G++,

I finally got around to sharpening the cutter on a Millers Falls #1
spokes have.  The cutter is sharp and properly angled, but I can't make
the tool work.  It will make shavings, but only big, chunky shavings.  
The #1 has a little flat milled into the cylinder and I'm thinking
perhaps this is not made correctly.  

A little background…  I have a Kelly copy of the #1.  It works well and
it does not have the little flat the MF has.  The old MF and the new
Kelly blades are nearly identical and are completely interchangeable. 
Both the old and new blades work fine on the Kelly body, so I gotta
believe the angle and edge are ok on both blades.  (The Kelly blade
shows the same problem in the MF body.)

I guess my real question is.  How is the little flat in the MF body
supposed to be made and what is it for?  On my MF this little flat meets
the circumference of the body at both edges of the body… at the leading
edge of the flat and at the trailing edge.    If I set the blade so it
sits on the trailing edge of this flat, there is no clearance under for
the chip.  If I set the blade just behind this flat area, it seems the
angle of attack is exaggerated because of the flat and the chips are too
chunky.  Anyone know what is going on here?

Thanks for any help,

-- 
Bill W.
Woodworkers visit me at:
http://Highland_House.tripod.com

Dang, Don posted the patent before I did.  I was going to reference the
mention of the flat there.

When I got my bevel near correct, I could get thin shaving, but I felt I
could get to wispy by increasing the length of the beveled face (still
working on), using the flat face.  I was never able to get anything on the
curved face.

But while we're on the subject, how many of you have 4 screw holes vs 2 screw
holes for blade attachment?  Any idea when this occurred?

The second set of holes looks like it would allow the blade to be reversed,
and have a curved surface similar to the Kelly that Ted describes.  Tim
Kelly's directions don't show the flat on the #1, FYI

Don McConnell wrote:

> Ted Stevenson wrote (in part):
>
> >...
> >My MF also has a "flat" filed into the body. From your description, I
> >suspect the flat on my MF is considerably larger -- 1/8 to 3/16 wide
> >(tool at home, I'm writing from work). I too was curious about the
> >correctness/originality of this, and actually managed to speak with Tim
> >Kelly. My recollection of the conversation is that Tim felt this was NOT
> >a feature of the tool as it left MF. Owners frequently filed them.
> >(Hence no flat on the Kelly #1.)
>
> I don't own an original Millers-Falls #1 circular spokeshave, so
> have no comment on functionality.
>
> But, if you take a look at the Albert D. Goodell patent (U.S. Patent
> #293,651 issued on February 19, 1884), the "face-bevel" was an
> integral part of the design. In the letters patent, it is briefly
> described:
>

-- 
Kirk Eppler
Eppler.Kirk@g...

Bill and other assembled Galoots:
	I too have been fighting the good fight in the realm of MF/Kelly #1
shaves, and actually posted a question or two about same a while back. 
	Basically, my situation is that possessing one each, the MF in
apparently fine condition, the Kelly new (when purchased), I've not been
able to make either work -- at least in a sense analogous to a standard
shave: making controlled, plane-like shavings from concave edges. It
just don't work and I'm kinda frustrated. For now, I'll try to address
some of the issuse 

Bill Webber wrote:
> 
> G++,
> 
> I finally got around to sharpening the cutter on a Millers Falls #1
> spokes have.  The cutter is sharp and properly angled, but I can't make
> the tool work.  It will make shavings, but only big, chunky shavings.
> The #1 has a little flat milled into the cylinder and I'm thinking
> perhaps this is not made correctly.

My MF also has a "flat" filed into the body. From your description, I
suspect the flat on my MF is considerably larger -- 1/8 to 3/16 wide
(tool at home, I'm writing from work). I too was curious about the
correctness/originality of this, and actually managed to speak with Tim
Kelly. My recollection of the conversation is that Tim felt this was NOT
a feature of the tool as it left MF. Owners frequently filed them.
(Hence no flat on the Kelly #1.)



> I guess my real question is.  How is the little flat in the MF body
> supposed to be made and what is it for?  On my MF this little flat meets
> the circumference of the body at both edges of the body… at the leading
> edge of the flat and at the trailing edge.    If I set the blade so it
> sits on the trailing edge of this flat, there is no clearance under for
> the chip.  If I set the blade just behind this flat area, it seems the
> angle of attack is exaggerated because of the flat and the chips are too
> chunky.  Anyone know what is going on here?

On neither of my shaves is there a way/place/configuration that produces
a closed mouth (no chip clearance). If there's anyone on the porch who
actually gets one of these cigar shaves to make those wispy, fluffy
shavings that I can make even with a pedestrian Stanley 151 (granted
mine is older), please, please share your wisdom with two (at least)
galoots hankerin' to smooth those inside curves.
	  
Ted Stevenson
Bethel Connecticut
e.stevenson@s...

Ted Stevenson wrote (in part):

>...
>My MF also has a "flat" filed into the body. From your description, I
>suspect the flat on my MF is considerably larger -- 1/8 to 3/16 wide
>(tool at home, I'm writing from work). I too was curious about the
>correctness/originality of this, and actually managed to speak with Tim
>Kelly. My recollection of the conversation is that Tim felt this was NOT
>a feature of the tool as it left MF. Owners frequently filed them.
>(Hence no flat on the Kelly #1.)

I don't own an original Millers-Falls #1 circular spokeshave, so
have no comment on functionality.

But, if you take a look at the Albert D. Goodell patent (U.S. Patent
#293,651 issued on February 19, 1884), the "face-bevel" was an
integral part of the design. In the letters patent, it is briefly
described:

      "... Upon the cutting face of the shave the body is slighly
beveled, preferably at a slight angle from he cutting-edge of the
circular knife or cutter. This face-bevel is indicated by x' ... "

The feature marked "x'" on the accompanying drawing clearly refers
to the "flat" under discussion.

Based on the mention of the face-bevel being at a slight angle from
the cutting-edge, I first thought that Goodell may have been
viewing this as analogous to the sole on a regular wooden spoke
shave. However, I have my doubts as to whether the analogy would
hold true and am now thinking that its real purpose may have been
to allow the shave to function in a slightly tighter arc.

Whether this was a good or bad idea, I'll leave to those who have
experience with an original shave.

Don McConnell
Knox County, Ohio

I have both a Kelly Tools and a M-F #1.  As Don McConnell demonstrates with
the patent info, that flat is original.

I have no problems getting the Kelly Tools shave to work; it works so easily
that I really don't have any advice, except maybe to ease up and let the
tool do the work.

The M-F #1 is a recent acquisition, so I need to grind and sharpen just a
bit.

Steve Noe, in Indianapolis
fusilier@m...
"Of course there's a lot of knowledge in universities: the freshmen bring a
little in; the seniors don't take much away,
so knowledge sort of accumulates..."
  -- Anonymous

G++,

Ted and I talked about the problems we were having...

Bill Webber wrote:
> 
> Hi Ted,
> 
> First let me tell you where I'm at.
> I kinda developed a thing for spoke shaves, thinking long term to maybe
> making a chair or two.  So far I haven't actually made anything and
> about the only thing I've done with any of them is a few practice
> strokes on a straight chunk of old oak.  (I should get a better scrap to
> play with because oak is probably not a wood of choice for anything you
> might take a spoke shave to.
> 
> But...  My experience with the Kelly; I didn't even hone it.  I
> just fooled with the adjustment a little and determined it would take
> nice fine shavings and put it away.  I knew I could hone it and make it
> better at some time in the future if I needed to.
> 
> I got the MF from ebay.  It's pretty nice even though I can only get one
> handle off.  The blade was not in bad shape but it showed evidence of
> someone fooling with it.  I like nice, jig assisted, sharpened blades so
> I set out to redo it.  I made a jig to hold the blade in order to redo
> the primary bevel.  I used the jig and my belt sander to redo the bevel
> and it came out great.  I then used scary sharp to put a micro bevel on
> the outside and flatten the inside.
> 
> After trying to make it work for a while I concluded that maybe the
> micro bevel I had put on it was too steep so I went back to the belt
> sander.  I increased the clearance angle a little more and ground out
> the micro bevel I had put in.  This time I checked the relief angle
> against the Kelly blade and they looked to be about the same.
> 
> The blade was pretty sharp coming off the 220 grit belt sander.  It
> seemed to be similar to the sharpness of the Kelly.  I started swapping
> the blades back and forth.  I determined that both blades worked the
> same in the Kelly body and they both worked poorly in the MF body.
> 
> snip..
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Bill W.
> Woodworkers visit me at:
> http://Highland_House.tripod.com
> 
> > Hi Bill -
> > 
> >         My history with cigar shaves: I needed to smooth some tight inside
> > curves, and sprung some pretty big bucks for a MF #1 in good shape. It
> > also has the flat filed into the body (although only on one side).
> 
> Like
> > you, I got it good and sharp, but couldn't get it to work. I
> > subsequently bought a Kelly shave -- which I also haven't been able to
> > get working, at least not in the sense of a conventional shave, with
> > precise, controlled shavings. Best I've managed is a kind of
> > semi-controlled carving.
>
> 
> >  With blade positioned over the body, the mouth is something in the
> > one-thirty-second-inch range -- far too big for a controlled cut.
> 
> With
> > it set over thin air, and rotating the tool so the edge just grazes the
> > work, I can get that semi-carving effect. Since tight inside curves
> > inevitably involve end-grain, I'm always working in end-grain, and I
> > wouldn't describe what's happening as shaving. Am I missing something
> > you've discovered, or is this just as good as it gets?
> >   snip
> 
>   Ted
> >
> > Bill Webber wrote:
> > >
> > > G++,
> > >
> > > snip
-- 
Bill W.
Woodworkers visit me at:
http://Highland_House.tripod.com

Sorry... slop = slope... and the spell checker don't know the
difference!

-- 
Bill W.
Woodworkers visit me at:
http://Highland_House.tripod.com

From looking at the KTW sharpening info, it looks to me as if the
microbevel is on the inside. The line at the bottom of the blade is
straight, the other edge breaks.

I've got a fresh copy as sent by Joel at Tools for Working Wood, but not
posted anywhere, so here's Gunterman's kinda fuzzy copy.

http://www.shavings.net/images/C_ShaveSM.gif

Bill Webber wrote about a conversation with Ted over cigars


>   I then used scary sharp to put a micro bevel on the outside and
>   flatten the inside.
> >

--
Kirk Eppler in cloudy Half Moon Bay, CA, where my MF blade has both
slop and slope

Eppler.Kirk@g...

So far as I can tell, it's the angle of the dangle.
  You have to get that bevel just right. It's got to be as low as it 
goes without totally losing it's strength. Pretty tricky and that's a 
fact. But it's possible. I had a Miller's cutting plenty well enough a 
few times and yes, the body had a flat milled like they all do.
 Keep piddling.  It's kind of like the Limbo, how low can you go before 
she starts to break up?
 yours, Scott

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

Bill Webber wrote (in part):

>The question in my  mind, remains, should the bevel on the body of the
>shave (body bevel) have a slope to it?  Don McConnell (and others) sent
>info from the original patent.  The description sounded like it might
>indicate a slope to the body bevel, but the sketches were not detailed
>enough for me to tell. 
>
>...
>
>With the blade installed, and as you move the blade forward to close the
>mouth, the back of the bevel on the blade contacts the body bevel, you
>essentially have no mouth clearance, but there is considerable space
>between the leading edge of the blade and the flat body bevel.  If you
>try to use it, it simply jams.
>http://users.erols.com/hihouse/0305-009.jpg
>
>If the body bevel had a slope down and towards the mouth, then you could
>move the blade up over the body bevel to adjust the mouth opening like
>this:
>http://users.erols.com/hihouse/0305-012.jpg
>
>...
>Any way the question remains: Is the body bevel on my MF #1 manufactured
>correctly and if so, how do you make the dang thing work?

Upon reading Bill's message and looking at his photos I decided to
take a closer look at the cross-section portion of the patent
drawings. Magnified four times at fairly high resolution, it appears
that the face bevel is angled so that there is a reasonable shaving
aperture ("mouth") as the cutting edge sits above the internal arris of
the bevel. It would appear that the intent was for the shaving aperture
to close as the blade, and cutting edge, is rotated toward the outside
arris of the bevel.

Though, since the blade is rotating through an arc and the face bevel
is flat, the shaving aperture would actually open up for the first
portion of the rotation. Then begin to close as the rotation continues.

Based on that, *theoretically*, it would appear that a slow arc to
the face bevel would provide a more uniform closing of the shaving
aperture as the blade rotates toward the outer arris. To repeat,
theoretically.

If I understand Bill's description and photos accurately, it would
seem that the face bevel on his shave is incorrectly manufactured.

This discussion has caused me to also take another look at my
Kelly reproduction circular shave. I have been able to make it work,
but have never been quite satisfied with it. What I'm now noticing,
is that the inside arc of the cutter is *slightly* slower than the
arc of the body of the shave.

The result of this is that the cutter is tight to the body where the
screws are holding it down, but there is a very small gap between
the cutter and the body at the edges. Including the cutting edge. I
haven't attempted to correct this, yet, but mention it in case Ted's
difficulties may be arising from the same source.

Don McConnell
Knox County, Ohio

Count me in as another owner of a MF #1 that doesn't work well. I bought
it from someone on the Porch (Sandy, IIRC) about 3 years ago. I SS'd the
blade, but no amount of adjustment can make the blasted thing work. Pretty
much any other spokeshave I own works better. But of course, none of them
can cut a really concave edge like the MF shave is supposed to do.

It sounds like Tim Kelly's repro cigar shave works very well for those who
have bought one. How much do they go for? I just found a 1998 FWW at work
that has one of his ads, and the cigar shave is listed at $39.95. That
seems like a bargain to me, although I'm sure he's upped the price a bit
in 5 years.

Don McConnell wrote:
> 
> Upon reading Bill's message and looking at his photos I decided to
> take a closer look at the cross-section portion of the patent
> drawings. Magnified four times at fairly high resolution, it appears
> that the face bevel is angled so that there is a reasonable shaving
> aperture ("mouth") as the cutting edge sits above the internal arris of
> the bevel. It would appear that the intent was for the shaving aperture
> to close as the blade, and cutting edge, is rotated toward the outside
> arris of the bevel.
> 
> Though, since the blade is rotating through an arc and the face bevel
> is flat, the shaving aperture would actually open up for the first
> portion of the rotation. Then begin to close as the rotation continues.

True, but the actual shaving clearance is still a function of the
distance between the inside of the blade and the leading edge of the
body bevel.  If there is no slope there will appear to be clearance when
the cutting edge is in the middle of the body bevel, but there won't be
enough clearance to eject the shaving behind.  Do you agree?

Others have commented that the key to the operation of this shave is to
minimize the size of the bevel on the inside of the blade.  I agree with
this.  From my earlier post you will note I got really turned around
when at first I put a micro bevel on the outside of the blade.  

I have no idea why I thought this would be an exceptional tool, but I
did.  I'm thinking now I should just adjust my expectations.  People
complain about poor quality in hand planes.  IMHO, hand plane problems
don't have anywhere near the number of problem variations as spoke
shaves.  Spoke shave design seems to vary from 'simply cannot work' to
incredibly silky smooth hanging shavings.
> 
> Based on that, *theoretically*, it would appear that a slow arc to
> the face bevel would provide a more uniform closing of the shaving
> aperture as the blade rotates toward the outer arris. To repeat,
> theoretically.
> 
> If I understand Bill's description and photos accurately, it would
> seem that the face bevel on his shave is incorrectly manufactured.
> 
> This discussion has caused me to also take another look at my
> Kelly reproduction circular shave. I have been able to make it work,
> but have never been quite satisfied with it. What I'm now noticing,
> is that the inside arc of the cutter is *slightly* slower than the
> arc of the body of the shave.
> 
> The result of this is that the cutter is tight to the body where the
> screws are holding it down, but there is a very small gap between
> the cutter and the body at the edges. Including the cutting edge. I
> haven't attempted to correct this, yet, but mention it in case Ted's
> difficulties may be arising from the same source.
> 
> Don McConnell
> Knox County, Ohio
> 
> Archive: http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/archive/
> To unsubscribe or change options, use the web interface:
>     http://galoots.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=oldtools

-- 
Bill W.
Woodworkers visit me at:
http://Highland_House.tripod.com

Kirk Eppler wrote:

> 
> But while we're on the subject, how many of you have 4 screw holes vs 2 screw
> holes for blade attachment?  Any idea when this occurred?

Two holes only on my MF.

-- 
Ted Stevenson
Bethel Connecticut
e.stevenson@s...

Steve Noe wrote:



> I have no problems getting the Kelly Tools shave to work; it works so easily
> that I really don't have any advice, except maybe to ease up and let the
> tool do the work.

I like the sound of that, Steve. But let me ask, are you talking about
working inside curves that involve endgrain as well as straight grain?
Both my tools make lovely shavings on flat or gently curved edges, but
if I try to work anything that crosses the grain, I find myself carving,
not shaving.

Ted Stevenson
Bethel Connecticut
e.stevenson@s...

Kelly Cox wrote:


 
> It sounds like Tim Kelly's repro cigar shave works very well for those who
> have bought one.

Well, not in my case, FWIW.

> How much do they go for? I just found a 1998 FWW at work
> that has one of his ads, and the cigar shave is listed at $39.95. That
> seems like a bargain to me, although I'm sure he's upped the price a bit
> in 5 years.

You bet he has ;-) The price is now double that. (Available through
Highland Hardware and/or Museum of WW Tools.)

-- 
Ted Stevenson
Bethel Connecticut
e.stevenson@s...

on 5/14/03 1:29 PM, Ted Stevenson at e.stevenson@s... wrote:

> 
> 
> Steve Noe wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> I have no problems getting the Kelly Tools shave to work; it works so easily
>> that I really don't have any advice, except maybe to ease up and let the
>> tool do the work.
> 
> I like the sound of that, Steve. But let me ask, are you talking about
> working inside curves that involve endgrain as well as straight grain?
> Both my tools make lovely shavings on flat or gently curved edges, but
> if I try to work anything that crosses the grain, I find myself carving,
> not shaving.

My KTW shave isn't my first (or second!) choice for straight grain.  I use
either a traditional woodie or the LV aluminum (aluminium, Jeff) low angle
version for that.  The cigar works best for those inside curves.

You might wish to double check that you are always working "downhill" on the
grain.  I know that when I mess up - which is quite regularly, just ask
SWMBO - it's because I lost track of which way the grain is heading.

Steve Noe, in Indianapolis
fusilier@m...
"I know no class of my fellowmen, however
just, enlightened, and humane,
which can be wisely and safely trusted
absolutely with the liberties of any other class."
 --Fredrick Douglass

Thanks, Scott. You give me hope. I REALLY want these tools to work,
'cause I like to use the kinds of curves I figgered they'd be good for .
. . and nothing else is.
	Ted

scott grandstaff wrote:
> 
> So far as I can tell, it's the angle of the dangle.
>   You have to get that bevel just right. It's got to be as low as it
> goes without totally losing it's strength. Pretty tricky and that's a
> fact. But it's possible. I had a Miller's cutting plenty well enough a
> few times and yes, the body had a flat milled like they all do.
>  Keep piddling.  It's kind of like the Limbo, how low can you go before
> she starts to break up?
>  yours, Scott
> 
> *******************************
>    Scott Grandstaff
>    Box 409 Happy Camp, Ca  96039
>    scottg@s...
>    http://www.snowcrest.net/kitty/hpages/index.html
> 
> Archive: http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/archive/
> To unsubscribe or change options, use the web interface:
>     http://galoots.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=oldtools

-- 
Ted Stevenson
Bethel Connecticut
e.stevenson@s...

GG,

I have not been following this thread until now but I have both the MF #1
and Kelly's cigar shave and  neither worked very well until I filed off the
back of the blade.  The back of the blade is actually the sole and if the
angle is too high, the back prevents the edge from contacting the wood. Try
filing some off, then set the blade so your finger drags the edge (don't
look at it, just feel for the edge) and then try it.  If the edge is still
not contacting the wood, file some more off.  Both of mine now produce great
shavings, especially on inside curves.  This may be obvious but for these
inside curved surfaces, it is best to rotate the shave as you pull or push
(whatever your preference).

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Paul A. Coppinger

> Bill Webber wrote (in part):
> 
>>The question in my  mind, remains, should the bevel on the body of the
>>shave (body bevel) have a slope to it?  Don McConnell (and others) sent
>>info from the original patent.  The description sounded like it might
>>indicate a slope to the body bevel, but the sketches were not detailed
>>enough for me to tell.
>>
>>...
>>
>>With the blade installed, and as you move the blade forward to close the
>>mouth, the back of the bevel on the blade contacts the body bevel, you
>>essentially have no mouth clearance, but there is considerable space
>>between the leading edge of the blade and the flat body bevel.  If you
>>try to use it, it simply jams.
>>http://users.erols.com/hihouse/0305-009.jpg
>>
>>If the body bevel had a slope down and towards the mouth, then you could
>>move the blade up over the body bevel to adjust the mouth opening like
>>this:
>>http://users.erols.com/hihouse/0305-012.jpg
>>
>>...
>>Any way the question remains: Is the body bevel on my MF #1 manufactured
>>correctly and if so, how do you make the dang thing work?

    I just checked to make sure my MF cigar was working.  I honed the
blade when I got it a few years back, and it has worked fine since.  I
have it set similar to Bill's first image referenced above.  That is,
the blade sits a hair away from the body bevel and forms a small
mouth. When I sight along the body bevel towards the blade it appears
that the blade sits a smidge above the bevel.  This orientation is
important because the body bevel is effectively the sole, and the
blade must project out from it somewhat to give blade depth.  I don't
know how important it is, but my body bevel appears to be original and
it has a distinct hollow grind to it. It is hard to tell but the image
of yours appears that the bevel may have been filed flat.

   I see differences in our blades as well.  Mine flares out from the
hold down screw and sits fairly wider than the body bevel.
Contrastly, yours appears to taper in from the screw and just barely
sits farther out than the edge of the body bevel.  Otherwise,  the
bevel on my blade appears flat, but it feels SLIGHTLY hollow.  There
is no back bevel.  I wish I could give you more science on how to get
yours to work, rather than some antecdotal information.  But I'm just
a hamfisted handtooler who was lucky enough to get one in working
order.

Regards,
Steve

Kirk Eppler wrote:
>But while we're on the subject, how many of you have 4 screw holes vs 2 screw
>holes for blade attachment?  Any idea when this occurred?

I'm glad you asked this; I have two (one 2-holed, one 4-holed) and 
always assumed I was missing a part or something.

However, looking it them, my guess is that the 4-holded one
is older.  I'm just guessing here, but the logo on the 2-holded
shave is a staightforward Millers Falls logo, while on the 4-holded
it is much smaller print and says:
  M. F. Co. Millers Falls, Mass.
     Pat Feb 9 1884   
[Some of the letters/digits here are guesses.]

Also, the 4-holded just looks older (although that's hardly 
a reliable criterion).

Also concerning the discussion of the "originality" of body-bevels:  
Does anyone have a MF1 that _doesn't_ have the body-bevel?
(Both of mine do.)

One other question:  Bill said that only one of his handles
would come off.  Curiously, I notice that I, too, can only 
get one handle to come off each of mine.  Are both handles
supposed to come off?

Nichael
Who is very grateful for this discussion.  And who's never
got either of his MF1 to work either; but following this 
discussion is planning to spend a good chunk of this weekend 
in the basement regrinding and trying.  

Nichael noted: 

> However, looking it them, my guess is that the 4-holded one
> is older.  I'm just guessing here, but the logo on the 2-holded
> shave is a staightforward Millers Falls logo, while on the 4-holded
> it is much smaller print and says:
>   M. F. Co. Millers Falls, Mass.
>      Pat Feb 9 1884   

another data point: 

My 2 holer has the same logo as Nichael's 4 holer above
and the date is  Feb19, not 9.

JN in NH

Hey All you cigar aficionados

I just threw up (and it looks like it) some photos of my cigar shave,
using the really klutzy web page creator my ISP gives me.  Not real
pretty, as I'm still reshaping the bevel to lengthen the bevel.

Mine is a 4 hole, patented as listed below, both handles unscrewing
normally shave

I've included a photo of what I think the 2nd set of holes is for.

http://pageproducer.arczip.com/zooch426e/CigarShave.html

John North wrote:

> Nichael noted:
>
> >   M. F. Co. Millers Falls, Mass.
> >      Pat Feb 9 1884
>
> another data point:
>
> My 2 holer has the same logo as Nichael's 4 holer above
> and the date is  Feb19, not 9.
>

-- 
Kirk Eppler enjoying a sunny day in Half Moon Bay, CA
Eppler.Kirk@g...

Nice page, Kirk. That's real yeoman work there.

Since this question came up, I've been intending to get my Millers Falls
catalog and get some documentation. Sloth and poor memory have prevented
that. The four hole shave is not a No. 1 but the No. 2 model. The
reversible blade is similar to a Conover patent spokeshave (US468239)
which allows for moving the blade to different mouths to get different
shaped soles. I'll leave it up those with authoritative resources to
provide the timeline on when the No. 1 and No. 2 were developed.

Regards, Steve

-------Original Message------- From: Kirk Eppler 

I just threw up (and it looks like it) some photos of my cigar shave,
using the really klutzy web page creator my ISP gives me. Not real
pretty, as I'm still reshaping the bevel to lengthen the bevel.

Mine is a 4 hole, patented as listed below, both handles unscrewing
normally shave

I've included a photo of what I think the 2nd set of holes is for.

Bill

Define Slope to the body bevel.

Bill Webber wrote (and I inserted possible answers)

> Unless the photo is deceiving me, I see a distinct slope to the body
> bevel on your shave.

It is flat relative to itself, and about 1/4" wide.  At its highest point,
the curve of the body is 1/32" taller than the bevel.  When I've used it, I
try to get this surface (right above patent logo in the top view) to lay
flat on the wood.  When I'm using the "normal" cutting edge (2nd view),
I've got a small gap between the bevel and the tip of the blade, about
1/32".  The bevel of the blade rises up from the bevel of the body, giving
clearance under the blade.  In working cuts, the blade tip sits slightly
below the bevel of the body, giving the cutting edge (currently about 1/2
the thickness of my pocket size SS ruler.

I'm hoping to create a sketch of what I think the configuration is, and
post it later this week in the links section of this page

> Additionally, if the four holer is intended for use as you have shown,
> then you have the configurations of the standard MF shave plus the
> configuration for the Kelly shave build into the one tool.  Does one
> configuration work best?
>

I've yet to make the Kelly method work.  I've tried when the blade was
sharp, and was unsuccessful.

>
> Kirk Eppler wrote:
> > I just threw up (and it looks like it) some photos of my cigar shave,
> >
> > http://pageproducer.arczip.com/zooch426e/CigarShave.html
>

Kirk Eppler, Half Moon Bay, CA
Eppler.Kirk@g...

Thanks Kirk.  Unless the photo is deceiving me, I see a distinct slope
to the body bevel on your shave.  Additionally, if the four holer is
intended for use as you have shown, then you have the configurations of
the standard MF shave plus the configuration for the Kelly shave build
into the one tool.  Does one configuration work best?

Regards,
-- 
Bill W.
Woodworkers visit me at:
http://Highland_House.tripod.com

Kirk Eppler wrote:
> 
> Hey All you cigar aficionados
> 
> I just threw up (and it looks like it) some photos of my cigar shave,
> using the really klutzy web page creator my ISP gives me.  Not real
> pretty, as I'm still reshaping the bevel to lengthen the bevel.
> 
> Mine is a 4 hole, patented as listed below, both handles unscrewing
> normally shave
> 
> I've included a photo of what I think the 2nd set of holes is for.
> 
> http://pageproducer.arczip.com/zooch426e/CigarShave.html
>

Eureka!!

Kirk Eppler wrote:
> 
> Bill
> 
> Define Slope to the body bevel.
> 
> Bill Webber wrote (and I inserted possible answers)
> 
> > Unless the photo is deceiving me, I see a distinct slope to the body
> > bevel on your shave.
> 
> It is flat relative to itself, and about 1/4" wide.  At its highest point,
> the curve of the body is 1/32" taller than the bevel.  
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is what we were looking for... !!

Compare the picture of the body bevel on mine
http://users.erols.com/hihouse/0305-008.jpg
with the picture you posted.

Yours appears to have a definite slope from the round body, down to
(towards) the mouth of the tool.  Thus the mouth gets smaller as the
blade is slid over the bevel.

On mine there is no slope.  Thus moving the blade over the leading edge
of the bevel effectively closes the mouth completely.  Moving it further
along the bevel will not accomplish anything.

Thanks for the picture, btw.

When I've used it, I
> try to get this surface (right above patent logo in the top view) to lay
> flat on the wood.  When I'm using the "normal" cutting edge (2nd view),
> I've got a small gap between the bevel and the tip of the blade, about
> 1/32".  The bevel of the blade rises up from the bevel of the body, giving
> clearance under the blade.  In working cuts, the blade tip sits slightly
> below the bevel of the body, giving the cutting edge (currently about 1/2
> the thickness of my pocket size SS ruler.
> 
> I'm hoping to create a sketch of what I think the configuration is, and
> post it later this week in the links section of this page
> 
> > Additionally, if the four holer is intended for use as you have shown,
> > then you have the configurations of the standard MF shave plus the
> > configuration for the Kelly shave build into the one tool.  Does one
> > configuration work best?
> >
> 
> I've yet to make the Kelly method work.  I've tried when the blade was
> sharp, and was unsuccessful.
> 
> >
> > Kirk Eppler wrote:
> > > I just threw up (and it looks like it) some photos of my cigar shave,
> > >
> > > http://pageproducer.arczip.com/zooch426e/CigarShave.html
> >
> 
> Kirk Eppler, Half Moon Bay, CA
> Eppler.Kirk@g...
> 
> Archive: http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/archive/
> To unsubscribe or change options, use the web interface:
>     http://galoots.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=oldtools

-- 
Bill W.
Woodworkers visit me at:
http://Highland_House.tripod.com

Hi, Steve et al.
	Sorry, but the MF No. 2 is an entirely different tool. It has a
removable shoe that can be put in four ways to give differently contoured
bottoms. They are much rarer than the No. 1's. I have one that I use and
one that is missing its sole. Someday I hope to find a sole, or I may end
up casting or filing a new one. 
	Trevor

Trevor Robinson wrote:
>	Sorry, but the MF No. 2 is an entirely different tool. It has a
>removable shoe that can be put in four ways to give differently contoured
>bottoms. They are much rarer than the No. 1's. I have one that I use and
>one that is missing its sole. Someday I hope to find a sole, or I may end
>up casting or filing a new one.

Aha, so I was right; I _am_ missing a part.

Oh well, it's not too bad; at least in this case the shave simply
reduces to a fully functioning MF#1, as opposed to become YOMIBUPOI
[Yet One More Interesting But Useless Piece of Iron].

Another entry in the ever growing list of Famous Missing Oltool
Parts.

N

Nichael Cramer wrote:
>Trevor Robinson wrote:
>>	Sorry, but the MF No. 2 is an entirely different tool. It has a
>>removable shoe that can be put in four ways to give differently contoured
>>bottoms.  [...]
>Oh well, it's not too bad; at least in this case the shave simply
>reduces to a fully functioning MF#1, as opposed to become YOMIBUPOI
>[Yet One More Interesting But Useless Piece of Iron].

GG

Bill Webber kindly pointed out to me off-line that I apparently
mis-parsed Trevor's note:  I assumed that he was saying that the
4-holded MF#1 was actually a MF#2 with a missing fence.  Whereas 
his point actually was that the 4H-#1 and the #2 are completely 
different tools.

(And, thanks to an image that Bill pointed me to, I now know
that one of those mysterious pieces of metal that I picked up
as part of an auction-lot a while back is actually about 40% of
a MF#2.  Learn something every day....)

N

GG's

The MF No. 2 is actually covered under Lanfair's patent, 508,427 which
according to DAT spelled the demise of Conover's patent, 468239.

Lanfair assigned his patent to the Miller's Falls Co.

The concept is the same but Conover moved the blade to the corresponding
show whereas Lanfair moves the shoe.

Kirks MF No 1 is of course very interesting in that it uses Conover's patent
but it is not marked on the tool, and his patent was essentially rendered 
obsolete
by a similar patent MF owned a year and a half later. DAT indicates the 
Conover's
shave was called "The Champion" but the maker is unknown.

Best,
Brian

At 06:59 AM 5/21/2003 -0400, Trevor Robinson wrote:
>Hi, Steve et al.
>         Sorry, but the MF No. 2 is an entirely different tool. It has a
>removable shoe that can be put in four ways to give differently contoured
>bottoms.

GG's

The MF No. 2 is actually covered under Lanfair's patent, 508,427 which
according to DAT spelled the demise of Conover's patent, 468239.

Lanfair assigned his patent to the Miller's Falls Co.  While the concept
is the same of having different soles/shoes for the spokeshave, Conover
moved the blade whereas Lanfair moves the shoe.

Kirks MF No 1 is of course very interesting in that it appears to use 
Conover's
patent but it is not marked on the tool, and his patent was essentially
rendered obsolete by a similar patent MF owned a year and a half later.
DAT indicates the Conover's shave was called "The Champion" but the
maker is unknown.

Best,
Brian

At 06:59 AM 5/21/2003 -0400, Trevor Robinson wrote:
>Hi, Steve et al.
>         Sorry, but the MF No. 2 is an entirely different tool. It has a
>removable shoe that can be put in four ways to give differently contoured
>bottoms.

Some of us are just a little slow...

I followed this discussion with great interest
last month on the problems with tuning a Millers
Falls number 1 spokeshave.  I have one that I
had sharpened, and I'd made some shavings with
it, but never *really* used it.  Today I was
working on a frame saw, and I thought that MF #1
would do the trick on some curvy bits.

Well, the only way I'd gotten this thing to take
shavings before was by opening the mouth about 
3/8".  I took heed of some of the advice I'd 
overheard on the Porch, here, and started grinding
the bevel of the blade.  I removed metal from the
heel of the blade so that there would be a more
acute angle at the edge.  I tried to avoid taking
away any metal right at the edge, just trying
to grind a sharper bevel so the heel of the blade
would sit lower.  The more acute I made the angle,
the more I could close up the mouth and still take
a shaving.  Once I got it to about 1/16", I left
it.  Works MUCH better now.

I can understand how uneducated users of these would
grind steeper bevels on them if they didn't know
any better.  It takes some work to grind it correctly.
This is probably why there are lots of old ones out
there that "don't work very well."

By the way, mine has a patent date of Feb 19, 1884.
It has four screw holes, a shallow bevel about 1/16" 
wide inside the mouth, and both handles screw on 
clockwise.

Now what was it I was going to use it for?

Ted