Having nibbled with chisels for a little while, I realize a need for a larger tool more appropriate for larger joinery jobs. So, I am looking to obtain a slick, which will be used mainly for grand scale furniture projects and some light framing jobs. It is however possible that I might find some use for it in more than just one or two log home building projects as well. The typical materials to be worked will be scots pine and spruce, which are abundant here in Finland.

The two tools available from my supplier are the 60mm and 85mm slicks by Robert Sorby. I gather that these are probably quality tools, does anyone have more perspective on this? Ergonomy is a priority to me, what should I be looking for in a slick in that respect?

Another question is the breadth of the cutting edge. With 60mm and 85mm slicks available, how should I decide upon the right size? How does the width of the tool relate to the size of the joints used? Basically, if I end up ordering either one of the Sorbys, I will have to decide which one is optimal for me.

In timber framing on a large scale, I find the slick indispensable. The only time I don't use it is if it does not fit in the pocket or housing. How about a 2" chisel just sharpened a little different. Give the edge a slight radius to the cutting edge, and on the bottom, not the bevel side, hone or reshape so it is not flat but has a belly in it, just like a large slick should have.

I am also starting to discover I like a longer handle. The slick I use has a nice but shorter handle, I am thinking of adding a foot or so to a new handle, pushing it to 3'. What lead me to this is the scarf slick I have been using it has a wonderful long handle on it, it is like a great big gouge, it really hogs the wood off. I'm not sure what makes the longer handle nicer, could be the mechanics of it, more body behind it.

The thought of getting a slick for myself actually arose from the fact that I found myself supporting my chisels against my waist or shoulder while paring some of the joints. Now especially when working with the chisel in a vertical position, I find it difficult to get my posture just right, which made me think I could benefit from using a longer tool instead.

Rounding the back never crossed my mind, but I can see how this helps in the paring process. I will probably try that out with my regular paring chisel, it really seems like a very good idea, especially in terms of getting a smoother finish with less effort. And if I figure this out correctly, having the back ever so slightly curved, also results in the cutting edge coming out with a slight radius when the bevel is ground flat.

But I won't be giving up the idea of obtaining a slick just yet. I'm in no hurry, though. So I have plenty of time to ponder any options that might come by.

Hello,

Putting a radius on the cutting edge will complicate cleaning out the corners at the bottom of a mortise where everything should meet at right angles. It will make paring easier though. I wonder why you would round the back instead of the bevel if your intention is to alter the radius of the cutting edge. It seems, along with reducing friction that it would make sharpening more difficult.

You do have more (and better) options than the Sorby one, that is unless you are trying to avoid added transportation. Dieter Schmid, in Berlin or Rudolph Dick, in Metten have very nice slicks. Their Japanese ones - which have hollow backs - might even be better suited to the kind of work you describe you are doing. If you were a Frenchman or German you would probably choose for a bisaiguë or demi-bisaiguë.

Greetings,

Don Wagstaff

Don, sharpening a belly on a slick or chisel is not difficult, just apply a little more pressure on the edges when it is laid flat on the stone. This of course will rub some the wrong way and go against their grain, such is the way when working with wood. It is not much of a belly, with a straight edge applied to the back of the slick you can see daylight at the ends, I dare not guess at the amount, but I can see it is not flat.

I try to think of a slick as being sharpened in a similar way as a single bevel hewing axe. The same effect, in the slick and the mentioned 2" chisel, is of course not as pronounced. It leaves the tool with a leading edge which is able to skew across fibers in effect easing the process. It need not be so rounded that it effects how it cuts in the bottom of the mortice.

Hand plane blades are sharpened this way as well. If one was on the ball, which I am not, they could have a number of them for different jobs and needs. One blade does not fit all jobs.

I love the slick. I really did not start to use one for awhile and then was nudged to pick up the tool. I like to use it on mortise sides. If you mortise needs a little more width, you are only tiring your self out if you aren't using the slick. Big cutting edge and mass. Thrust it down the mortise and your done.

I put a radius on my straight edge Barr slick. I also had the smithy straighten up the whole tool a little bit so dropping plumb was easier to reference by eye. For the radius, I spent some time with a file. To sharpen, I like to take the stone to it. Slipstones work well.

mo, were you able to put a file to the Barr chisel? I often take the soft steel off of my framing chisels with a file, so that I only have to work on the hard steel with the coarse diamond stone. The file won't touch the hardened steel on my chisels or slicks. I mostly use my slicks for working on large surfaces, like parts of a scarf joint. Sometimes for paring off tenons. Large tenons, like those on an anchorbeam, I use the broadaxe, the same as when they were built originally.

Hey Dave, I remember trying many files that just glided across without doing a thing. I think that finally did it might have had some bling bling on it. Didn't get a true radius. I was occupied for a many hours just to knock down the corners from right angles to slight arcs, it looks like a good jack plane iron now, as far as top view.

Rounding the back of a paring chisel or slick ever so slightly would have the effect of making it a little less prone to dig in at the corners. In plane blades, which are mostly used bevel down, it is the bevel side which is cambered slightly.

Don, I assume that by demi-bisaigue you mean something like this mortising ax: http://www.mehr-als-werkzeug.de/product/708364/D-Mortise-Axe/detail.jsf . The one by Stubai appears to have pretty similar proportions. Does someone here have first-hand experience on using one of these, or a bisaigue for that matter?

Mo, my exact thoughts about the mortises. And the broader the cutting edge gets, the more force you need to use to push it through. Mortises aren't my primary concern, though. Most of the work can be done with a chisel and a mallet. But trimming those tenons to fit snugly takes some effort with tools that are more than undersized. My broadest chisels are unfortunately also the shortest.

TWhat you have pictured there Markus, is not the demi besaigue, but a similar tool

Demi Besaigue is the French name for a German tool, which is known as a Stichaxt or Stossaxt. Sometimes this is in English called a push axe. It occupies a gray area somewhere between the axe and the chisel. It is often referred to as the 'German Slick' and the Germans refer to the slick as being an American or British thing.

http://www.traditionalwoodworker.com/1-3...tinfo/598-4500/
There is one you can get in the US, made by Ochsenkopf

I have one, and I love it. It is useful for a number of things, and is perhaps more versatile than the slick. Traditionally it is used in Germany as an all purpose cleanup tool. Used to clean mortises and other such joints like a slick, but also used to smooth timber faces -instead of an adze or a variety of hand planes- which it works rather well at.

The French Besaigue is a development of the German Stichaxt (which itself is a variation of the older Kreuzaxt, which in one form is more or less what you have linked to there.) in which a heavy duty mortising chisel has been added at the other end. both tools are essentially used the same way.

To use the stichaxt, you need to have the timber fairly low to the ground, so that you stand mostly above it. You will see in old pictures from Germany and France that the timbers are always low to the ground, never worked high up on horses. This is necessary because you use your body weight to work the stichaxt.

You work in a kneeling position with one hand on the tools short handle and the other a few inches down on the body, and with a rocking motion push the tool across the wood. It can make very fast work of removing relatively large quantities of wood.

The Kreuzaxt from which it was developed is essentially a twibil, and was originally used to rough out mortises that had first been bored out. eventually they just decided to take the wooden handle off of it. It is not clear what all it was used ofr originally, but eventually it came to be used as a cleanup tool.

The Besaigue may or may not have been originally French, as I understand it is generally considered to have been invented somewhere in or around Alsace, a historically German speaking region that is part of France today.

It is important to note that the Germans have a specific system of tools worked out for timber framing. They are well adapted to their style of joinery, and perhaps more importantly well adapted to each other. The Stichaxt is just one of these tools.
If It were an american tool, we would probably call it a chisel, but the Germans mostly used axes to do things that we would use chisels and saws for, and so they saw it as one of a series of axes used to cut a frame. hence the name Stichaxt (Axt being one word in German for axe)