[quote=Markus Nyman]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.

Yes, a good point I believe I over looked. I do not sharpen my plane blades the same as my slick. I don't know what got into me!

When it comes to mortice and tenon work, I find the axe and slick do most of the work, other than crosscutting with the saw.

DL, any specific sharpen points to the Stichaxt? As it is used in reference to an axe, is it sharpened in a similar manor?

The business end of the stichaxt is more or less a giant chisel. It is single beveled, and the direction of the handle determines how the tool is handed. If the handle goes off to the right, then it is right handed. The angle of the bevel is about the same as that of my framing chisel.

Mine is a bit over 17 1/2 inches long, and about 5" wide at the handle. It is 1 3/4 inches in the body.
The back may or may not be slightly convex, depending on who makes it.

I need to make one correction to my previous post concerning how to use it.

The correct posture is not simply kneeling, but rather kneeling with one knee resting on the timber being cut and the other extended out to the side. The timber needs to be at the proper height so that this is comfortable. The top of the timber might be about the height of a chair.

You should always have the timber turned so that you are cutting down when using the stichaxt. You can cut horizontally, but it works better to always cut down.

Here are some pics that may help clarify things for you.


First a size comparison, next to a 1 1/2" framing chisel

notice the beveled sides, which help the tool to cut more efficiently.


and a closeup of the business end so you can see the bevel

hope this answers your questions, Tim

Hello,

All these different variations are sure interesting but also maybe diversions. I'll be keeping my eyes open next time I go to France or Germany for a chance to get a hold of some of these different old time tools though.

I'm using the slick from that smidt up in McCall for the past 12 or so years and have always been pleased with it. Some of the things I like about it include the ergonomics of the handle, that it has swells and ridges, and mostly the flared and rounded knob at the end. It means I can get good grip and resistance and apply pressure from many positions. There is nothing wrong with the steel and tempering, though it will deflect before it chips I have noticed. I think they do go a bit overboard with grinding and polishing though.
I don't know about altering the geometry of its cutting edge. This I have never felt the need to do. But I will comment on the shape of the blade over-all. For me, the top side, that is the area behind the bevel, being overly rounded, makes it more difficult to prop up and steady during sharpening than it needs to be. It is nice that you can lay a hand over the blade for guiding and apply some pressure and not have sharp edges there, and I'm glad the smidt was thinking about this when forging the tool but it does minimize the bevel's surface contact when you lay it up to the stones.

Greetings,

Don Wagstaff

Bahler, A stichaxt seems like a feasible alternative to a slick. Your detailed description is most helpful. What I will have to do is give some thought to my workflow, in order to choose for the tool best suited for my purposes.

Don, that's a good point about the rounded top side. My combination of a Tormek and a small diamond lap stone somewhat evades any issues with steadying the tool, though.

The japanese slicks seem to have straight handles. Rehandling, however still remains an option. I'm really two minds about the slightly hollowed backs. They do make flattening effortless, but yet I'm slightly suspicious about the whole thing. I realize though, that it's a feature well thought out.

I have two slicks and use both pretty regularly. One is a 4" Witherby-- great steel. Its sharpened dead flat on the back and with a radius on the bevel side. I use it for fine precise shaving and flattening mostly. Its a beatiful tool, so I tend to baby it a bit. The radiused bevel can be used "upside down"-- cutting with the bevel edge down-- to nice effect. Removes wood quickly, if need be, and also can be used to create a nice scalloped texture-- almost like a adzed surface. My other slick-- a 3" no-name "cast steel" is much better for gross wood removal, and also the one I'm a bit more willing to beat up on a bit. It is "rockered" on the backside as Tim is (I think) describing, which lets you pull your cut out when it tries to dig in too much (something that tends to happen when you remove a lot of wood quickly. It also gives you hand clearance for paring things with the grain in the middle of a timber. I have the bevel edge sharpened straight and square to the sides-- which also facilitates cleaning out occasional 3" wide mortises-- which I usually use for a tongue and fork joint at the peak, and in other special circumstances. I normally use a framing chisel to clean out normal 1 1/2" or 2" pockets. I've used the Barr slick some as well-- a friend owns one. Though it seems like a nice tool, I much prefer the older slicks like the ones I own. Its biggest limitation as I see it is that its way too light. So much of the slick's function derives from weight and momentum. You sharpen it up to a razor edge and focus on pushing its mass in a straight line. Inertia takes care of the rest. The Barr tool is so light that it makes you work much harder and the tool moves around a lot more. Its shape is also awkward in my opinion-- I think I would like it more if it were more straight rather than having the blade curve upward so much. A nice slick is a pleasure to use.

Thanks everyone for your advice. Not only did I find out more about slicks, but learnt a valuable lesson on tuning my chisels to my needs. I ended up grinding a radius on the bevel side of my two inch one. I think it still needs a little more curvature; I'll work on that.

After some more frustration with my little, good-for-next-to-nothing tools, I ended up ordering the mortising ax I showed you earlier on. I quite like the wooden handle, and the fact that I can always turn it into a froe when my nerves fail me for good. I'll keep looking for that real broad mother of a slick. Knowing myself, I will eventually obtain every tool known to man as far as the state of my finances admit. However considering my mortgage, that day won't be dawning anytime soon.

I thinkDevin has very good points. To my mind a "slick" is not a 2" chisel but a much wider and heavier tool.

A heavy tool carries momentum that helps to shave and pare down the inside face of a mortise, or across the flat of a scarf table. (In fact the etymology of the word comes from "slice.") The mass also damps and steadies the motion. That leaves one's energy available for precise guidance, rather than providing brute force, and the long handle allows very good control of the angle. A razor edge is mandatory.

I use a lightly radiused edge, and the slick functions as a giant plane. Lovely tool - when I am handling it I feel I'm channeling the spirit of medieval craftspeople.

Pete

The difference in the continental 'slicks' is that you are relying on a different weight source for the momentum of the cut. With an English-style slick, you have a massive tool whose own mass is enough to keep it going. With the continental variety you are positioning your body above the cut and relying on your own mass, which is significantly greater than the tools, to make the cut.

The big difference I see is that the tools are adapted to different ways of working. German and French carpenters worked with their timbers on or very close to the ground, and so they can very easily put their own mass behind a cut. English and American carpenters liked to put their timbers up much higher, where it is impractical to try and put your weight behind a cut, and so instead they make very large tools with a great deal of mass of their own.

If you are going to be working with timbers at or above waste height, then you had better use a slick, if you will be working with timbers lower than this than you should use you body weight to your advantage as much as possibly, in which case the continental varieties may prove more effective.

It should also be noted that the English were typically working with much bigger things than the Germans were, for example joint sizes. German mortises are a lot smaller, and a smaller tool is needed. English mortises are huge, so a huge tool is nice.

If you are going to be doing things the way most American TF'ers do it, then you should use the familiar style of slick -it is adapted to this way of working. If you however opt to work with low timbers, the Stichaxt is a great way to go

DLB

DLB, Interesting points.

I suppose the next question is "why" do timber working heights differ? Because of the tools? (A chicken-and-egg puzzle?)


Pete

Who knows?

I would guess, this is just a guess here, that there are a number of factors that go into working heights, and no small part of that I imagine would be purely cultural.

I know that most craftsmen in the west tend to work on elevated benches so they can work comfortably standing up, but in Asia most craftsmen work in a squatting position, while in many cases the tools they use are more or less identical, or at least fundamentally similar.

My guess, then, is that the biggest reason originally for timber heights is cultural preferences. Somebody in England perhaps decided it would be more comfortable to work with timbers up high, while Continental carpenters continued working them down low. Then I suppose over the course of the Middle Ages the tools adapted to how they worked with the wood, as did joinery and methods.

Of course there is probably a lot more to it than this, usually things really aren't so simple but have a number of factors affecting them.

DLB