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