Thread: Gimlet on Steroids??

Hi Gaza,
It's my understanding that the tang was inserted through the handle and peened over as you describe. However some German braces were capable of holding a flat tang similar to yours as well as normal square tangs.
You may be able to date your bit from the H Boker logo chart.
Cheers,
Geoff.

Took this photo of the seat for the bits in this German brace. The opening for the flat tangs is diagonal to that for the square tangs. Off the top of my head I'd say your big gimlet is not going to fit in there.
Spec's for the seat opening are: width at mouth - 13.3mm inward tapering.
thickness - 5.4mm inward tapering.
depth -25mm
Cheers,
Geoff.

Thanks Geoff......Yes I am thinking it's not going to work in that Brace either. I guy on Facebook sent a picture of a handle that had a Metal section in the middle with a thumb screw to tighten onto what ever you had in it. I did find a reference on the net that mentioned going across the grain in the handle. Unfortunately it was only a snippet of the thread and I could get to see the whole article to see if it any relevance to this tool. If it did have a fixed wooden Handle it would have been at least 35mm thick where the end pierced through it. I also found a lot of references to boats and wondered if these larger gimlets were somehow used in wooden boat building.

Hi Gaza,
Were you able to date your gimlet from the Boker tree chart?
I've got a 1931 German H. Boker catalogue and it's not listed in there.
Cheers,
Geoff.

I had a look but none of the ones in that chart were really like the one stamped on this tool. I haven't had a chance to go back a do any more searching. It's not that easy finding much info on Boker tools let a lone something in English. From the searches that I have made I am leaning more and more to this being a Shipwrights tool. I did try using it in some pine and found it very difficult to drill a hole With out a pilot first. Not sure if that was just my lack of skills in sharpening such a beast. Any images I have seen of these large gimlets all had realitivly small wooden handles or eyes for larger handles. It would be great to find a reference that described the use and why a gimlet type tool was better than twist type augers. Particularly since a the shell part of the gimlet doesn't extend that far up the shaft to expel shavings. If I find any other info I will share it on here.

Gaza, the Gimlet predates twist augers by a years, possibly centuries. As with other non twist type bits you've got to remove them from the hole frequently to expel the shavings.
I'll try to dig up some more info during the week.
Cheers,
Geoff.

Gaza, as far as I can see from your photo, I have to agree that none of those tree images match your gimlet logo. This could mean that whoever compiled that list has missed one and may be quite interested in seeing your example. I can't remember where I got the list from but google "Boker tree brand logo" is probably where I stole it from.
I've attached three photos of a couple of nose bit handles, the smaller one they've slipped a washer over the end and peened it, the other just appears to be bent over and hammered down. (I hope they didn't disturb the borers)
Another point regarding gimlets, though irrelevant in your case, is they could be made slimmer than twist augers which typically don't come any smaller than 3/16" (4.75mm) whereas I've got gimlets as small as 1mm.
Cheers,
Geoff.

Thanks Geoff..... That middle picture is how I am imagining the handle would have been. I did find your tree logo chart on the net and it seemed to be associated to knives. And looking at various other images that I found, am thinking that Boker tools may have a different but similar set of marks. I will get the camera out and get a closer shot of just the mark which may help ID it.

I found a site that has a few images of Boker tools and various logos.
Progress is fine, but it's gone on for too long.: Vanished Tool Makers: Henry Boker, Remsheid, Germany
one of the logos seems to be getting close to the one on the gimlet although not the same. I would go as far as saying the font used is spot on and the tree is pretty close.
Boker-shears-2.jpgBoker-shears-3.jpg
Not sure if these images are of the same shears or two different ones.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much info other than it was on a pair of shears.
Here is another tree timeline that is different to the one that Geoff posted.
tree_history-1.jpg