Thread: A traditional spokeshave (well, sort of).

Hi Ian,

are you going to make a Convex and a Concave spokeshave
as well. Here is a traditional French Convex and Concave spokeshave
all in one. I bought it with a couple of Chisel Gouges a couple of
weeks ago.

Martin.IMG_20211024_142655 (1).jpgIMG_20211024_142629 (1).jpg

Martin, that tool is more typically known in these parts as a "draw-knife", used for rapid stock removal while the spokeshave does the refining & finishing. I think also that you'll find your tool doesn't work as well both ways, a draw-knife is generally used bevel-up because it's easier to control it that way. It looks to me like yours should be used the opposite way round from how you are holding in in the second pic., i.e., it's a "concave" knife, but of course you can use it either way if you choose. There is also a very curved type known as an "inshave", and mainly a tool of barrel makers, though I've seen folks using them to scoop out seats for Windsor chairs.

I do have a couple of draw-knives, a straight & a convex (opposite to yours), which I made many years ago from old car leaf-springs. It takes a bit of practice to drive a draw-knife successfully, you have to watch grain direction closely or you're likely to start a nasty split that doesn't go so well on a chair leg or the likes. Straight-grained, green wood is the best place to start. I have achieved a very basic level of competence with my straight knife, but nothing remotely like some of the folks I've seen, like the old chair bodgers & barrel-makers I've seen on films.

The spokeshave, be it the traditional wooden-bodied type as above, or the "modern" all-metal type, is fundamentally different from a draw-knife in that they have a "toe" in front of the cutting edge which limits the depth of cut & makes them far easier to control. With the "round-bottom" type, the cut is not so controlled because the toe curls up from the mouth and there is less 'feel' to help position the blade for an efficient cut. I struggled with a round Stanley 151 when I first got it, but was put to shame when my son, who was 5 or 6 yr old at the time, picked it up one day & proceeded to make nice shavings with it straight off!

So when you said "convex & concave" shaves, I first thought you meant something more like this or this.

They have also been made as side-by side combinations, like the Stanley 60 which is as rare as hens' teeth round my neck of the woods (I borrowed this image from Ebay): stanley 60.jpg

I've only tried to use a concave shave once, and did not cover myself in glory - they are fussy things that have to be sharpened & set just-so to work at all, let alone work well. At the time my skills in both areas were very limited & although I've improved a little since then I've never had a need for a concave shave, so I suspect I'll go to my grave without ever having mastered one!
Cheers,
Ian

Hi Ian,

I know they are called Draw Knives but i thought
a Draw Knife only had one bevel on the blade. This one
has a bevel on both sides so that is why i called it a spokeshave
for Convex and Concave work.

Martin.

Originally Posted by old workshop

....... I know they are called Draw Knives but i thought
a Draw Knife only had one bevel on the blade. This one
has a bevel on both sides so that is why i called it a spokeshave
for Convex and Concave work.....

Apologies if it sounded like I was teaching you how to suck eggs....

Yes, draw-knives usually have a single bevel, but whether there's a bevel on one or both sides it's still a draw-knife in my book. It may well have been used by a wheelwright, too, but I bet he had a bunch of what I'd call 'spokeshaves' for the fine work. To me they are different tools because the spokeshave has something in front of the blade to help your wrists control the cut - with a draw-knife you only have your wrists.

Cranked handles like you have there are generally used with the cranks down (don't know if you've used draw-knives much but if you haven't I can tell you it's more stable that way & makes the blade much easier to control than using it cranks-up). So for that reason, I suspect your knife started life with its flat surface on the convex side and the bevel on the concave side, and some user added the bevel on the convex side. There may have been some trade that regularly used double-beveled draw-knives, so it's possible your knife came from the manufacturer that way.

P'raps someone with more knowledge of these beasties & their applications can enlighten us....

Cheers,

Ian

Looks like you have ticked another tool off your mini list (is that small tools or a small list?) Not knowing exactly what is on the list I was going to suggest a draw knife too, but Martin has pre-emptied that really.

Nice job of course.

Regards
Paul

No draw-knife Paul. My next mini-tool is probably the most complex build I've attempted so far. I spent most of today getting some bits ready, but I think it will be several more days before I have anything to show....

In the meantime, can you help me identify this saw?

PS a.jpg

I think it's a fairly recent make - the blade looks too clean for an old one.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh yeah, a bit of scale might help:

PS b.jpg



The blade is 300mm long (half my D8 panel saw), 25 thou plate (not tapered, unfortunately, that's still beyond me) and toothed at 12 tpi (rip). I can just get two fingers through the finger hole and it's actually quite usable. The 1095 shim stock I cut the blade from has quite a bit of tension in it, so it has a bit of "ring" & doesn't feel 'dead'. The lack of blade taper doesn't seem to make much difference to the way it cuts, at least while it's sharp & freshly set...

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

No draw-knife Paul. My next mini-tool is probably the most complex build I've attempted so far. I spent most of today getting some bits ready, but I think it will be several more days before I have anything to show....

In the meantime, can you help me identify this saw?

PS a.jpg

I think it's a fairly recent make - the blade looks too clean for an old one.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh yeah, a bit of scale might help:

PS b.jpg



The blade is 300mm long (half my D8 panel saw), 25 thou plate (not tapered, unfortunately, that's still beyond me) and toothed at 12 tpi (rip). I can just get two fingers through the finger hole and it's actually quite usable. The 1095 shim stock I cut the blade from has quite a bit of tension in it, so it has a bit of "ring" & doesn't feel 'dead'. The lack of blade taper doesn't seem to make much difference to the way it cuts, at least while it's sharp & freshly set...

Cheers,

Ian

I fairly quickly identified it as a Wilkie because of the way you cut the lambs tongues. Then I read down and realised what it was in addition to the pic with the coin so it's a no brainer! I am beginning to think you might have a South American ancestry with this thing about shrinking things.



I am intrigued as to whether these miniatures are for a boy's cave (dolls house equivalent), a boy's toolkit or something else entirely. I am leaning towards the latter.

Regards
Paul

For Barbie?

Ian, funny thing is I actually couldn’t see the pics yesterday,they just wouldn’t load up for me, I could read your thread but no pictures.
But this morning the planet’s must be in line somewhere and I could few your lovely pictures.

That 20 cent piece is getting a massive work out lately.

I promise I won’t mention anything about you not making planes or tools anymore,besides I think you have plenty of rope too do that your self[emoji6].

The spoke shave looks fantastic, I can see that being handy, even on full size work.

Was the 1085 steel easy to work,I ask because I thought 1085 was similar to 1095, an 1095 being a high carbon spring steel.
Or have got my steels all mucked up.

Cheers Matt.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

.....I am beginning to think you might have a South American ancestry with this thing about shrinking things......

Your head is safe Paul, but perhaps mine could benefit from a 'shrink'...

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

.....I am intrigued as to whether these miniatures are for a boy's cave (dolls house equivalent), a boy's toolkit or something else entirely. I am leaning towards the latter.....

Stick with "the latter", but that's all I'm giving away just yet...

I didn't think you'd be fooled for a split second' Besides the lamb's tongue, which Mr, Disston never applied to any D8 or D_8 that I've seen, the non traditional wood & blank medallion would have been immediately apparent to you as well.

Apart from minor extra detailing of the handle, it's a pretty faithful 1/2-size copy of my D8 panel saw. I also "metrified" the bolts for convenience. The shank size is 3mm, which is very close to 1/2 size, but I made the heads a bit larger than they should strictly be, to match the nearest size Forstner bit.
Saw bolts.jpg

It's curious to me that the saw makers continued to use a shallow counter-sink for the bolt & nut heads after they switched to the "Glover" style - why not have them just sit flat on the surface of the wood? I can only assume that because they were cast, there was too much variation to ensure a neat fit every time but sinking it into the wood a mm or so to made sure the edges were covered & neat. That's not a problem for bolts made entirely on the lathe, but I still made the shallow countersinks, for "authenticity"..

Cheers,

Originally Posted by Simplicity

....... Was the 1085 steel easy to work,I ask because I thought 1085 was similar to 1095, an 1095 being a high carbon spring steel.
Or have got my steels all mucked up.....

Don't know exactly what you mean by "difficult to work", Matt. If you mean the heat-treating, then the answer is it's not that difficult, but I did take a while to get a procedure going that works every time. The 1080/1084 steels are said to be about the easiest & most forgiving blade steels to harden, they don't need 'soaking' at the transition temperature, just heat & dunk. I didn't believe that when I first tried some, but I think I've finally got a reliable process. For the last couple of blades I quenched in the canola oil 'til the bubbles stopped, then dunked in water.

This came about because I was having trouble getting the blades I was working on to harden consistently, some were coming out glass-hard, but more often than not, I could still file them easily. I was sure I was getting them plenty hot enough, and quenching them quickly, but they just weren't hardening. In desperation, I quenched a blade in straight water - that hardened it alright, but the steel cracked & crazed like an eggshell! So then I tried a two-step quench (DW or someone mentions this somewhere). So far, that has worked every time. My hypothesis is that the oil is knocking the temp down rapidly but it takes a bit too long to get it through the middle tempertature range, causing it to temper. By dunking in the water after the initial heat is pulled out, it gets it cold quickly without the severe shock of a full water quench. I'm probably out to lunch on the theory, but it's worked every time since I started doing that.

O1 steel seems to be less sensitive to the quenching, but it does need to be held at high temp a bit longer. I've had no problems getting that stuff hard, just using old sump-oil to quench it. The trouble I've had with that stuff is getting the area to be hardened evenly hot long enough with my limited gear (they were all fairly large blades). ATM, I've got a massive 2 1/2" x 5mm thick blade that I want to harden, but my forge just won't cut the mustard, so I think I'm going to have to pay Paul a visit & beg time on his forge ....
Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

Don't know exactly what you mean by "difficult to work", Matt. If you mean the heat-treating, then the answer is it's not that difficult, but I did take a while to get a procedure going that works every time. The 1080/1084 steels are said to be about the easiest & most forgiving blade steels to harden, they don't need 'soaking' at the transition temperature, just heat & dunk. I didn't believe that when I first tried some, but I think I've finally got a reliable process. For the last couple of blades I quenched in the canola oil 'til the bubbles stopped, then dunked in water.

This came about because I was having trouble getting the blades I was working on to harden consistently, some were coming out glass-hard, but more often than not, I could still file them easily. I was sure I was getting them plenty hot enough, and quenching them quickly, but they just weren't hardening. In desperation, I quenched a blade in straight water - that hardened it alright, but the steel cracked & crazed like an eggshell! So then I tried a two-step quench (DW or someone mentions this somewhere). So far, that has worked every time. My hypothesis is that the oil is knocking the temp down rapidly but it takes a bit too long to get it through the middle tempertature range, causing it to temper. By dunking in the water after the initial heat is pulled out, it gets it cold quickly without the severe shock of a full water quench. I'm probably out to lunch on the theory, but it's worked every time since I started doing that.

O1 steel seems to be less sensitive to the quenching, but it does need to be held at high temp a bit longer. I've had no problems getting that stuff hard, just using old sump-oil to quench it. The trouble I've had with that stuff is getting the area to be hardened evenly hot long enough with my limited gear (they were all fairly large blades). ATM, I've got a massive 2 1/2" x 5mm thick blade that I want to harden, but my forge just won't cut the mustard, so I think I'm going to have to pay Paul a visit & beg time on his forge ....
Cheers,

Ian,
I actually didn’t state it was difficult to work,but i think you took what i said as being a statement,when maybe i should have been more clear,as it was a question,as I’ve never used 1085 steel.
But I’m happy to blame my father on this one [emoji6][emoji6][emoji6] he should taken his job home more often.

Cheers Matt.