Modern hand forged axes with flat cheeks ?

[FortyTwoBlades]

Of course they were made by smiths. I think they started when users brought their worn axes with short toes and heels back to the smith for repair. The fastest repair was simply to move some metal forward from the cheeks to the heel and toe. And Voila! The beveled axe was born. Users quickly realized that the new shape was better than the old. And a revolution in axes was made.

I cannot imagine a way that a smith would be able to move metal from the cheeks all the way to the heel and toe of the bit. The fastest way to fix a worn toe would have been to beat the now-thickened edge shoulder to thin it out and push the edge forward.

 

[Square_peg]

Easy, 42. Simply hammering the edge of the cheek will lengthen the top or bottom of the axe - moving metal to the toe or heel. This is the most basic operation in forging. Hammering on the horn of the anvil will create a bevel on both sides. It's essentially a fullering operation.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Easy, 42. Simply hammering the edge of the cheek will lengthen the top or bottom of the axe - moving metal to the toe or heel. This is the most basic operation in forging. Hammering on the horn of the anvil will create a bevel on both sides. It's essentially a fullering operation.

Except that it's not the top or bottom of the axe that's worn...it's the heel/toe of the bit, which is different. And in that wear it's moved back into the taper of the bit, so just drawing out the edge shoulder is all that would be needed here. You don't need top/bottom expansion, you need fore/aft expansion. Maybe what we're both envisioning isn't getting clearly communicated here. But I don't think that convex cheeks developed from repairing old axes. At that point in time it would have made far more sense to re-steel the bit.

 

[Square_peg]

You don't understand basic forging. I'm not talking about hammering on the actual top or bottom of the axe but on the top or bottom of the cheek. This will lengthen the top or bottom of the axe, moving steel toward the toe and heel. Much, much easier than re-steeling an axe. It's such a natural operation that it is surely how beveled cheeks evolved.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

I do understand that you're talking about the top/bottom of the cheek. I'm saying that when you're dealing with a worn heel/toe then you only need steel moved into those particular zones and that because of wear you're already in a thickened geometry compared to what it once was. Therefore it shouldn't be necessary to reforge the cheeks, just the region behind the edge to draw it out to original thinness.

 

[Square_peg]

There's not enough material close to the bit. You need to move material from further back in the cheek.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

That would depend entirely on the head in question, though...

 

[BG_Farmer]

Of course they were made by smiths. I think they started when users brought their worn axes with short toes and heels back to the smith for repair. The fastest repair was simply to move some metal forward from the cheeks to the heel and toe. And Voila! The beveled axe was born. Users quickly realized that the new shape was better than the old. And a revolution in axes was made.

That is plausible, but did it actually happen, and if so when and where. Then the question of whether smiths made new axes with the same feature, even if it was accepted renewal technique. I guess I would have to see several dated examples to be comfortable with the assertion.

I do agree that some convex can be beneficial, but primarily in certain logging specific applications. My hypothesis is it was an innovation axe makers made to sell to the big timber companies or their employees, possibly based on a scenario like yours. On the other hand, flat cheeks are preferable, to me at least, for many of the shaping and building tasks that earlier axes would have been used for.

And, because it is the internet, let me state I see this as a discussion not an argument!

 

[Hickory n steel]

That is plausible, but did it actually happen, and if so when and where. Then the question of whether smiths made new axes with the same feature, even if it was accepted renewal technique. I guess I would have to see several dated examples to be comfortable with the assertion.

I do agree that some convex can be beneficial, but primarily in certain logging specific applications. My hypothesis is it was an innovation axe makers made to sell to the big timber companies or their employees, possibly based on a scenario like yours. On the other hand, flat cheeks are preferable, to me at least, for many of the shaping and building tasks that earlier axes would have been used for.

And, because it is the internet, let me state I see this as a discussion not an argument!

Yeah, for some tasks like carving flat cheeks are definitely better.

 

[Moonw]

There's not enough material close to the bit. You need to move material from further back in the cheek.

I'd agree with you, except those axes had iron cheeks, so they would not hold an edge once the hardened steel was gone, when you were displacing iron?

 

[Square_peg]

But they used the insert method back then. Hardened steel went further back into the axe.

 

[Camber]

???
High centerline top, flat cheeks bottom.

I'm sorry. I'm missing something. I don't really understand what your response is with the photos. Do most competition axes have high center lines and convex cheeks? The few examples I've seen have not, even if they do have elaborate grinds, including the bevels on the top and bottom. The cheeks, despite those bevels were flat, w/o a high center line.

 

[Woodcraft]

I'm sorry. I'm missing something. I don't really understand what your response is with the photos. Do most competition axes have high center lines and convex cheeks? The few examples I've seen have not, even if they do have elaborate grinds, including the bevels on the top and bottom. The cheeks, despite those bevels were flat, w/o a high center line.

It does not matter if the actual cheeks on any given competition ax are flat or not. They contain multiple angles, grinds and bevels. Everything is worked out to maximize depth achieved while still being able to clear the chip and minimize surface area for release. All for a given type of wood, for a specific event. They are the furthest thing from what the op was referring to. If a fraction of the time and effort spent designing those $600+ axes was spent designing the $400+ custom axes with flat cheeks we are discussing it would be welcomed. And is the general point of the op, I assume.


A well thought out piece of equipment.

A flat cheeked ax.


And to be clear, you actually started a thread about ax grinds in which you use a competition ax as an example of convex cheeks. So I think you are very aware of the different grinds, angles and cheek geometry of competition axes.
http://www.bladeforums.com/threads/newb-question-different-axe-grinds.1026360/

 

[Camber]

Man, the civility in this place continues to get worse.

I am aware of the different grinds on competition axes...I'm still not sure however how they achieve a banana / sea shell looking grind since as far as I know they are not produced with high center lines.

Also, not all them are so complicated, in particular the work axes they sell which in many cases are simply flat ground with chisel ground edges. The work axes in that regard seem similar to the axes you seem to be knocking, if albeit the precise angles are perhaps more calculated. Honestly, in many of the cases, the only difference seems to me to be the phantom bevels.

Regardless, the fact that they don't simply rely on high centerlines indicates there are numerous ways to achieve success. And I don't know that those other makers haven't put a lot of thought into their angle choices, or whether the edges are convexed at the end or anything.

 

[Hickory n steel]

It does not matter if the actual cheeks on any given competition ax are flat or not. They contain multiple angles, grinds and bevels. Everything is worked out to maximize depth achieved while still being able to clear the chip and minimize surface area for release. All for a given type of wood, for a specific event. They are the furthest thing from what the op was referring to. If a fraction of the time and effort spent designing those $600+ axes was spent designing the $400+ custom axes with flat cheeks we are discussing it would be welcomed. And is the general point of the op, I assume.


A well thought out piece of equipment.

A flat cheeked ax.


And to be clear, you actually started a thread about ax grinds in which you use a competition ax as an example of convex cheeks. So I think you are very aware of the different grinds, angles and cheek geometry of competition axes.
http://www.bladeforums.com/threads/newb-question-different-axe-grinds.1026360/

That's pretty much it !
In today's world basically all new axes have flat cheeks ( minus the Vaughan sub zero hatchet and one barco double bit ) and flat cheeked axes are just boring and bland by this point.
I feel a Smith should do not more to distinguish their axes from others, besides the fact that they're hand forged.

 

[Woodcraft]

Man, the civility in this place continues to get worse.

It have gone worse.

I am aware of the different grinds on competition axes...I'm still not sure however how they achieve a banana / sea shell looking grind since as far as I know they are not produced with high center lines.

They grind the blank producing that particular grind. Creating a "high centerline" in that part of the ax.

Also, not all them are so complicated, in particular the work axes they sell which in many cases are simply flat ground with chisel ground edges. The work axes in that regard seem similar to the axes you seem to be knocking, if albeit the precise angles are perhaps more calculated. Honestly, in many of the cases, the only difference seems to me to be the phantom bevels.

You may want to get up close and personal with a few and a straight edge.
A lot of the "work axes" are just cheaper made competition blanks, so they are technically, an unfinished ax.

Regardless, the fact that they don't simply rely on high centerlines indicates there are numerous ways to achieve success. And I don't know that those other makers haven't put a lot of thought into their angle choices, or whether the edges are convexed at the end or anything.

When the maker posts a video of himself using the axe in the wood of his choice in the activity of his choice and the ax is clearly having sticking issues I think it is safe to say a lot of though on the subject was not put into it.



This is a work axe. It is ground to the request of the user. Not flat cheeked. There are some crap ones out there, as well as some unground blanks that may be flat.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

I am aware of the different grinds on competition axes...I'm still not sure however how they achieve a banana / sea shell looking grind since as far as I know they are not produced with high center lines.

On a flat-cheeked axe the so-called "banana" look would be produced by grinding the middle region thinner and thickening the grind angle as you approach the heel and toe. By contrast, the same look would be produced on an axe with convex cheeks when using a convex or flat grind.

 

[Square_peg]

The banana look is simply the result of putting a long bevel on a convex cheeked axe. The width of the banana is determined by height of the convexing and the length of the bevel (bevel angle plays a major role here). I file my axes all to about the same edge profile but the grinds all come out looking different because of the underlying cheek geometry. An axe gauge would show them to be nearly identical.

I also increase the bevel angle at the heel and toe to make that part of the bit more robust. This makes the banana come to more of a point. I lose a tiny bit of cutting efficiency but I gain a more durable edge. The center of the axe does most the cutting. The heel and toe take the most abuse.

 

[Square_peg]

Radial grinds suck for my uses. Too thick in the middle, too thin at the heel and toe. Draw filing jigs have no appeal to me. My hands and eyes know what angles I want to achieve. The placement of the axe in the vise for sharpening also helps control the bevel angle. I try to control the placement of the axe in the vise so that I'm filing close to level for the majority of my work.

 

[Woodcraft]

The banana look is simply the result of putting a long bevel on a convex cheeked axe. The width of the banana is determined by height of the convexing and the length of the bevel (bevel angle plays a major role here). I file my axes all to about the same edge profile but the grinds all come out looking different because of the underlying cheek geometry. An axe gauge would show them to be nearly identical.

I also increase the bevel angle at the heel and toe to make that part of the bit more robust. This makes the banana come to more of a point. I lose a tiny bit of cutting efficiency but I gain a more durable edge. The center of the axe does most the cutting. The heel and toe take the most abuse.

Ozbornes banana grind. I think what C Camber was getting at was he is seeing "work axes" and competition axes that may or may not look like they have flat cheeks and does not realize the amount of work that will be done to an ax head. The same chunk of steel can end up looking like this


Or like this.