather lighter than the 
other"  He illustrates a sash mortise chisel in profile, clearly showing that it
 tapers in thickness, being thicker at the handle 
end and thinner at the edge end.  His "dynamic" illustration of a heavy mortise 
chisel in use is somewhat equivocal but, on balance, 
does not indicate that the chisel's iron is tapered.

He says, concerning bevel-sided chisels, "It is always well to set aside certain
 chisels which you will use for close, accurate work 
such as paring, and for this the bevelled-edge type is excellent."  He leaves it
 to his readers to know what they mean when they 
speak of a bevelled-edge chisel, but his illustration of one leaves no-one in do
ubt as to what he means.

Hayward's relatively rough and ready definitions, however, seem adequate for wor
kshop or building site communication.

Interestingly, all of Hayward's chisel illustrations show only tanged chisels wi
th ferrules where the tang enters the handle but 
with no top ferrules.

My own observations are that, these days, it is almost impossible to buy from a 
hardware shop any chisel which, no matter how 
substantial or heavy, does not have its sides bevelled.  I occasionally get the 
small job from one or other of my carpenter friends 
of re-equipping this type of chisel with a wooden handle, ferruled with pieces o
f steel water-pipe at both ends, after the original 
plastic handle has succumbed to hammer blows. Usually some sort of ring about ha
lf-way along the tang has first to be ground back. 
The carpenters cheerfully admit that the wooden handles are more enduring and th
ey tend to prefer that they be made a little longer 
than the original handles.  It seems to have been the case for many years that n
o self-respecting carpenter would be seen dead using 
a mallet instead of a hammer to smack his chisel.  I tend to credit this circums
tance as being the inspiration for equipping chisel 
handles with top ferrules.

Regards from Brisbane,

John Manners 

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

> On 5/29/2010 10:16 AM, Ed Minch wrote:
>> . . . was reading the second chapter of Roy's latest " the
>>   Woodwright's Guide" and he says:
>>>> A firmer is a broad chisel intended to be hit with a mallet as
>>>> opposed to a paring chisel, one to three inches
>> The name comes from the French Fermoir Salivet 1792 says it is steel
>> sandwiched between iron with a double bevel Carpenters employed it
>> for roughing outlines We don't use double bevels anymore, except for
>> carving The out-cannel gouge is the curvy cousin of the Fermoir

On May 29, 2010, at 10:04 AM, Don Schwartz wrote:
> No, it sure wasn't. Thanks for mentioning. We now have 3 authorities
> agreeing. I thought I was done posting on this topic, BUT As it
> happens, I found one on the 'bay:
>> http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370385082636 The
>> seller's description notes the traditional double bevelling, and
>> mentions a feature I hadn't noted before, tapering in thickness from
>> tang down to edge..
> Is anyone familiar with Salivet?

        OK, we finally have the Roy Reference that has been mentioned,
        but not confirmed. Thanks, Ed. [BTW, the &Bay link above
        (besides being a sale still in progress, so verboten here) shows
        what is described as a "joiner's sash pocket chisel"(??)] But
        back to language and verb roots: "Fermer" is French for "to
        close" (not too close/near, but the act of closing ;-) So I
        reckon the literal translation of "fermoir" would be closer (not
        "nearer," but "that which closes," which is why "clasp" comes up
        in on-line translators). So I'm now wondering how that word came
        to be applied to this tool. Could it have something to do with
        the sandwiched steel being en*closed* in iron, back in the day?
        Tom Holloway

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

GG

I have been in and out of this thread and don't recall this mention -   
was reading the second chapter of Roy's latest " the Woodwright's  
Guide" and he says:

A firmer is a broad chisel intended to be hit with a mallet as opposed  
to a paring chisel, one to three inches
The name comes from the French Fermoir
Salivet 1792 says it is steel sandwiched between iron with a double  
bevel
Carpenters employed it for roughing outlines
We don't use double bevels anymore, except for carving
The out-cannel gouge is the curvy cousin of the Fermoir

Ed Minch

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