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...