pre civil war sharpening

Re: pre civil war sharpening

Thom D

>As far as I know in the US, you have the sandstone wetstones, and the Washita and Arkansas (SP?) type oil stone that are available today, and the lessor local variants. One of Underhill's books has a chapter on where you can find stones today with locations stretching from Maine on south.

Re: pre civil war sharpening

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>I don't know much about the time between 1800 and 1860. For the period before 1800, very little is known about this subject. Thom has it right, tho I'm not sure how much true arkansas was used. The key ingredient is found elsewhere. Grindstones seem to have been pretty common. We know they had proper stones and strops. I've found actually using these materials very different than the theories I've read about them. Watch for a PW article from me on my findings, but I'll let you in on a little secret; Don't sell your tormek yet.

Adam

Re: pre civil war sharpening

Thom D

>Adam! The source is with us.

I'm not sure about the names either, are they just properties of the Smith's brand?

Re: pre civil war sharpening

Joel

>Arkansas stones were commerically avaialbe starting around 1850. First the softer washitas, then the hard translucent and other variations.

before that Turkey stones were imported as were Cherney Forest stones.

However in general the mass of people used what was called honing slates which is any soft slate that is fine and abrasive. At the time there were dozens of regional stones that were avialable commerically in limited quanity.

for grinding Sandstone grinding wheels were used. I don't know if they were mined regionally in the US or there was a major US maker.

Re: pre civil war sharpening

Warren in Lancaster, PA

>I am looking forward to your article, Adam. I have been interested in this subject for over 30 years, but I can't say I know very much. My curiosity is aroused when I see a sign like "Hone Quarry Road" or "Whetstone Inn", but even if we had a well documented quarry we wouldn't know if the best quality had been already taken.

I think the trade in Arknsas stones predates the civil war, but perhaps they weren't widely used until the later in the 19th century. The Queer Creek/Clear Creek stone available today would give you an example of an all purpose American stone. Are you looking to do a demonstration or reenactment?

Re: pre civil war sharpening

Don McConnell

>This is, mostly, to follow up and reenforce Joel's comments, by way of mentioning Volume III of Charles Holtzapffel's _Turning & Mechanical Manipulation_. The subtitle of this volume is "Abrasives & Miscellaneous Processes," first published in 1850, and it contains a great deal of pre-1860 information about a number of abrasive processes used in manufacturing and using a wide variety of edge tools.

Depending on how you want to count them, Holtzapffel briefly describes 14 or 15 different "hone slates" and oil stones. Including white and black Turkey stones, Charnley Forest stones, Ayr (Scotch) stones, and Arkansas stones. The last listing is vague and incomplete, which suggests that the various Arkansas stones were not well known in England in the late 1840's.

There is also a description of honing on oilstones, with a passing reference to using a non-drying oil in the process. While Holtzapffel doesn't spell out a specific oil in this context, we do know that two non-drying oils available at that time were sperm oil and neats-foot oil. He also mentions substituting soap and water for oil, though he clearly prefers the use of oil.

Despite the evidence of older oilstones often encountered, Holtzapffel emphasizes the importance of keeping oilstones flat through distributing the wear as well as periodically flattening on a stone or iron plate in conjunction with loose hard sand or emery.

It is important to note that Holtzapffel discusses the use of oil stones for sharpening after shaping/forming the bevel of the tool on a grindstone. Again, he discusses a variety of sandstone grindstones in use in England in the late 1840's. (Though not mentioned by H., sandstone grindstones were being produced in Berea, Ohio by the 1840's.)

One other thing of possible interest was the "carpenters' rubstone", which was a rectangular piece of "close variety of [sandstone] grindstone," used in lieu of a revolving grindstone when the latter was not available - such as on a temporary jobsite.

There is a wealth of additional information, including, but not limited to buffing, polishing and glazing wheels, as well as a variety of loose abrasives used both in conjunction with these wheels as well as separately.

Don McConnell

Eureka Springs, AR

Re: pre civil war sharpening

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Don,

I think I remember reading a Chronicle article that discussed sandstone being quarried in Nova Scotia. Do you recall it? I know one of the questions I had after reading that article was the extent of variation of sandstone or any other stone regionally.

For example; I don't think all "turkey stone" came from turkey. I suspect 18th c references may have just used the term loosely. But I can't help but wonder whether turkey stone from turkey was different (better?) than "turkey stone" from England. I think Goodman said it was just a generic term for novaculite. But even that seems to vary dramatically from the same quarry!

Anyway, it makes any experiment difficult to validate since its hard to know if they graded all these things and had better versions than those remaining. Its the old theory about the complete Stanley #45. Guys didn't like it so they put it back in the box for safe keeping. I wonder if my old oil stones are like that.

Adam

Sandstone

Warren in Lancaster, PA

>I once did some forestry work in northern Ohio on a property that had an old sandstone quarry. The quarry was abandoned about 1900. In one area you were likely to stumble on old gindstones. I think they were rejects because some were chipped and some were not completely formed. I guess it was easier to make the stones on site than to transport the exra weight. I think this was near Amherst. They still quarry sandstone in that area but most is for buildings. This sandstone was white or creamy colored when fresh. In my local area in Pennsylvania the sandstone is red; occasionally I see a crude grindstone of red sandstone.

Grindstone City *LINK*

Jim Crammond in Monroe, Mi

>There was a recent post on the Oldtools list that included a link for a history of Grindstone City, MI, located in the thumb of Michigan near Lake Huron. From the link, it sounded like they started quarrying stones in the 1830's. Because of the transportation available at the time and the weight and bulk of a grindstone, I would think that they would have been quarried wherever they were found for sale to local people even if they were of low quality. This was most likely true until the Civil War, when railroads had expanded to cover most of the populated U.S.

Jim


Grindstone City, Michigan

Re: Grindstone City

Don McConnell

>If people are interested in the history of sandstone/grindstone quarrying in the U.S., the single most useful reference I'm aware of, is William B. Bond's _Grindstone Country_. First privately published in 1979, it was reprinted (due, in part, I believe, to mentions of the book on oldtools) in 1998, and *may* still be available from the author. Unfortunately, I don't currently have my copy available.

In any event, it has maps showing the various areas in which grindstones were produced, which, in North America, did, indeed, begin in Nova Scotia during the late 17th century, and was eventually superceded by quarrying operations in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The bulk of this activity took place in an area, known to geologists as the Dunkard Basin, which covers about 8000 square miles of western Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. Bond estimates that Ohio quarries likely produced about 90% of the grindstons produced in the United States during the latter half of the 19th century and the early 20th century. He is/was from Marietta, and his interest in the topic was quite natural, as the Marietta area was in the center of much of this activity. The book includes some evocative photos of abandoned grindstone quarries.

He also discusses the composition of sandstone best suited for use in grindstones. As I recall, this was 60 to 65% quartz and 20 to 25% clay. This composition has adequate quartz for aggressively abrading the material being ground, while the clay allows quartz to fall away as it became dulled/worn. At least to some degree.

As to a comparison of Turkey Stones between the 18th and late 19th century, that would be purely speculative on my part. Holtzapffel seems to know very little about their origin and composition, stating, only, "... that it is found in the interior of Asia Minor, and brought down to smyrna for sale." He goes on to say that the white and black varieties are very similar, with the black possibly being somewhat harder and being available in larger pieces. It is clear that, of the various oilstones known to him, H. considered the Turkey Stone to be the premier stone for honing edge tool steel. Incidentally, I took a closer look at his entry after my last post, and Holtzapffel does, indeed, specifically mention sperm oil and neats-foot oil for use with oilstones.

Don McConnell

Eureka Springs, AR

Re: Grindstone City

Joel

>Don,

I certainly agree with you 100% - and of course I should since we are both looking at about the same reference material. But a point should be added. THe major east coast port cities in the US had access to imports and while stones are heavy they were used as ship ballest and I suppose imported as regular cargo also. (Old sythe stones are apparently occasionally washing up on the Jersey Shore from a 19th century as yet unidentified shipwreck)

Certainly a successfull cabinetmaker in a major city would have no problem importing a turkey stone or any of the finer stones available.

but, by the same token a poorer craftsman - or one living where heavy cargo was very expensive to import would have to make do with a smooth stone found locally. Possibly from a regional quarry, of something that he just found.

Norton - Pike - the stone company formed when Pike the stone maker joined with Norton the wheel maker sold oddles of different regional stones. I few years ago at the Littleton factory (near where it all started) I visited the mine where they made Pike sythe stones and not only picked up some pike stone for me at the quarry, but saw a display of at least a dozen different sythe stones, each with different characterists, that were all from different Quarries, under differnt Pike brands - and that's only one company.

THe problem with Arkansas stones is that you need special equipment to cut them flat. the softer honing slates could and were be cut, flattened and sold in a much smaller operation, most of which have dissapeared with no trace. And of course these smaller operation never went national to any large degree so specficially identifying a stone is really hard.

If ADam want to be really authentic what he should do is scout around the fields and streams of where he works and find a nice large, flat stone that is fine in grain and smooth and soft enough to make flat and use. And I'm not being facisious - it seems that that's pretty much what most people did.

Re: pre civil war sharpening

Greg Betit, Vergennes, VT.

>The presence of grinding facilities are credited with making the English towns of Sheffield and Birmingham famous for tool making. (By the sixteenth century local iron deposits were either depleted or so hard to mine that imported iron was cheaper.) Sheffield's proximity to sandstone deposits (and rivers with enough head to drive mills) for grinding wheels is attributed to what made Sheffield one of the most prestigious maker of steel tools.

I learned this from an essay: "The Development of the English Toolmaking Industry during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries" by David Hey (Published in Eighteenth-Century Woodworking Tools, The Colonial Williamsburgh Foundation, 1997)

Re: Grindstone City

Adam Cherubini

>For my experiements I've been using sandstone, what I think is charnley forest, and leather with brick dust from an 18th c brick (and without much success). These are all reasonably documentable to the period. My tools are all cast steel which may or may not be representative. I'm not exactly sure how to identify the properties of shear steel. I think they varied from smith to smith. A good cutler certainly could have developed properties similar to cast steel. I think Don's an expert on this subject. But I think of cast steel more a revolution in manufacturing than revolutionizing tools.

Adam

Re: Grindstone City

Joel

>"For my experiements I've been using sandstone, what I think is charnley forest, and leather with brick dust from an 18th c brick (and without much success)."

Charnley Forest will give you a nice edge - slow cutting of coarse but a nice edge. I still like the idea of poking around.

" These are all reasonably documentable to the period. My tools are all cast steel which may or may not be representative. "

Cast Steel tools start coming in in the later part of the 18th century. But only by import. So the quality of the tool - and whether the steel would be any good would depend on the income of the cabinetmaker. I read somewhere that in digs at Williamsburg they routinely find third rate tools that have been worn out or failed.

Cast Steel would have been inported up to around 1840 or so - practially later. Actually I would bet any steel of any quality would have been imported - BUt I have to check some resources.

joel

Does someone know

Wiley Horne

>whether, prior to Independence, steel-making was even permitted in the colonies?

Wiley

Re: Does someone know *LINK*

Joel

>I'm not sure about steel but iron was a big industry. (see link below) Longpond is IIRC (it's been years since I was there) a pretty big site and pretty important.

Did they also roll steel in the US??? I don't know - certainly individual smiths were capable of making steel in small quanities but I don't know if as an industrial product the output was significant in any way.

my understanding of planemaking in Colonial US was that the bodies were made here using imported irons - but again I am not positive if that's 100 of the cases.


long pond ironworks (1766)

Re: Grindstone City

Warren in Lancaster, PA

>I have gotten a usable edge from fine sandstone, slate and stropping. Both sandstone and slate vary quite a bit. The fellow who gave me the slate said it was selected for fine texture. He is no longer living and I don't know where the slate came from, perhaps Lehigh county, Pa. It is harder and finer than the slate on my roof.

The brick dust doesn't excite me. I think there is too much chance that it has sand or silt that would scratch the tool. I think there were better polishing materials in the 18th century.

I agree that certain steels do better with certain stones, but I think if you had real 18th century stones you would get at least passable results with the cast steel.

Re: Does someone know

Patrick Gibbons, Houston, TX

>Disston was making their own steel prior to the Civil War but refrained from disclosing their product. It seems that foreign steel, particularly British, was preferred by the consumer. Steel making was expensive and, mostly, unpredictable until Bessimer(sp?)perfected his process. But it was the Civil War that brought the need for domestic steel to the point that a quality product recognized as such by the consumer was available. I don't think the American Colonies were forbidden to make steel. I figure it was a cottage industry at best but nothing on a large enough scale to make much of a difference to the world supply.

Partial answer....

Wiley Horne

>Hi Joel,

Thanks for the reference.

I got curious and dug into a book which listed the numerous acts restricting trade by the colonies. The general rules for important commodities were that the colonies were to export raw material (raw cotton, iron, etc) to Great Britain (and only Great Britain in many cases), and were to buy the finished goods (fine cloth, sailcloth, steel, etc.) from Great Britain, or, if the goods came from afar, they had to be transhipped through British ports--offloaded and reloaded. And further restrictions on where the hulls had to be built that carried the goods. And further, the colonies were restricted from shipping enumerated products to each other (e.g., pig iron, tar).

Specifically as to iron/steel..."In 1750, Parliament prohibited the erection of any new mill in the colonies for slitting, rolling, or plating iron or of any new furnace for making steel...", and in 1764, the colonies' sale of iron, lumber, and other commodities was restricted to GB. It should also be mentioned that the colonies also enjoyed preferential tariffs on their exports to GB.

Joel, this is all to reinforce your point that in the early going of America, if there was quality steel, it most likely came from Great Britain.

Wiley

Reference: Origin of the American Revolution, 1759-1766, Knollenberg.

Dateline - Boston: February, 1711

Don McConnell

>With apologies to Michael that this has wandered so far from his original question.

In line with Wiley's characterization of British colonial trade, we have this advertisement from the February 11-18, 1711 _Boston News Letter_:

"To be sold by Messieurs Andrew and Jonathan Belcher, at their Ware-house in Boston, being all of the best make from Sir Ambrose Crowley, Knight and Alderman of the City of London: Viz. Nails from 2d. to 24d.. Brads from 2d. to 6d. Hammers of sundry sorts & sizes. Spring & Stock Locks, Chest ditto, & Padlocks of several sorts. Steel Hand-Saws, & other Joyners & Coopers Tools. Hinges of several sorts. Whipsaws of sundry sizes. ... Steel Spades. Frying-Pans of all sizes. Scythes of the best long sorts. Rubstones and Grindstones of all sizes. Steel in Fagots. Sweeds Iron of all sizes. ... "

Aside from the usual lament that "other Joyners and Coopers Tools" weren't enumerated, this advertisement mentions several items related to this discussion. (Somewhat later Belcher advertisments mention "best New-Castle grindstones from two to six Foot over," axes, smiths anvils, as well as Hand Screws.)

Consistent with Holtzapffel's description of carpenter's rubstones, the rubstones in these advertisements may well be pieces of fine sandstone to be used as relatively coarse whetstones on scythes and other edge tools. Beyond that, I'm afraid they don't shed much light on the importation of slate hones/oilstones at that point in time.

For what it's worth, some decades later, a 1768 Falmouth, VA invoice of English joiner's tools includes:

1 Rubb Stone & Ragg Stone

1 Fine Turkey Oil Stone

I'm not sure what the composition is, but, according to the OED, an 1812 reference states: "Rag stone..is used by artificers, for the purpose of giving a fine edge to knives, chissels, and other tools, which have previously been sharpened upon stones of a coarse texture." It would appear that the Ragg Stone was an intermediate "hone" between the Rubb Stone and the Fine Turkey Oil Stone. In other words, this kit of joiners' tools appears to have three grits of stones for sharpening.

As to the question of what type of steel might be represented by the 1711 "steel in fagots" (bundles), it is almost certainly cementation, or blister, steel. The cementation process was developed by Johann Nussbaum in Nuremberg by 1601. Very briefly, the cementation process consisted of placing alternating layers of wrought iron bars (usually from Sweden) and beech charcoal in chests which were cemented shut, then fired at a red heat for a number of days. Carbon from the charcoal migrated into the iron bars during the firing, and though the carbon content in the resulting blister steel varied somewhat, the process represented a significant advance in being able to control the process of producing steel. The cementation process was patented in England about 1613-7, but successful English production of blister steel didn't commence until about 1635. The earliest documentation of the introduction of the cementation process into the Sheffield area dates to 1699.

Shear steel was developed in the Newcastle area about 1720, and was introduced into Sheffield about 1767. Shear steel is produced by bundling short pieces of the blister steel bar and hot forging it, with a tilt hammer, into an ingot. During the 19th century, shear steel was sometimes referred to as German steel.

Because blister steel varied somewhat in carbon content as it emerged from the cementation chests, it was graded and sorted for appropriate uses on the basis of visual inspection of fractured surfaces. Since this grading/sorting depended upon human judgement, some varibility of results was inevitable. But, there is pretty good circumstantial evidence that a great deal of skill was developed through experience and close observation.

At its best, 17th and 18th century blister and shear steel likely rivaled the quality of crucible/cast steel which came into use in the latter part of the 18th century (and continued to be used well into the 20th century). Otherwise, it was essentially the same as the "German Steel" sometimes found in late 18th and 19th century tools.

Don McConnell

Eureka Springs, AR

Re: Grindstone City

michael muzzarelli

>Gentlemen thank you for the answers to my question. The breadth and depth of knowledge here is tremendous.

I remember reading...

Ted Owen, Pittsburgh

>in an Andrew Carnegie, Henry Clay Frick biography that Andrew Carnegie observed the Bessemer process in England in the mid-1860's and brought it to Pittsburgh a year or so later, a patent on the process notwithstanding. His Carnegie Steel was built around that Bessemer process. That would have been shortly after the Civil War. Carnegie Steel became the largest steel manufacturing company in the world and around 1910 was sold to J.P. Morgan as the core of U.S. Steel.

But the Bessemer process improved making of steel primarily by making it simpler and thus lowering the cost significantly--forcing air under the molten iron rather than baking it for extended periods. Thus while steel was made earlier here in the U.S., it was more than twice as expensive.

Best, Ted

Re: Dateline - Boston: February, 1711

Adam Cherubini

>I think this is awesome. I know Don spoke recently on this subject and I'd like to see an article from him on the subject, tying all this together and relating it to woodworkers in their quest for "best" tools.

From my perspective, (and maybe Michael's) this paragraph is the kicker:

At its best, 17th and 18th century blister and shear steel likely rivaled the quality of crucible/cast steel which came into use in the latter part of the 18th century (and continued to be used well into the 20th century). Otherwise, it was essentially the same as the "German Steel" sometimes found in late 18th and 19th century tools.

The subtext here is those early steels were still steel (more or less) as we would experience it today. But the sharpening media we use is far far better. I remember reading (was it Walter Rose?) how victorian/edwardian craftsmen quickly adandoned their natural stones for faster cutting carborundum (Al-C) stones. Therein lies the mystery of how they were able to get by for all those years before better sharpening media became available.

I suspect we may need to revisit this topic as our tools evolve past the capabilities of our sharpening media. As the exposure of tool reviews biased towards edge holding increases, that day may come sooner than later. A FWW review of bench chisels 10 or more years ago focused away from steel and suggested choosing a chisel based on its handle! Wonder how that would fly today?

Another side to this is what responsibility do we have in recommending these really hard, tough to sharpen tools to beginners? I'm as guilty of this as anyone, encouraging folks to skip the marples or sorby brands for harder steel. Maybe this is an exclusionary direction since it forces guys to become master sharpeners before they can even use their tools. Instead of helping a beginner, we may be painting our way of woodworking as this incredibly fussy craft with tons of hidden costs (tormek, shapton, shapton flattening plate).

Adam

Re: Dateline - Boston: February, 1711

joel -( tools for working wood)

>I have never understood this "mystery" about sharpening.

When I studied it was the first lesson and we all learned how to freehand sharpen with no trouble just a little practice.

From feedback on own website and from the videos I did for Norton

on freehand sharpening we know that once people are exposed to good consistent technique problems go away. THere is a tendency these days to try to replace technique with equipment and I do think that makes the task much harder.

The only other thing you need is a good grinder.

I think will hollow grinding, which is something Moxon recommends, and a fine stone, sharpening isn't and wasn't a bid deal. Good stones were prized because they were expsensive but you in general only need one per lifetime, I see no reason why if you have any of the typical high end 18th century stones - belgian waterstones, German green hones, Charney Forest stones, you would have a problem with any steel. Belgian water stones are to this day some of the fastest cutting and finest stones I have ever seen (on any steel I have tried) (and they are not considered as good as the German Green Hones). Charney forest stones cut slow but with a hollow grind that's not much of an issue.

I am pretty sure it was Richard Jones who posted here a few years ago how he learned to sharpen. and pointed out that either you learned the first day or so of your apprenticeship - or found another line of work.

The other thing to mention is that the type of work one produces is limited by the abilites of the tools at hand. Most of the woods that were used commerically for woodworking in the 18th century are a delight to work by hand. THese days we are more inclinced to use exotic, very hard, abrasive woods in some projects - but we also have the power tools and fancy metals to work them effectively.