Wood Chisel Survey for Beginners

Survey Part II

Bob Smalser, Seabeck, WA

>

Sash Mortise Chisel: Medium length mortise chisel for bench use, generally with unhooped handles. �Sash� comes from window factories, and there is some confusion describing medium length and long length mortise chisels as factories generally used the longer chisels but the medium ones are often called �sash� chisels.

German Pattern Mortise Chisel: My term for them as they don�t fit other descriptors. Heavy, untapered blades and hooped, tang handles.

Millwright or Factory Mortise Chisel: Very long, very heavy mortise chisel designed for heavy striking with heavy, hooped handles. Many were 16� long and often made by manufacturers like New Haven Edge Tool who specialized in large chisels. Always with hooped, socket handles. Usually mislabeled as �socket framers��timber frame structures and large-scale ship joinery used mortises much, much larger than the 1/8� through 7/8� these came in.

Slick: A large, very heavy 2-4� framing chisel with long handle up to 24� designed for paring large timbers with 20-25 degree bevels. Never struck. Always with socket handles. These and the heavier framing chisels are dangerous and should have protective edge covers made.

Buying old chisels, you can expect to see many combinations, as handles are interchangeable and chisels are often converted to other uses as they wear. The butt socket chisel in the top left picture was originally a well-worn DR Barton firmer I converted, and the skew parers below were originally socket bench chisels of many flavors:

I live in shipyard country, with a number of platform frame, timber frame and log home outfits thrown in, and many of us in the wood business trade work. I�ve a couple dozen tradesmen friends who don�t use computers I do favors for, including buying Ebay tools, and I�ve probably bought and rehabbed or passed on as-is 150 or so old socket chisels during the past year to make up sets of every type, including lathe tools. I�m largely done with that now, except for rehabbing and selling off a few leftovers, so I�ll pass on what I�ve learned, as I�d rather see these inexpensive old classics in the hands of a youngster who�ll use them instead of on some collector�s shelf.

From my observations, anything marked "Stanley", "Witherby", "Winchester", "Chas Buck" or "White" is going to a collector for too high a price....along with some Swan's. Older Greenlee, older (not newer) Buck, New Haven Edge, Ohio Tool, DR Barton, Underhill, Union Hardware, GI Mix, Shapleigh Hardware, Eric Anton Berg, Dickerson, Gillespie, Dixon, PS&W or PEXTO, Robt Duke, Merrill, Butcher, Hibbard OVB, Simmons Keen Kutter, Lakeside and several other old makers are every bit as good as the collector prizes and are much less expensive. Most unmarked chisels of that era were usually made by one of the above makers for some hardware store and are also generally excellent.

The only really poor socket chisels I've observed buying are newer Craftsman (older socket Craftsman were made by Greenlee) of too-thick, modern, gummy, shiny chrome-vanadium steel...and some "Eclipse" brand and Stanley Defiance that won't take an edge.

The bad news in making up sets for yourself is that used tool dealers rarely understand any of the above and you have to look at each and every listing in detail. The good news is because of that ignorance and the minimum number of name brands collected, all of the others, including many of the rarer types are dirt cheap. Your time between 6pm and 7am isn�t generally worth much�.buy them in lots, rehab them and make sets, then sell off the excess and there�s no reason with patience and time you can�t have complete sets of every flavor chisel out there for practically nothing.

Pictures other than mine are from Harry Miller, Lee Valley and Highland Hardware.

Another excellent synopsis, Thanks Bob!

A.J. Byrd

>

OK, ...

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>.. how does one differentiate between a sash mortise chisel and a firmer chisel?

Re: OK, ...

Bob Smalser, Seabeck, WA

>Seems we had this discussion recently somewhere because I made this pic for it.

Look at the side profiles designed for heavier fore-and-aft chopping leverage.

Mortise chisels...and these are longer "millwright" mortise chisels as opposed to lighter "sash" mortise chisels here...are stronger through their depth than the "firmer" chisels of the same size along side them, although in the really narrow widths like 1/8" there is little or no difference.

Also....

Bob Smalser, Seabeck, WA

>...check out these:

Each one of these midlabled listings has a millwright mortise chisel in them either went or will go for much, much less than it's worth:

There's one in here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6129682385

Here's another:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...me=STRK:MEWA:IT

And another:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...me=STRK:MEWA:IT

They're out there cheap once you learn what to look for.

Re: internet etiquette

paul womack

>Bob; while I love the info you're so frequently generous in sharing, you seem to be committing "bandwidth theft" to get the illustrations. This is considered pretty bad form, There may well be copyright issues too.

helpful article

BugBear

Very helpful, Paul

Wiley Horne--Glendora CA

>Thank you. Now I have to go find that guy I 'stole bandwidth' from coupla weeks ago, out of ignorance, and repay him.

Wiley

Re: internet etiquette

joel

>I don't know about this. Copying an image from another site is most definitely a copyright infringment. Linking to it is not. As for bandwidth - once you host something out on the internet you are defacto saying to people look at this as much as you like. The idea that linking to a picture is any more a bandwidth theft than is linking to a page - doesn't hold water in my book. from a search engine standpoint I think both help the listing of the original page.

The only issue in my mind is one of credit. It's always good policy to say where the picture came from. In Bob's case he did at the end of the post. You could argue that the credits should be closer to the picture (and I would) but certainly

I would much rather he link to pictures than copy them, are just give a url where someone can look at a picture (even more bandwidth would be used) or not have any illustrations.

If Bob decided to host is own pages I think he should either get all his own pictures or do a little better crediting of the pictures he links to.

Re: internet etiquette

Peter L Berglund in Denver

>What's wrong with copying the picture to your own server and clearly crediting the owner? It's the same as verbatim quoting of written material...

Better Taken Offline

David Linnabary

>Maybe a more thoughtful place to discuss the manner of Bob's contribution would be offline with him directly.

Bob, thank you for all of your hardwork. I found your contribution very interesting and well written. I would very much like to see it in the Articles section.

David Linnabary

Sunbury, Ohio

Re: internet etiquette

joel

>The law allows quoting for the purposes of review. but if you copied an entire page it would be a copyright violation. with photography any copying is a violation. You might get away with it in the case of a review but not in the case of using it in your own page even if you credit the image. You need written permission.

Point taken...but...

Bob Smalser, Seabeck, WA

>As I don't own all those types, I'll just have to be less thorough next time,because copying them from Ebay or other "public" sources is still fraught with the same ethical dilemma.

If I were selling this material, I certainly wouldn't do it. But answering a youngster's question in a thorough manner advances the craft...and anything that advances the craft is a long-term boon to retailers, even if my specific advice works against them in the short term.

If Highland or Lee Valley were to express even the slightest displeasure at me featuring their wares in a positive manner, I'd cease, desist, and offer mea cuplas. The other owner I have written permission from.

Re: Point taken...but...

Ellis Walentine

>I think there is indeed an issue with copyrights and there's no doubt that by linking to another's server you are coopting his/her bandwidth. That can be a problem if the number of downloads gets extreme. In this case, I suspect that the companies involved are happy to have their wares displayed in a thoughtful article. It would still be more correct to request permission before including their images in your article.

Stay tuned on this, as I have placed a couple inquiries. Remember, it is WoodCentral, not Bob Smalser, who is the publisher of these images, and technically it is I who is responsible for the correct permissions, attributions and (horrors) liability for infractions.

Ellis Walentine

Re: Point taken...but...

Bob Smalser, Seabeck, WA

>Thanks Ellis....I'll abide by your wishes.

Re: Point taken...but...

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>I suspect you could copy or link any of the pictures without legal danger.

Fair use would probably allow for all these things if Bob isn't using them for a commercial, but educational purpose.

The best source of info on legal fair use is here... Just note that fair use is not a black and white area, but many shades of grey.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

Cheers,

Greg

A few selected quotes...

Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials forpurposes of commentary and criticism. For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist's work without asking permission. Absent this freedom, copyright owners could stifle any negative comments about their work.

Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or arbitration. If it's not a fair use, then you are infringing upon the rights of the copyright owner and may be liable for damages.

The only guidance is provided by a set of fair use factors outlined in the copyright law. These factors are weighed in each case to determine whether a use qualifies as a fair use. For example, one important factor is whether your use will deprive the copyright owner of income. Unfortunately, weighing the fair use factors is often quite subjective. For this reason, the fair use road map is often tricky to navigate.

This chapter explains the various rules behind the fair use principle. To help you get a feel for which uses courts consider to be fair uses and which ones they don't, we provide several examples of fair use lawsuits at the end of this chapter.

For educational fair use guidelines, see Chapter 7, which deals with academic permissions.

...

1. The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use

In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being a primary indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new, or merely copied verbatim into another work. When taking portions of copyrighted work, ask yourself the following questions:

* Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?

* Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?

In a parody, for example, the parodist transforms the original by holding it up to ridicule. Purposes such as scholarship, research or education may also qualify as transformative uses because the work is the subject of review or commentary.

EXAMPLE: Roger borrows several quotes from the speech given by the CEO of a logging company. Roger prints these quotes under photos of old-growth redwoods in his environmental newsletter. By juxtaposing the quotes with the photos of endangered trees, Roger has transformed the remarks from their original purpose and used them to create a new insight. The copying would probably be permitted as a fair use.

2. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work

Because the dissemination of facts or information benefits the public, you have more leeway to copy from factual works such as biographies than you do from fictional works such as plays or novels.

In addition, you will have a stronger case of fair use if the material copied is from a published work than an unpublished work. The scope of fair use is narrower for unpublished works because an author has the right to control the first public appearance of his expression.

3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken

The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work, your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the "heart" of the work. In other words, you are more likely to run into problems if you take the most memorable aspect of a work. For example, it would not probably not be a fair use to copy the opening guitar riff and the words "I can't get no satisfaction" from the song, "Satisfaction."

This rule--less is more--is not necessarily true in parody cases. In a parody, the parodist is borrowing in order to comment upon the original work. A parodist is permitted to borrow quite a bit, even the heart of the original work, in order to conjure up the original work. That's because, as the Supreme Court has acknowledged, "the heart is also what most readily conjures up the [original] for parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim. " (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music , 510 U.S. 569 (1994).)

4. The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market

Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work. As we indicated previously, depriving a copyright owner of income is very likely to trigger a lawsuit. This is true even if you are not competing directly with the original work.

For example, in one case an artist used a copyrighted photograph without permission as the basis for wood sculptures, copying all of the elements of the photo. The artist earned several hundred thousand dollars selling the sculptures. When the photographer sued, the artist claimed his sculptures were a fair use because the photographer would never have considered making sculptures. The court disagreed, stating that it did not matter whether the photographer had considered making sculptures; what mattered was that a potential market for sculptures of the photograph existed. ( Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992).)

Re: Point taken...but...OT

Rob Brophy Niagara Falls

>How can the American Supreme Court have anything to say about the World Wide Web? Not all of the sites in question are in the USA...Rob

Re: internet etiquette

Todd Hughes

>I have had on a few occasions had my photos and even descriptions taken from my ebay auctions and used on guys web sites with out ever even telling me or giving me any credit.Guess no big deal but I sort of would like to have been asked befor my work was lifted and since the auctions were still running have them identified in case someone would have liked to bid on them.Once had a friend email me telling me that there was a saw just like mine that I was selling on Ebay on some musical saw page.Not just like mine but WAS mine! These people even made a big thing about saying the saws on thier page were not for sale. Well maybe not by them, eh?... Some like Erik over at the Disstonian have been very careful to ask befor using anything and I think this is the way to go about it......Todd

Hey Greg...

Peter L Berglund in Denver

>Did you get permission to quote that material?

chuckling,

Petre

Re: Hey Greg...

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>*big chuckle*

...mumbles something about fair use...

Cheers,

Greg

Re: Point taken...but...OT

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>Perhaps... I suspect since the material is probably hosted here, US law would apply.

The Berne conventions would further apply, and I think, though I really know very little about WIPO and the Berne convention, etc re: copyright, that the Berne convention would rule at *least* as permissively as the fair use provisions under US law.

I *think* US law on copyright is the least permissible of any first world country on copyright issues.

Point taken, though, that US law might well not apply for materials from other nation states.

Perhaps it's this kind of myopia [the kind I displayed] that often makes USA'ians look like bumbling oafs to the rest of the world...

"Isn't the US the center of the universe?!

Our laws apply everywhere!

You can't do that to me, I'm an 'American.'

We can do what ever we want - we're 'Americans!'"

*grin*

Cheers,

Greg

Re: Point taken...but...OT

Rob Brophy Niagara Falls

>Hey Greg,

You're probably right...I certainly wasn't implying a myopic view, just thinking aloud. I really enjoy the thought of the 'net being something worldwide that brings the planet a little closer together. I've never thought of the web as being American.

Living in a tourist town on the US border we see a lot of that attitude you mentioned, but only from a few loudmouths. The vast majority of tourists I've met have been wonderful people. The only thing that really grates is "How much is that in real money?" or when they get upset because our stores don't price things in USD. Gotta admit we Canadians are usually treated pretty well when we venture south of the border...except for that time we rolled into a campground in upstate Michigan in our old painted peace van during a militia camping weekend!...Rob