Wiss inlaid scissors, 9in overall. One of the blades has a long bend in 
it (no kink), resulting in a 1/8 curve along the cutting edge. I have 
hammers, vises, a small piece RR track and can heat the blade if need 
be. How best to proceed?

Don

I agree with Gary.  This type of bend makes them much more reliable when
cutting very thin items.  The copy edit sissors that I have used all had
something similar, when they were fully closed there was a noticable gap at
the pivot end.

Now, if the bend is the other direction I think you're probably out of luck.

-Ken

On Saturday, July 26, 2014, Gary Katsanis  wrote:

>
> If the bend is toward the other blade of the scissors, it might be
> intentional.
>
> My vintage Wiss paper shears have a noticeable, intentional curve.
>
> YMMV, Gary Katsanis
> Albion NY, USA
>
>

Is the curve actually that much? Have you measured it with a feeler gauge to see
what the actual amount of curve is? All good shears have some curve in one
blade, but an actual 1/8" seems excessive. Check it and let us know what the
actual amount is. We can go from there.
On Jul 26, 2014, at 2:03 PM, Don Schwartz  wrote:

> 
> 
> Wiss inlaid scissors, 9in overall. One of the blades has a long bend in it (no
kink), resulting in a 1/8 curve along the cutting edge. I have hammers, vises, a
small piece RR track and can heat the blade if need be. How best to proceed?
> 
> Don
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> 
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archi
ve/faq.html
> 
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
> 
> OldTools@r...
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

OK! Now we know  what's wrong. I once had a gorgeous long chisel which had a
bend in it, not much, but it just wasn't right. So I says to myself, I says,
self, you can fix this. And self said, Yes, I can. I mean, if it bent this way,
then I can bend it back, right??? Of course!

So I took it to my anvil and used a brass hammer, and I smacked it just once.
That's all it took to break it cleanly in half. It is no longer a problem. It
went to the recycle bin.

You can fix your scissors, just like I fixed my chisel. It's easy.  But it will
ruin your day. :>)

The inlaid portion of the blade is hardened. It will probably break. But it's
not much good like it is anyway, right? Smack that puppy! Then tell us the sad
story of this scissor rejuvenation.


On Jul 26, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Don Schwartz  wrote:

> Regrettably, no. The tip of the bent blade curves away from its mate...
> 
> Don
> 
> On 7/26/2014 3:49 PM, Gary Katsanis wrote:
>> If the bend is toward the other blade of the scissors, it might be
intentional.
>> 
>> My vintage Wiss paper shears have a noticeable, intentional curve.
>> 
>> YMMV, Gary Katsanis 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> 
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archi
ve/faq.html
> 
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
> 
> OldTools@r...
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

One blade is quite straight, the other veers off like a fork in the 
road. I measured the separation at the tips with a rule. The inside of 
the bent shear (the meeting surface)  is convex, not concave.

Don


On 7/26/2014 4:43 PM, JAMES THOMPSON wrote:
> Is the curve actually that much? Have you measured it with a feeler gauge to
see what the actual amount of curve is? All good shears have some curve in one
blade, but an actual 1/8" seems excessive. Check it and let us know what the
actual amount is. We can go from there.
> On Jul 26, 2014, at 2:03 PM, Don Schwartz  wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> >Wiss inlaid scissors, 9in overall. One of the blades has a long bend in it
(no kink), resulting in a 1/8 curve along the cutting edge. I have hammers,
vises, a small piece RR track and can heat the blade if need be. How best to
proceed?

On 7/26/2014 4:59 PM, JAMES THOMPSON wrote:
> OK! Now we know  what's wrong. I once had a gorgeous long chisel which had a
bend in it, not much, but it just wasn't right. So I says to myself, I says,
self, you can fix this. And self said, Yes, I can. I mean, if it bent this way,
then I can bend it back, right??? Of course!
>
> So I took it to my anvil and used a brass hammer, and I smacked it just once.
That's all it took to break it cleanly in half. It is no longer a problem. It
went to the recycle bin.
>
> You can fix your scissors, just like I fixed my chisel. It's easy.  But it
will ruin your day. :>)
>
> The inlaid portion of the blade is hardened. It will probably break. But it's
not much good like it is anyway, right? Smack that puppy! Then tell us the sad
story of this scissor rejuvenation.
James et al

This is definately NOT what I was wanting to hear. However, I will learn 
from your experience and avoid smacking it as you did. That suggests 
instead maybe the application of force should not be concentrated at one 
point, but distrbuted along the length of the blade.. The application of 
heat will likely soften the inlaiy, but might still yield astraighter 
blade? What say you?

Don

> Maybe they would cut just fine without tempering. Wouldn't stay sharp as 
> long, but better than broken, no? And maybe I'll get lucky trying to 
> temper them afterward. It's happened before... I'm more concerned about 
> figuring out a method for applying force in a distributed fashion along 
> the curve.  I know that bends are sometimes corrected using a solid rod 
> in a vice, but that applies a fairly concentrated force to the bent 
> object. A bigger rod would help, but I would need something with a 
> shallow curve about 6 in wide,  Maybe just a softwood jaw in the vice?
> 
> Don, still looking for ideas
Don-If you said how much of the blade length was affected I missed it.  If it's
only the tip ora little more then grinding might be a solution.  Shorter better
than broken also, no?chuck(who last week cleaned, sharpened and fettled a few
pair of flea market scissors)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 7/26/2014 7:07 PM, Chuck Ramsey wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Maybe they would cut just fine without tempering. Wouldn't stay 
> sharp as
> > long, but better than broken, no? And maybe I'll get lucky trying to
> > temper them afterward. It's happened before... I'm more concerned about
> > figuring out a method for applying force in a distributed fashion along
> > the curve. I know that bends are sometimes corrected using a solid rod
> > in a vice, but that applies a fairly concentrated force to the bent
> > object. A bigger rod would help, but I would need something with a
> > shallow curve about 6 in wide, Maybe just a softwood jaw in the vice?
> >
> > Don, still looking for ideas
> Don-
> If you said how much of the blade length was affected I missed it.  If 
> it's only the tip or
> a little more then grinding might be a solution.  Shorter better than 
> broken also, no?
> chuck
> (who last week cleaned, sharpened and fettled a few pair of flea 
> market scissors)

No. It's a big long gentle curve.

Don

Snip
From: Don Schwartz

Wiss inlaid scissors, 9in overall. One of the blades has a long bend in 
it (no kink), resulting in a 1/8 curve along the cutting edge. I have 
hammers, vises, a small piece RR track and can heat the blade if need 
be. How best to proceed?

Don
Unsnip


I’ve had my best luck with controlled applied force. 
When I had make up a process to straighten crankshafts we set up a set of v
blocks and used a hydraulic press. Put the blocks on both ends. Spin the crank
and use a dial indicator to find the high spot. Set the blocks on both ends of
the bend and slowly press the crank down. Check run the run out and press again
if necessary. Better to press twice than to over bend.
Maybe you can use a vise and 3 blocks of wood to do a similar thing. 
Tape the blocks to the jaws. One on each end of one jaw and in the middle, or
lined up with the bend on the other. Crank the vise and check.
Good luck no matter what you try. 
After all if they don’t work now the worst you can do is stay the same. 

Dave N.

aka Old Sneelock

Don Schwartz wrote: "Wiss inlaid scissors, 9in overall. One of the blades has a
long bend in it (no kink), resulting in a 1/8 curve along the cutting edge. I
have

hammers, vises, a small piece RR track and can heat the blade if need be. How
best to proceed?"



Leave them as is. That's the way they're supposed to be.

Well, I've got to qualify that a bit. Good scissors have slightly bowed blades
and a slightly loose rivet. This means that the blades will touch and cut in
only one place, which will move as the blades are closed. When they are closed
you will be able to see light betwweenthe blades, which will be touching only at
the tip and near the rivet. If both blades are straight, they may not touch and
cut at all for part of their length. But all the ones I've looked at, I'm pretty
sure that both blades were curved, not one curved and one straight. 1/8" does
sound rather a lot, but not impossibly so; my impression is that 1/16" total
between the blades might be more normal for scissors that size.

Do they cut OK, assuming they are sharp? I would guess that too much curvature
will make the blades snag and chew each other up, so if they act dull that is
probably just a matter of sharpening. In that case, sharpen but don't try to
bend the blades. If you do try to straighten them, leave a bit of curvature in
the curved blade and you might even consider adding a bit of curve to the flat
one.

Tom Conroy

They are reasonably sharp, but the cutting edges cannot be made to come 
together to cut except for approx 1in from the hinged end, regardless of 
how the bolt is tensioned. I believe that I will try Old Sneelock's 
suggestion (but not today), and post before & after pics RSN.

Thanks for all the suggestions & advice. This may be a lost cause, but 
I've little to lose here
Don

On 7/27/2014 5:37 PM, Thomas Conroy wrote:
> Leave them as is. That's the way they're supposed to be.
>
> Well, I've got to qualify that a bit. Good scissors have slightly bowed blades
and a slightly loose rivet. This means that the blades will touch and cut in
only one place, which will move as the blades are closed. When they are closed
you will be able to see light betwweenthe blades, which will be touching only at
the tip and near the rivet. If both blades are straight, they may not touch and
cut at all for part of their length. But all the ones I've looked at, I'm pretty
sure that both blades were curved, not one curved and one straight. 1/8" does
sound rather a lot, but not impossibly so; my impression is that 1/16" total
between the blades might be more normal for scissors that size.
>
> Do they cut OK, assuming they are sharp? I would guess that too much curvature
will make the blades snag and chew each other up, so if they act dull that is
probably just a matter of sharpening. In that case, sharpen but don't try to
bend the blades. If you do try to straighten them, leave a bit of curvature in
the curved blade and you might even consider adding a bit of curve to the flat
one.
>
> Tom Conroy

9" Wiss Inlaid will only be missed for a short time.
The Inlaid series of shears went on for a ----long--- time.

      There are lots them out there.

  Don't tell anyone else but Galoots though. ssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_from=R40&_nkw=wiss+inlaid&_sop
=15">http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_from=R40&_nkw=wiss+inlaid&_sop=15<
/a>

       yours Scott

-- 
*******************************
    Scott Grandstaff
    Box 409 Happy Camp, Ca  96039
    scottg@s...
    http://www.snowcrest.n
et/kitty/sgrandstaff/
    http://www.snowcr
est.net/kitty/hpages/index.html



-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7933 - Release Date: 07/27/14

Don Schwartz wrote:
"One blade is quite straight, the other veers off like a fork in the
road. I measured the separation at the tips with a rule. The inside of
the bent shear (the meeting surface)  is convex, not concave."


Egg on my face. I should have read the whole thread before replying. Pass over
that spitoon.

But, now that I realize what the problem is:

I have a Stilletto 5/8" chisel with about 5" of blade, that was so badly bellied
or bent that it couldn't be flattened by stock removal. I put it in the
woodworking vise and squeezed it flat, left it a few hours. It sprang back when
the vise was opened. Put it in back in with the ends blocked one way and the
center blocked the other, using rolled-up paper towels to give a softer
transition, and closed the vise slowly to over-bend it, left it a few hours.
Same thing again, with more blocking, and again, maybe four or six times total.
Each time it improved a bit, and each time I was convinced that I was going to
snap it when I closed the vise. It finally got to the point where I could live
with it. Ground away what was left of the belly and it sharpened up real nice.


The key was putting on the pressure slowly and gently, spreading the pressure
out a bit, and letting the blade rest in the over-bent position a while before
taking the pressure off. I tried a sudden smack with a hammer and it basically
did nothing; I think I would have snapped the blade if I had whacked harder.

Tom Conroy, polishing.

> 9" Wiss Inlaid will only be missed for a short time.
> The Inlaid series of shears went on for a ----long--- time.

Actually, they are still going on.  Or at least they were a couple
of years back when I looked them up after I picked up a pair of
inlaid tailor's shears for a buck.

Mike in Sacto

> 
> I have a Stilletto 5/8" chisel with about 5" of blade,
> that was so badly bellied or bent that it couldn't be
> flattened by stock removal. I put it in the woodworking
> vise and squeezed it flat, left it a few hours. It sprang
> back when the vise was opened. 

Tom

Guitar makers pay extra for these bent chisels.  They are
use to shape the ends of the delicate braces that
strengthen the thin top and back and the shallow scooped
out shape is traditional.  I do it with just a plain old
sharp chisel, and this 1/2 hour job is one of the most
satisfying during the construction,, but there are plenty
of luthiers who like the bent chisel.

Ed Minch
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web mail provided by NuNet, Inc. The Premier National provider.
http://www.nni.com/

> I have a Stilletto 5/8" chisel with about 5" of blade,
> that was so badly bellied or bent that it couldn't be
> flattened by stock removal. I put it in the woodworking
> vise and squeezed it flat, left it a few hours. It sprang
> back when the vise was opened.

I ran into a bend in my 1/2 inch Stiletto.  Couple of taps
with a 2# brass hammer over my anvil fixed the bend.

Mike in Sacto

I don't remember. 

But now son has decided to "upgrade" his old 454 truck engine, and has spent
more than $8000 on the engine at a local shop. I have grown too old for such
adventures anymore.

Now that the engine block has been bored .060" over and everything (and I mean
EVERYTHING, including aluminum heads) but the block has been replaced with shiny
new stuff, the engine just cannot run cool enough. There is an answer for this,
but I don't want to have to do it. But it may come to that.

I am open to suggestions.


On Aug 16, 2014, at 6:50 PM, Don Schwartz  wrote:

> 
> On 8/16/2014 6:39 PM, JAMES THOMPSON wrote:
>> Some time ago I sent a crankshaft out for a regrind. It was for my son's 454
chevy. He stored it laying down, rather than standing on end. After several
years the crank had bent enough that the engine wouldn't turn with hand pressure
after assembly. Check with dial indicator and find it is bent .003". Return it
to grinder where they put it in the lathe and check it. They smack it hard with
a lead hammer and it is perfect. The engine ran for many years after that. I was
rather surprised that it was so easy.
> 
> Was it steel or iron?
> 
> Don
>

JAMES THOMPSON  wrote:

> 
> Now that the engine block has been bored .060" over and
> everything (and I mean EVERYTHING, including aluminum
> heads) but the block has been replaced with shiny new
> stuff, the engine just cannot run cool enough. There is
> an answer for this, but I don't want to have to do it.
> But it may come to that.
> 
> I am open to suggestions.



Jim

I was watching one of the car shows where this happened and
they added an electric fan in addition to the belt driven
one. 

OT  - not to be seen

Ed Minch
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web mail provided by NuNet, Inc. The Premier National provider.
http://www.nni.com/

Don Schwartz wrote:  "I have a #53 of more recent vintage, and have not been
able to get the mouth and projection in harmony with any predictability.
Sometimes it works for me, sometimes not. Please describe your method."


Damfino how I did it. I remember the first time I set one up it took an awful
long time and was hard, but this time it went in almost without fuss.

On thought, the principle seems to be that when the mouth is closed as far as it
can go, leaving just a tiny thread of light, the shave should give a thin, wispy
curl.If the blade is sticking out too far the curl will jam; if it is not far
enough out, the blade won't cut. So set the blade with the mouth closed down,
where it will be easy to tell if the setting is right; not with the mouth gaping
open, where there is no way to tell just how far out the blade should be.

I am accustomed to watching the blade from the sole side of the body as I adjust
a 151 spokeshave or a plane. However, the moving sole of the 54 makes it hard to
judge the protrusion of the blade from the sole side, so I had to find a way to
judge how much I was altering the protrusion, while looking at the other side of
the blade through the yoke. What I found was that, on mine, the edge end of the
blade slot was close to the rim of the blade hold-down screw, and that by
monitoring the gap between them I could monitor how much I was shifting the
blade. Not how much protrusion there was, but at leas I could see how much I
altered it. Since I didn't turn the body repeatedly upside down and rightside
up, it was easier to keep the blade in the same place as I repeatedly loosened
the screw, shifted the blade, and tightened the screw.


Doubtless some craftsmen, well-accustomed to setting a plane blade with a
hammer, can set the hold-down screw just loose enough to allow a tiny bit of
movement, and then move the blade with taps of a hammer. I couldn't get this
method to work, so I had to shove things around with clumsy fingers; but I have
noted the taps-of-a-hammer technique for future use.


One other detail was screwing me up for a while. When I use a 151 I put my
forefingers down near the ends of the mouth, to give better control and
feedback. I found that with my 53 I was putting my fingers in just the same
places, in fact on the convenient little circular castings at the corners of the
mouth. However, these castings cover the springs that hold the mouth setting,
and when I rested my fingers on the spring covers I opened and closed the mouth
setting unpredictably. I've had to discipline myself, and move my finger rests
away from the spring covers and yoke. This might be part of your problem.

Setting a yoke spokeshave is the tricky part; all the rest is clean sailing. At
leas that's how I've found it.


Tom

Berkeley

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Thomas Conroy 
wrote:

> At the tailgate, everybody had a bit to show for the day, mostly in pretty
> good condition and not too spectacular


Here is a pic of the tailgate haul.  May have a few items mis identified,
but I am sure someone will correct me.

http://kirkhmb.smugmug.com/Woodworking/Woodworking-Tools/2707230_9kxLdx
#!i=3754984069&k=GkLQMhX">http://kirkhmb.smugmug.com/Woodworking/Woodworking-
Tools/2707230_9kxLdx#!i=3754984069&k=GkLQMhX

And here is the sunrise Tom mentioned quite eloquently.

http://kirkhmb.smugmug.com/Woodworking/Woodworking-Tools/2707230_9kxLdx
#!i=3754981305&k=dCjJ6wM">http://kirkhmb.smugmug.com/Woodworking/Woodworking-
Tools/2707230_9kxLdx#!i=3754981305&k=dCjJ6wM

And here is Michael playing with some giant wooden tool models.

http://kirkhmb.smugmug.com/Woodworking/Woodworking-Tools/2707230_9kxLdx
#!i=3754985471&k=grTTSxt">http://kirkhmb.smugmug.com/Woodworking/Woodworking-
Tools/2707230_9kxLdx#!i=3754985471&k=grTTSxt


As always, great fun, great conversations, and a great way to catch up with
a fun group.

Joe Parker was his usual self, and brought honey and beeswax, which will be
converted into treats and Galoot magic mix (not in the same containers).
Not sure what he bought, since he left early to go deal with his other
hobby, orchids.


-- 
Kirk Eppler in Half Moon Bay, CA, waiting for the storm of the decade to
hit.  Got the video camera and regular camera on standby, the heavy
raincoat awaiting.  And flashlights in every room after missing and hour of
MNF due to a power outage.

Really enjoying this brace of write-ups by Tom and am very glad to have
clicked on the excellent Stan Rogers link provided.  I must admit I
completely got hold of the wrong end of the stick and misread Tom's closing
remarks.  When I read the passage about "workers rising up", I thought "oh
dear, will the phrase "*busy as a bee'"* now be retired as millions of the
tribe apini walk out as part of industrial action with complaints about
cramped working conditions and a seven day work week!?"  A completely
different song was going through my head.

https://www.youtube.com/wa
tch?v=tjDxZqQhRBU

Paul, waiting for the wind and rain to start.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Thomas Conroy 
wrote:

> Gregory Isola wrote:
>
>  "I also found the findings a bit thin on the ground, but then was
> pleasantly surprised to see the accumulation piled on Kirk's tailgate. I
> recall thinking Michael's set of punches in the wooden cylindrical case,
> someone's $5 backsaw, and your #54 shave were especially special."
>
>
> The $5 dovetail saw was Kirk's, of course. Looked sort of like pre-1920s.
> No maker's name, but it had a really good feel except that the handle was a
> little tight on my hand. I think it was Brian who had the brace attachment
> for drilling around corners---    not the big heavy
> always-a-45-degree-angle kind, a simpler variable kind:
>
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Millers-Falls-RIGHT-ANGLE-hand-dril-a
ttachment-/390993557420?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5b090837ac">http://www.eb
ay.com/itm/Vintage-Millers-Falls-RIGHT-ANGLE-hand-dril-
attachment-/390993557420?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5b090837ac
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mpozmbc
>
> Shed a tear for Joe Parker's hives, dead of unknown causes and stripped by
> robber bees before he got around to them. He saw the activity and didn't
> notice the little eyemasks and sacks with "loot" written on them, hence he
> thought all was well. He still managed to get a bit of honey for us, and
> promised that there would be new hives in the future. All the little
> workers rise up, rise up / all the little workers rise up now / they rise
> wings up, wings up, wings up / they rise wings up, wings up now (with
> apologies to Terry Pratchett.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT-
aEcPgkuA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT-aEcPgkuA
>
> Tom Conroy
> The Queen is dead, long live the Queen.
>

What is it with this broken handle?  Can you fix it? If not, put up a picture
and I'll look at it. Maybe I can fix it.


> On Dec 10, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Thomas Conroy  wrote:
> 
> O Galoots:
> We went fleaBAGging last Sunday, a quiet day for what has been a quiet year.
The day was predicted clear, but sandwiched between a week of rain beforehand
and a predicted week of rain after, which cut down the crowds but also,
apparently, the tool sellers. At the start of the day, 6AM,  the headlamps were
out as always but seemed almost unnecessary, things were light enough to see
where you were going though not quite enough for details on the tables; it
turned out that there was low cloud cover and the city lights were reflected
down from it. As the sun came up there was a shimmery pearly-grey bowl overhead,
not close enough to seem confining but close enough to hide the Oakland Hills to
the east and San Francisco to the west, close enough to conceal the line between
sky and earth. The only indication of distance was the banthas at rest on the
other side of the Oakland Estuary (container-loading cranes, Jeff). The sunrise
was pink and blue pastel cotton candy, just little diffused streaks through a
quarter of the sky. It was comfortably warm all day.
> This is a pretty self-centered report. The day was slow for everyone, more
comfortable conversation in groups of two or three during a good walk, and not
much rust on show. Not many big exciting finds, and I don't remember most of
what turned up on Kirk's tailgate at the end; but my finds, few in number but in
good condition and more costly than I usually allow, raise some questions.
Including some questions about the security of the universe: I went wanting to
get an adjustable-mouthed spokeshave and a cigar shave, and I brought them home.
Usually, knowing what tool you want to get is a guarantee that you won't find
it. I'm worried that paired socks will start to pour out of the dryer, and then
everything will implode back into a black hole.
> 
> I started by getting a delicate little 6 mm. Swedish chisel while it was still
dark, at $5 more than I usually pay for a chisel but I wanted to encourage the
Old Tool Gods. Didn't work. There were fewer tools and fewer tool sellers than I
have ever seen. As usual we went to the back and worked forward through about
forty or fifty rows, and until about four from the front I had found only the
chisel and a couple of little screwdrivers, the kind with pocket clips on them,
to regrind into bradawls. I overpaid for them, seventy-five cents each, but it
didn't worry me. I was comforting myself with the notion that at least I would
be taking home most of the cash I came with (call no man happy until he is dead)
when the gods started jerking me around.
> First I found a pair of 13" (8" cut) Wiss editor's shears (turns out the right
name is "bankers' and paperhangers' shears"). Twenty bucks was way more than I
ever pay for scissors, but they are longer than any I have and I was desperate
for something to take home. Turns out that the mark on them was apparently used
from a few years after 1895 until a few before 1915; this is from catalogs in a
great site maintained by a descendent, not from the original (corporate-
swallowed) company:
> http://jwissandsons.com/ 
> 
> Almost immediately after that I found one of the things on my want list: a #
54 spokeshave, the yoke-adjustable-mouth with straight handles. In fact, it was
much better than that: it was a #54 body without a blade, and in what I
recognized as a early type because it is almost identical to the one I already
had with the right handle missing. I asked and she said $15, and I tried not to
reach for my wallet with suspicious speed. The thing I love about the #53-#54 is
that it isn't just adjustable-mouthed. Both the mouth and the protrusion are
altered by turning the same screw, and once they are set in harmony with each
other, they stay in harmony as you move the screw. Now I felt I had money to
burn, since one of my wants had fallen cheaply into my bag. Around the corner
and at the start of the next row there was one of the reliable tool sellers,
notable for good users that haven't been overcleaned, at prices that are on the
low side of fair. He didn't have anything that grabbed me but I chatted a bit
and showed him my Find. He said "You know how old that is, don't you?" and when
I waffled about pre-WWI and maybe 1880s he said "early 1870s." I had overlooked
the words on the bottom side of the handle: "Bailey's Pat. July 13, 1858."
> 
> Tom Lamond's spokeshave book is awe-inspiring, but it is also frustrating in
many ways. He has a typology of the Bailey #3 / Stanley #53, and it is
reasonable to assume that the #54 types are pretty much identical. What I have
is one of the subtypes of Type 7. The type spans the last two years of Leonard
Bailey's manufacture (1872-73) and the first twenty-five of Stanley's (1873-98).
In Lamond's typology the 7 was made by Bailey and the 7.1 by Stanley, with the
only distinction being the blades (one marked by Bailey, the other two by
Stanley). You can't tell which is which from the body alone. The irritating part
is that he tells when the patent marking on the body was first used (1864, on
the type 4) but not when it went out of use. And it would appear that some Type
7.1 shaves have the marking and others don't. When did the marking go out of
use? I think it is a reasonable assumption that it was used until the patent ran
out in (probably) 1879. [Sidebar: until1861, patents were for 14 years with a
renewal of 7 years possible "in certain circumstances." The 17-year patent came
into use in 1861. So depending on "circumstances" and on details about
grandfathering, Bailey's patent may have run out in 1872, in 1878, or in 1879.]
How did Lamond miss the end of the patent date on the body? It certainly
deserves a note in the typology, considering how much space he gives to mark
variants on the blade. In any case, when I got home and checked my broken-
handled #54 (without patent date) I found it had the blade Lamond considers the
earlier of the Stanley Type 7.1 blades, already sharpened; so I switched it in
and have a correct early Type 7.1 as my go-to user spokeshave. Didn't even have
to clean the sucker.
> 
> I thought that the dealer's generosity with information deserved some
response, so I looked around for something to buy. Found a bevel-edged socket
Witherby, a little over 1/2" and with 6" of blade, that more or less fits a hole
in my good set (I need a 9/16", but both my 1/2" and my 5/8" are a bit scant and
this fits well enough). It was marked $20, more than I would have paid except
for the gratitude, but as I held it out to him he said "Eight dollars." Then he
noticed it was a Witherby and already priced. We did a little dance, possibly a
tribal or regional ceremony alien to those of you resident in the harsh-wintered
East. As I gritted my teeth and forced out "Twenty is fine," he gulped and said
"Oh, well, I said eight." I said "Lets split the difference," and when we worked
the arithmetic in our heads I came out with 16 and he came up with 12. Still
don't understand how that happened. I handed him a twenty and he gave me back a
five and we left it at that. It wasn't until  I got it home that I noticed that
some hellbegotten previous user had consistently sharpened the last inch of the
blade, not the entire back, leaving it bowed by about 1/32", which is  a lot
more than it seems when trying to true up a 6" chisel by hand. If you want a
short chisel, why not use a short chisel instead of ruining long ones? Apart
from that, and a bit of mushrooming to the socket, it is in nice shape, and I
look forward to being able to use it in (on past experience) about two years.
> That spokeshave went to my head. Since I had bought it for so much less than I
expected, I felt justified in paying more than my usual bottom-feeder's prices
for, well, everything that caught my eye. Or at least it felt like that, though
I was in fact nearly done. But we went back to the far end of the flea, as
usual, to check the sellers who weren't there at 6AM (most of them), and I ended
up with a nice Atkins saw that I will post some separate questions on, paying
three times as much as I ever have for a saw that wasn't new ($15). Saw a 1"
Buck Cast Steel tang chisel sharpened down to 2" long that I though might go
into a set of Bucks I am trying to assemble---- except that the set has 4"
blades and isn't beveled, and I have a 1-1/4" B.E.tang Buck that I put into a
walnut pear-shaped palm handle that is as near as bedammit to the new chisel,
and now I am trying to assemble two sets of Bucks, not one. Ah, well, it all
makes work for the working man to do.
> https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=zyeMFSzPgGc
> 
> Then, like Danglars in "The Count of Monte Cristo," captive in the cave of the
Roman bandits, when he had spent an enormous fortune to prevent starving to
death and had just 50,000 francs left, I contemplated what I had spent and what
remained. I had flattered myself a couple of rows before in being able to go
home with most of my cash intact, and now I found that it had shriveled to a
mere thirty bucks. This I would hold on to. This I would hold on to. And I did,
until we got back to Kirk's truck and had taken the usual tailgate pictures. And
then Kirk, that paragon of generosity, said "Did you find a cigar shave? If not,
I have a kit; how much would you like to pay for it?" The "kit" was a shave he
had disassembled to fix a crack in the handled; he had fixed the crack and
sharpened it, simply hadn't gotten around to reassembling it. If I had any grace
or style I would have given him every cent I had left, which would still have
been about a third of what it was worth, but I was still channeling Danglars and
I kept back ten bucks. Went home with money in my pocket. It'll serve me right
if I end up in a cave paying 500,000 francs for a whole roast chicken.
> 
> At the tailgate, everybody had a bit to show for the day, mostly in pretty
good condition and not too spectacular. Michael showed Kirk how to sharpen a
scythe, but I'm not sure it was that day's acquisition. Neither Michael nor Bill
bought the post vises and anvils they had been looking at. There was the usual
exchange of promised trade goods. I got home happy, far more exhausted than a
little seven-hour walk justified but with a small number of tools I wanted in
good condition. I put together my shaves and tried them out. They are both
sweet. I put them away and took a nap.
> 
> Tom ConroyAnd I won't apologize for the over-use of the letter "I" in this
report. You were warned.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> 
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archi
ve/faq.html
> 
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
> 
> OldTools@r...
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

> Don Schwartz wrote:  "I have a #53 of more recent vintage, and have
> not been able to get the mouth and projection in harmony with any
> predictability.

Mine are all set so that when the mouth is entirely closed the edge
of the blade is not exposed.  It works well for me.  I liked it in
the first one I had, and have set the others the same way.

Mike in Sacto

Jim Thompson wrote: "What is it with this broken handle?  Can you fix it? If
not, put up a picture and I'll look at it. Maybe I can fix it."

Jim, many thanks. I'm sure you could weld on a new handle easily, while it is
utterly beyond my ability to fix--- the last time I did any welding, brazing, or
soldering was with oxyacetylene in a junior college class in the late '70s.
However, I some time ago came to the conclusion that I don't want to fix it. The
left handle is snapped off cleanly at the narrow spot, about an inch beyond the
yoke. It seems to be an old break perhaps very old, because the broken surface
has the same grey (not rusted or corroded) surface as the rest of the shave.
Fixing it would make it just another spokeshave, but with the left handle gone
it is ready for that (semi-mythical?) task where cramped quarters make the
handle get in the way. And I found that I could use it one-handed as a sort of
jigged carving knife, though it is clumsy for that. Its even possible that a
previous owner broke off the handle deliberately, though that seems unlikely---
broken spokeshaves have probably never been rare. But the Stanley Universal and,
to a lesser extent, the MF wood-handled shaves advertised single-handled use as
a benefit, and I gather that lots of those turn up with one handle removed. And
there are wooden spokeshaves where one or both handles have been whittled off.
Someone used de-handled spokeshaves. Mind you, I have never actually needed a
single-handled spokeshave, but if I do I have one. I just have to switch the
blade back in.

I modify 151 bodies extensively for use on leather, and in occasional
daydreaming I have considered modifying the handles for a sharper look or a
different feel. Anything from wrapping the stock handles with leather to
grinding them down into tangs which could be used for mounting fancy wooden
handles. I come back to the fact that I like spokeshave handles as they are. I
actually dislike the feel of the wooden-handled boutique spokeshaves. And with
my old 54, a bit of personification comes in, too: it earrned its living for a
long time, so now let it rest honorably, waiting for a not-too-strenuous task it
can still do.


Tom Conroy
Still photo-deprived,and still planning to do something about it--- someday.,
After all, I always did enjoy fairy tales.

> On Dec 11, 2014, at 5:09 AM, Thomas Conroy  wrote:
> 
>  Mind you, I have never actually needed a single-handled spokeshave, but if I
do I have one.

My long deceased mother had an old, country saying, "That's about as useless as
teats on a man."

But if it makes you happy, it makes me happy. If you should change your mind,
let me
know.------------------------------------------------------------------------

I too have a one armed spokeshave, great work working inside a handle grip.

And the one I passed on to tom, I was trying to remove the handle when
working close to an edge.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:35 AM, JAMES THOMPSON  wrote:

>
> > On Dec 11, 2014, at 5:09 AM, Thomas Conroy 
> wrote:
> >
> >  Mind you, I have never actually needed a single-handled spokeshave, but
> if I do I have one.
>
> My long deceased mother had an old, country saying, "That's about as
> useless as teats on a man."
>
> But if it makes you happy, it makes me happy. If you should change your
> mind, let me
> know.------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archi
ve/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>
> OldTools@r...
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>



-- 
Kirk Eppler
Principal Engineer
PP&TD
eppler.kirk@g...
650 225-3911

I found one of the Stanley 67 spokeshaves for cheap and thought the removable
handle would be a good idea.  You can unscrew one handle and screw it into a
socket on the top of the body.  Well, 15 years later and I still haven’t
sharpened the blade.

A side comment - sometimes there IS serendipity.  I bought it with the flat sole
on it.  The next weekend I found the round sole in a box at a flea for 50 cents.
I would not have recognized it if I had not bought the tool the previous
weekend.

Ed Minch




On Dec 11, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Kirk Eppler  wrote:

> I too have a one armed spokeshave, great work working inside a handle grip.
> 
> And the one I passed on to tom, I was trying to remove the handle when
> working close to an edge.

Kirk wrote:

> I too have a one armed spokeshave, great work working inside a handle grip.

A Stanley 67 Universal spokeshave works great when you need to work in tight
quarters.

http://www.peterrobinson.galootcentral.com/spokeshaves/#Stanley-67-shav
e">http://www.peterrobinson.galootcentral.com/spokeshaves/#Stanley-67-shave

--
Chuck Taylor
north of Seattle

Ed,

Great serendipity. I was given on of my 67s by my sister-in-law (it was her
dad's) and bought the other. Now I have two, one with the flat sole and one with
the round sole. I use them both.

It may be heresy to say this, but I prefer my round-bottom Stanley 67 to my
Millers Falls cigar shaves.

Cheers,
Chuck Taylor
north of Seattle


>
> I found one of the Stanley 67 spokeshaves for cheap and thought the removable
handle would be a good idea.  You can unscrew one handle and screw it into a
socket on the top of the body.  Well, 15 years later and I still haven’t
sharpened the blade.
> 
> A side comment - sometimes there IS serendipity.  I bought it with the flat
sole on it.  The next weekend I found the round sole in a box at a flea for 50
cents.  I would not have recognized it if I had not bought the tool the previous
weekend.
> 
> Ed Minch
>

CHuck

I’ll have to try the round bottom - HAS to be easier to sharpen than the ceegar
shave.

Ed Minch




On Dec 11, 2014, at 11:24 AM, Chuck Taylor  wrote:

> Ed,
> 
> Great serendipity. I was given on of my 67s by my sister-in-law (it was her
dad's) and bought the other. Now I have two, one with the flat sole and one with
the round sole. I use them both.
> 
> It may be heresy to say this, but I prefer my round-bottom Stanley 67 to my
Millers Falls cigar shaves.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chuck Taylor
> north of Seattle

On 2014-12-11 9:53 AM, Ed Minch wrote:
> I’ll have to try the round bottom - HAS to be easier to sharpen than the
ceegar shave.
>
> Ed Minch
I attacked my generic cigar shave iron with a small tailed grinder to 
rough in the clearance angle, and it started cutting. Not pretty, not 
finished, but I can see a way to make this thing work well - once I get 
a round to-it, and some small diamond hones!

FWIW
Don

If one has a spokeshave with one missing handle, does that not then require a
second spokeshave with the opposite handle missing?  One for the right side and
one for the left side?  Or am i missing something? I need to get a handle on
this.



> On Dec 11, 2014, at 7:48 AM, Kirk Eppler  wrote:
> 
> I too have a one armed spokeshave, great work working inside a handle grip.
> 
> And the one I passed on to tom, I was trying to remove the handle when working
close to an edge.
> 
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:35 AM, JAMES THOMPSON  wrote:
>> 
>> > On Dec 11, 2014, at 5:09 AM, Thomas Conroy  wrote:
>> >
>> >  Mind you, I have never actually needed a single-handled spokeshave, but if
I do I have one.
>> 
>> My long deceased mother had an old, country saying, "That's about as useless
as teats on a man."
>> 
>> But if it makes you happy, it makes me happy. If you should change your mind,
let me
know.------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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://ruck
us.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>> 
>> To read the FAQ:
>> http://swingleydev.com/arch
ive/faq.html
>> 
>> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>> 
>> OldTools@r...
>> http://ruck
us.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kirk Eppler
> Principal Engineer
> PP&TD
> eppler.kirk@g...
> 650 225-3911

On Dec 11, 2014, at 11:56 AM, Don Schwartz  wrote:

> On 2014-12-11 9:53 AM, Ed Minch wrote:
>> I’ll have to try the round bottom - HAS to be easier to sharpen than the
ceegar shave.
>> 
>> Ed Minch
> I attacked my generic cigar shave iron with a small tailed grinder to rough in
the clearance angle, and it started cutting. Not pretty, not finished, but I can
see a way to make this thing work well - once I get a round to-it, and some
small diamond hones!
> 

I like the round shaves, esp. the Cigar shaves. I have probably had two dozen
over the years altho I am down to only three now having recently passed both an
MF and a Kelly to my furniture making friend. I do reach for the MF about 99
times more often than a #67.

I have never found it difficult to sharpen a cigar shave blade. I bought my
first one while on my way to a week long training session. Stopped at an auto
supply and bought a mix of wet/dry paper and sharpened it dry using the glass
topped table in my motel room (lots of newspaper to catch dust). Spent a bit of
time each night working on it and soon had a sharp shave. All freehand. I just
aim for a bevel that is about 1/4 inch wide and flat. Once you get the initial
flat on it, it is easy to register on your sharpening surface and follow that
till you have met your goal. A couple of light swipes on the inside edge to
remove the wire edge and Bob's your uncle. I have never had to take one to a
grinder and given its small size I really don't want to. I don't know that you
really have a clearance angle on a cigar shave blade. Seems to me that the
clearance angle is set by the user - rotate too far and it's gone.

Bill------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2014-12-11 10:18 AM, William Ghio wrote:
> I don't know that you really have a clearance angle on a cigar shave blade.
Seems to me that the clearance angle is set by the user - rotate too far and
it's gone.
>
> Bill

The long bevel you and others describe gives the clearance needed to 
make the thing work. A short bevel gives none.

Don

> My long deceased mother had an old, country saying, "That's about as 
> useless as teats on a man."

Even more useless was, according to my great grandmother, "As useless as 
teats on a dead boar."

But there are some uses, like chamfering the bottom of the handle for 
hammers and axes and the
like, where I only use one hand anyway.

Mike in Sacto

Jim Thompson wrote:

>If one has a spokeshave with one missing handle, does that not then require a
second spokeshave with the opposite handle missing?  One for the right side and
one for the left side?  Or am i missing something? I need to get a handle on
this.<


Indeed so. And also one with no handles. I see the occasional wooden spokeshave
with both handles whittled off, maybe for leather work or to reduce bulk in a
crowded travelling toolbox. But I am content to take my broken spokeshaves as
they come.
Tom Conroy

> But I am content to take my broken spokeshaves as they come.

As am I.  I have a very small wooden spokeshave with one handle
snapped off close to the blade.  Had it for years.  Last week
I looked at it and thought I'd give it a try.  Turns out it's
quite a good one hander.

Mike in Sacto

Ed Minch wrote:
> I found one of the Stanley 67 spokeshaves for cheap and thought the removable
handle would be a good idea.  You can unscrew one handle and screw it into a
socket on the top of the body.  Well, 15 years later and I still haven’t
sharpened the blade.

That's GREAT edge retention!

What's the steel in the blade?

:-)

  BugBear

On 12/10/2014 7:40 PM, Thomas Conroy wrote:
> Don Schwartz wrote:  "I have a #53 of more recent vintage, and have not been
able to get the mouth and projection in harmony with any predictability.
Sometimes it works for me, sometimes not. Please describe your method."
>
>
> Damfino how I did it. I remember the first time I set one up it took an awful
long time and was hard, but this time it went in almost without fuss.
>
> On thought, the principle seems to be that when the mouth is closed as far as
it can go, leaving just a tiny thread of light, the shave should give a thin,
wispy curl.If the blade is sticking out too far the curl will jam; if it is not
far enough out, the blade won't cut. So set the blade with the mouth closed
down, where it will be easy to tell if the setting is right; not with the mouth
gaping open, where there is no way to tell just how far out the blade should be.
Many thanks! This works very nicely.

Don

On 12/11/2014 5:30 AM, Michael Blair wrote:
>> Don Schwartz wrote:  "I have a #53 of more recent vintage, and have
>> not been able to get the mouth and projection in harmony with any
>> predictability.
>
> Mine are all set so that when the mouth is entirely closed the edge
> of the blade is not exposed.  It works well for me.  I liked it in
> the first one I had, and have set the others the same way.
>
> Mike in Sacto 

Thanks! This works very nicely.

Don