OldTools Archive

Recent Bios FAQ

253746 Thomas Conroy 2015‑02‑26 Pictures of a gouge slick
Jim Thompson asked for any info on:

https://plus.google.com/photos/102358420595488787966/albums/61184722621
52795521?banner=pwa">https://plus.google.com/photos/102358420595488787966/albums
/6118472262152795521?banner=pwa



I hope I'm not too late for the game on this, but I've been sick (recently
phrased it "I've got a right to sing the greeny-yellows") and I'm clearing up
arrears of email.
There is a 1909 L.&I.J. White Catalogue (as per the mark in the photos) among
those that migrated from the Rose Tool Company site to The Alaska Woodworker:

http://www.alaskawoodworker.com/miscellaneous-tool-
catalogs/">http://www.alaskawoodworker.com/miscellaneous-tool-catalogs/

Relevant slicks and gouges appear on pp. 37-46. What you have was called by the
maker a "No. 51. Ship's Carpenters' Socket Gouge" and appears on p. 46. The
drawing of a "Ship's Carpenter's Gouge" shows a short one-handed handle with a
schlagring, but the text says that they were normally sold without a handle, and
we can speculate that many or most users would have equipped them with long two-
hand slick-type handles. They came in widths from 1/2" to 3", all with 6-1/2"
long blades.

There are subtle differences between the "Ship Carpenter's Gouge and the "No.
21. Long Paring Socket Firmer Gouge" or the " No. 22. Millwright's Socket
Gouge," basically in the shape of the shoulders where the blade meets the
socket. I think what you have is definitely the "ship carpenter's gouge."
Unfortunately, the catalogue doesn't show any profile views.

The only tools called "Slicks" in the 1909 White catalogue are No. 12, No. 12A,
and No. 12B, all called "Carpenters' Slicks" and all flat, not curved. The 12 is
turtle-backed, the 12A square-edged, the 12B bevel-edged. All were sold with
proper two-handed applewood slick handles; all came in widths of 2-1/2" to 4",
with various blade lengths.


Slicks were strongly associated with shipwrighting, and it seems to me that a
gouge used in the same way by the same workmen might, in practice, be called a
"gouge slick" rather than a mouth-clogging "Ship Carpenter's Gouge." At any
rate, it is interesting to imagine, the formal dialogue between shipwright and
assistant: "Do you, O admirable and worthy apprentice, bring me my 1" Ship
Carpenter's Gouge with long handle, lest I fail to fit the groove for this rope
before my grip slackens and the pieces fall to the ground far below."  These are
American tools; they would answer to "Gouge slick- quick."

Or so my wandering imagination bubbles forth---  er, maybe that fever hasn't
entirely gone down yet---

Tom Conroy
kippling
253747 JAMES THOMPSON <oldmillrat@m...> 2015‑02‑26 Re: Pictures of a gouge slick
I noticed that this tool appeared in the 1906 edition, but was missing from the
1913 White catalog. This probably indicates that it wasn’t made much after 1906.

And holding my "gouge/slick” in my hot little hand while perusing the
illustration, I gotta say that mine appears to be earlier than 1906. It looks a
little coarser than that model, even accounting for hand drawn art.

Thanks for posting these catalogs, Thomas! I got a couple of ideas for handles
from them.

Egad! I do love the porch.


On Feb 25, 2015, at 8:18 PM, Thomas Conroy  wrote:

> Jim Thompson asked for any info on:
> 
> https://plus.google.com/photos/102358420595488787966/albums/611847226
2152795521?banner=pwa">https://plus.google.com/photos/102358420595488787966/albu
ms/6118472262152795521?banner=pwa
> 
> 
> 
> I hope I'm not too late for the game on this, but I've been sick (recently
phrased it "I've got a right to sing the greeny-yellows") and I'm clearing up
arrears of email.
> There is a 1909 L.&I.J. White Catalogue (as per the mark in the photos) among
those that migrated from the Rose Tool Company site to The Alaska Woodworker:
> 
> http://www.alaskawoodworker.com/miscellaneous-tool-
catalogs/">http://www.alaskawoodworker.com/miscellaneous-tool-catalogs/
> 
> Relevant slicks and gouges appear on pp. 37-46. What you have was called by
the maker a "No. 51. Ship's Carpenters' Socket Gouge" and appears on p. 46. The
drawing of a "Ship's Carpenter's Gouge" shows a short one-handed handle with a
schlagring, but the text says that they were normally sold without a handle, and
we can speculate that many or most users would have equipped them with long two-
hand slick-type handles. They came in widths from 1/2" to 3", all with 6-1/2"
long blades.
> 
> There are subtle differences between the "Ship Carpenter's Gouge and the "No.
21. Long Paring Socket Firmer Gouge" or the " No. 22. Millwright's Socket
Gouge," basically in the shape of the shoulders where the blade meets the
socket. I think what you have is definitely the "ship carpenter's gouge."
Unfortunately, the catalogue doesn't show any profile views.
> 
> The only tools called "Slicks" in the 1909 White catalogue are No. 12, No.
12A, and No. 12B, all called "Carpenters' Slicks" and all flat, not curved. The
12 is turtle-backed, the 12A square-edged, the 12B bevel-edged. All were sold
with proper two-handed applewood slick handles; all came in widths of 2-1/2" to
4", with various blade lengths.
> 
> 
> Slicks were strongly associated with shipwrighting, and it seems to me that a
gouge used in the same way by the same workmen might, in practice, be called a
"gouge slick" rather than a mouth-clogging "Ship Carpenter's Gouge." At any
rate, it is interesting to imagine, the formal dialogue between shipwright and
assistant: "Do you, O admirable and worthy apprentice, bring me my 1" Ship
Carpenter's Gouge with long handle, lest I fail to fit the groove for this rope
before my grip slackens and the pieces fall to the ground far below."  These are
American tools; they would answer to "Gouge slick- quick."
> 
> Or so my wandering imagination bubbles forth---  er, maybe that fever hasn't
entirely gone down yet---
> 
> Tom Conroy
> kippling
253748 Ed Minch <ruby@m...> 2015‑02‑26 Re: Pictures of a gouge slick
Tom

Good find, but since there is no image from the side, we don’t know if the tools
had a bent socket or not.  The ship gouges are smallish too, with 6-1/2 inch
blades as compared to 8 on the millwrights gouges.  Interesting to see (page 7)
that they measure the blades without the socket or tang to let you know how much
you can sharpen, so does this means that the blades in 1909 were not laminated?

Ed Minch




On Feb 25, 2015, at 11:18 PM, Thomas Conroy via OldTools  wrote:

> Relevant slicks and gouges appear on pp. 37-46.
253749 paul womack <pwomack@p...> 2015‑02‑26 Re: Pictures of a gouge slick
JAMES THOMPSON wrote:
> ...  while perusing the illustration, I gotta say that mine appears to be
earlier than 1906. It looks a little coarser than that model, even accounting
for hand drawn art.

I think inferring age from coarseness is not reliable. There's never been a
period, early or late, when it's
been at all difficult to make coarse goods...

  BugBear
253754 Thomas Conroy 2015‑02‑26 Re: Pictures of a gouge slick
Ed,

I looked again and realized that there are two White catalogues on the Rose
site, 1909 and 1913. In both, the No. 12 Carpenters' Slick, the turtleback one,
is described as "Steel Laid." The 12A (square-edged) and 12B (bevel-edged)
slicks are "Solid Cast Steel." The big incannel gouges are "Solid Cast Steel,"
as are most of the chisels; but I noticed in passing that a few of the biggest
millwright's firmer chisels are "Steel Laid." Dunno if the use of laid
(laminated, clearly) blades was due to cost or toughness.


Tom Conroy



Ed Minch wrote: 

>Interesting to see (page 7) > that they measure the blades without the socket
or tang to let you know how much
> you can sharpen, so does this means that the blades in 1909 were not
laminated?
>
253756 Brian Welch <brian.w.welch@g...> 2015‑02‑26 Re: Pictures of a gouge slick
I have an undated Charles Buck catalog* that says the following about their
"Socket Deck or Ship Carpenters' Chisels":

"Made with bent socket."

It is the only chisel in the whole catalog that says that, including the
slicks.

They were available in 1, 1 1/4, 1 1/2, 1 3/4, and 2 inch widths. They are
solid steel with 6 inch blades.

No ship carpenter gouges listed, but I think this is definitive proof that
at least some edge tools made for shipwrights were specifically
manufactured with the bent socket.

Brian Welch
Holden, MA
*the catalog actually belongs to Josh Clark, but it has been in my desk
drawer at work for a decade now.  We need to get it scanned and uploaded!

Recent Bios FAQ