Thread: The berg family.. (a berg show and tell)

Well, the chippies of my father's era nearly all walloped chisels with the sides of their claw-hammers, I'm afraid, I never saw any take out a wooden mallet. These blokes had to chisel trenches for each stud in the top & bottom of the wall plates so they hit their chisels hard & often! This probably explains why you see so many mashed-down tops of handles or outright splintering of the handles of so many oldies. The 'indestructable' handles were introduced to give the poor old chisel handles a better chance. I've got a couple of blue-chip Marples that I use for beaters & I hit them with whatever's to hand (& depending on my temper!). They've copped some rather severe abuse for 30 odd years and the handles are still in remarkably good condition, though I wouldn't say that for the blades.

My 'good' chisels all have wooden handles because I much prefer the feel of wood over yukky plastic, and I wallop them only with a wooden mallet. Some of them have been struck an awful lot of times, but show very little sign of it, even those without hoops. Anyone caught hitting one of my 'precious' chisels with a hammer would be at risk of instantaneous & traumatic emasculation!

But I think if I worked on a building site, I'd have a set of plastic handled chisels & I'd hit them with a claw-hammer. Besides not having to cart around yet another tool, I don't think I could take the ribbing I'd get if I took out a mallet and started tap-tapping at a chisel to make a bit of framing fit.....

Cheers,

I've never tried them with a steel hammer.
But a few i've picked up second hand look as though they may have.
looked a bit ratty on top but intact.
but i don't know why you would do such a thing

They’re not indestructible.


edit: but they can hang upside down from the ceiling it seems.

Originally Posted by Colin62

...They’re not indestructible......

I guess nothing is 'indestructible' if you put your mind to it, Col.!

Originally Posted by mattocks

I've never tried them with a steel hammer....
......but i don't know why you would do such a thing ...

Convenience, laziness, & the hammer is in your hand or within easy reach?

I guess most of us who follow this section have a very different attitude to our tools - they are much more precious to us than they may be to someone who simply sees them as a minor means to a major end. Even 60 years ago, chisels were not the most expensive tool in your kit. Titan for one offered a full range of replacement handles for their chisels, so they must have expected a fair casualty rate in the field....

Cheers,

But, if it's convenience, laziness & the claw hammer is on your belt, wouldn't you then want to be using an inexpensive "beater" chisel. or one with a full length steel tang? Last time I was in Reece Plumbing, Bacho seemed to be the chisel of choice for knocking holes in "stuff"

Different people have different priorities.

When I was still in school, I was at a friend’s house and we were trying to take something apart. He couldn’t find a screwdriver in the workshop so he grabbed a chisel and proceeded to loosen a screw with that. I was sure his dad was going to belt us when he found out - mine would have - but he wasn’t bothered at all. And he was a surgeon. I’d have thought he’d appreciate the need to look after a cutting edge, but maybe he was comfortable with just buying new ones when the old were blunt.

Originally Posted by ian

But, if it's convenience, laziness & the claw hammer is on your belt, wouldn't you then want to be using an inexpensive "beater" chisel. or one with a full length steel tang? Last time I was in Reece Plumbing, Bacho seemed to be the chisel of choice for knocking holes in "stuff"

Ian, we're talking about very different times! Back in the early 50's there weren't much choice, mate. If you were earning your living with your tools you wanted a chisel that would take an edge (of sorts) and stand heavy use long enough to be practical. If you used up a handle or two, so be it. For sure, lots of blokes kept a beater or two, mostly chisels that were worn-down & demoted from 'daily users' to bashers. They weren't spoilt for choice of brands back then, and there were only a few considered of 'trade' standard (though they didn't use that term to distinguish the difference back then). You'd be lucky if your local hardware store stocked more than one or two brands.

Of course there was a lot of variation in how people treated their tools then, just as there is now. I remember my old pot being a bit put off by the way some tools were treated, not that he ever said much, but I knew his looks well enough to know what he was thinking, particularly if it was one of his sons committing the crime! Now I'm probably more fussy than he ever was, but I don't earn my living with my tools & can afford to be more precious about them.....

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

Ian, we're talking about very different times! Back in the early 50's there weren't much choice, mate. If you were earning your living with your tools you wanted a chisel that would take an edge (of sorts) and stand heavy use long enough to be practical. If you used up a handle or two, so be it.

point taken, but we're not in the 50s, or 60s, or even the 80s.

People chase Bergs because of their reputation as an excellent chisel and some spend significant $$ or time accumulating a set -- hence the title of this thread -- which begs the question why would you, in the current day, even think of treating a berg like a beater?

Stewe's question was

Just a question about the red handles, how well do they perform when using a steel claw hammer? Are you still restricted to wooden mallets?
I would be keen to hear your thoughts and or experiences!

along with some A2 LNs, I also have a 16mm red handled Berg. The Berg is reserved for fine paring -- in part because it's sharpened with a lower bevel angle than the LNs.
But as a bench tool, the Berg holds its own with the LNs.

Originally Posted by ian

point taken, but we're not in the 50s, or 60s, or even the 80s. ....

Um, no, absolutely not, but my original answer was to "who would destroy a perfectly good chisel handle with a claw hammer?" and I was simply pointing out who might've dunnit & why!

I most certainly don't advocate abuse of any tool, & as I said, if someone were to treat one of my chisels with such blatant disregard for their feelings, I would be a little upset......

Cheers,

Team

I only asked the question because I’m preparing to renovate a house and want a decent chisel. I love my bergs and would not abuse them. Having said that a claw hammer fits in my tool belt better than my mallet. Hence I wanted to see if the red handles could be used with a claw hammer.

I must say it’s been interesting watching the responses! Thanks for the feedback.

Cheers stew

Originally Posted by bunya pine

I only asked the question because I’m preparing to renovate a house and want a decent chisel. I love my bergs and would not abuse them. Having said that a claw hammer fits in my tool belt better than my mallet. Hence I wanted to see if the red handles could be used with a claw hammer.

for a house renovation I think you would be better off with a stronger chisel. One that can be used as a lever as well as a chisel. And one that you don't mind using on occasion to chip concrete and cut the odd errant nail.

While restoring Bergs to make a travelling set = (second hand with varying damage and handles) I noticed that an obscure sized one which I had assumed was 3/8" measures 0."408 and has a distinct taper to 0."360 at the shoulder and blade length of 3.8" The sides seem original?! Then started checking and the rest are tapered too. Even the 2" So my question is "was this always so"? And then if you could enlighten as to purpose and are the firmer variants parallel?

S




- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Stocker

I noticed that an obscure sized one which I had assumed was 3/8" measures 0."408 and has a distinct taper to 0."360 at the shoulder and blade length of 3.8" The sides seem original?! Then started checking and the rest are tapered too. Even the 2" So my question is "was this always so"? And then if you could enlighten as to purpose and are the firmer variants parallel?

Perhaps the description in this old catalog (page 38) can answer your question, manufacturers tapered their chisels. Contrary to current usage, square sided chisels, beveled chisels, and gouges were all referred to as firmers in a lot of period catalogs.

Logan-Gregg Hardware Co. : Catalogue No. 30 : Logan-Gregg Hardware Co. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

When I wore a lad in the '50s, it was common practice to call square-edged chisels "firmers" to distinguish them from BE chisels, so it's not just a current trend. Now we have the interweb, mixing & matching of terms from different eras & countries is going on apace, and I think we all get a bit confused, at times. At least I do!

I don't know if all manufacturers tapered their square-edged chisels as per the Logan-Gregg catalogue. My Titans are roughly parallel-sided as far as I can tell, but I haven't ever calipered them, so can't be certain of that - I'll check later, just to satisfy my curiosity. What is certain is that they are not precisely the nominal widths & can vary by as much as a 64th of an inch from what they are supposed to be. This is true of many older chisels because they were hand-ground, so although very close (remarkably so!), they are rarely exact fractions of an inch. This never worried the workers of old because of the way they used them. As we were taught to do by our ex-cabinetmaker teacher, they took their gauge measurements directly from the chisel they were going to use, and most wouldn't have been able to tell you precisely what each chisel measured 'cos it didn't matter. Precise widths rarely matter unless you start mixing machines & hand tools - only one of my nominally 1/2" chisels (a Lie-Nielsen) precisely matches my 1/2" hollow-chisel mortiser bit, for e.g...

Cheers,