I'll say right up front this ain't an earth-shaking question, just something I got partially cleared up today.
I was doing a pretty close reading of Cook's "The Ax Book" (Hood edition, 1999) and came across this interesting statement (italics mine):
A more important clue probably lies in a sad fact that is still unchanged as you read this. Only the curved model of handle will fit the eye of the single-bitted ax. At the first flush of the pre-Civil War curved ax handle fad, ax manufacturers would certainly have furnished axes compatible with the new handle design. And to produce axes with the new handles, or fitting only the new handles, would have been but one more logical step. That would not be conspiracy of the sort that consumer advocates find in every corner today. It would simply have been commercial evolution.
But the result was unfortunately the same. An inferior handle was kept on the market without any reasonable substitute available to replace it. The old straight-handled single-bit axes had gone the way of the stone ax. On all the newer single-bit axes the eyes would fit only the diagonal-grained curved handles. (page 86).
Now I've seen a lot of axes but I'd never heard of anything like that, that a straight single-bit handle would only fit a single-bit axe head made for it. Later in the chapter he says that a straight double-bit handle won't fit a single-bit eye which is of course correct, and also serves to show that he was speaking plainly in the excerpt above.
He puts a "pin in the map" at around 1850 for the change to curved handles, so I have to say I could be wrong about axe heads because I have not examined any heads made between 1840 and 1865. I bounced the question off Steve_Tall and he scratched his head over it the way I did and referred it to another axe user with no answer forthcoming yet.
I emailed Cameron Council at Council Tools, since his company makes both their Dayton and Jersey pattern single-bits with a choice of curved or straight handles. I asked if there was a difference in the eyes, or if some "adaptation" of one handle type was necessary to make it fit an axe head made for the other type. (Figuring that if there was a difference it might be economical to make the one most popular type of head and make the adjustment in the handle, because wood is cheaper than steel.) I also explicitly excepted the "Spanish" pattern heads with round eyes.
Cameron emailed me back quite graciously and answered:
"The head of our Jersey and Dayton axes are made the same, regardless of the handle. The eye thats punched into the axe head is used universally between both straight and curved handles, as well as wooden and fiberglass handles. So in conclusion, we dont need to prepare each individual axe head for the handle, the eye punched into the axe head is used universally between straight and curved handles. I hope that answers your question."
Which pretty much answers my question with reference to the modern axe. Whether there was any difference pre-1850 is something I can't say, but I can't see that there would have been. I can't even imagine what that would look like.
Where I am is reassured that I'm not somehow missing something that's been under my nose for years. Of course that leaves me with the simply academic question of what the heck Dudley was talking about, because he pretty plainly sets out his argument and states the cases that don't apply to it. I can live with that level of ambiguity -- the sitting-down part of my life is behind a door that says "Professor" on it. At least I haven't been committing an unpardonable sin by putting a straight handle on an axe that formerly had a curved handle on it.
That may qualify as a good tale to stoke up around a campfire sometime, when we're all sittin' down swappin' lies over the whisky after a day of chopping. Good to have it cleared up, anyway.
I was doing a pretty close reading of Cook's "The Ax Book" (Hood edition, 1999) and came across this interesting statement (italics mine):
A more important clue probably lies in a sad fact that is still unchanged as you read this. Only the curved model of handle will fit the eye of the single-bitted ax. At the first flush of the pre-Civil War curved ax handle fad, ax manufacturers would certainly have furnished axes compatible with the new handle design. And to produce axes with the new handles, or fitting only the new handles, would have been but one more logical step. That would not be conspiracy of the sort that consumer advocates find in every corner today. It would simply have been commercial evolution.
But the result was unfortunately the same. An inferior handle was kept on the market without any reasonable substitute available to replace it. The old straight-handled single-bit axes had gone the way of the stone ax. On all the newer single-bit axes the eyes would fit only the diagonal-grained curved handles. (page 86).
Now I've seen a lot of axes but I'd never heard of anything like that, that a straight single-bit handle would only fit a single-bit axe head made for it. Later in the chapter he says that a straight double-bit handle won't fit a single-bit eye which is of course correct, and also serves to show that he was speaking plainly in the excerpt above.
He puts a "pin in the map" at around 1850 for the change to curved handles, so I have to say I could be wrong about axe heads because I have not examined any heads made between 1840 and 1865. I bounced the question off Steve_Tall and he scratched his head over it the way I did and referred it to another axe user with no answer forthcoming yet.
I emailed Cameron Council at Council Tools, since his company makes both their Dayton and Jersey pattern single-bits with a choice of curved or straight handles. I asked if there was a difference in the eyes, or if some "adaptation" of one handle type was necessary to make it fit an axe head made for the other type. (Figuring that if there was a difference it might be economical to make the one most popular type of head and make the adjustment in the handle, because wood is cheaper than steel.) I also explicitly excepted the "Spanish" pattern heads with round eyes.
Cameron emailed me back quite graciously and answered:
"The head of our Jersey and Dayton axes are made the same, regardless of the handle. The eye thats punched into the axe head is used universally between both straight and curved handles, as well as wooden and fiberglass handles. So in conclusion, we dont need to prepare each individual axe head for the handle, the eye punched into the axe head is used universally between straight and curved handles. I hope that answers your question."
Which pretty much answers my question with reference to the modern axe. Whether there was any difference pre-1850 is something I can't say, but I can't see that there would have been. I can't even imagine what that would look like.
Where I am is reassured that I'm not somehow missing something that's been under my nose for years. Of course that leaves me with the simply academic question of what the heck Dudley was talking about, because he pretty plainly sets out his argument and states the cases that don't apply to it. I can live with that level of ambiguity -- the sitting-down part of my life is behind a door that says "Professor" on it. At least I haven't been committing an unpardonable sin by putting a straight handle on an axe that formerly had a curved handle on it.
That may qualify as a good tale to stoke up around a campfire sometime, when we're all sittin' down swappin' lies over the whisky after a day of chopping. Good to have it cleared up, anyway.
