New Warwood tools " perfect axe " ?

[flexo]

The way I see it we're all just being a bit picky because we know how axes used to be made, but they're just not going to make axes like they used to anymore.
Sure in this case we're talking about a premium axe for the enthusiast that is kind of intended as a reproduction, but I still think it looks better than most axes on the market today and they seem to have gotten a lot right.

As for the particular criticism my assumption is that they designed this to capture what many people think of when it comes to the Kelly perfect axes, while understanding that it's a boys axe and the liberties taken for aesthetic purposes probably aren't going to effect it much in the context of today's axe needs.

Just think that it could have been as bad as a Collins commander.

hello, well, is this ironic? can you explain as i don't know that model? ground down phantom bevels are not anouncing quality stuff, but, what is the issue with it?

 

[flexo]

ouch pressed down handle like that is a sure way to breakage is that the most point of weakness you don't like in it? can clearly see wood chips under the steel, and some teared off wood allready gone from strong assessment with poorly prepared haft not much at the size of the eye ...
right?

 

[Hickory n steel]

can you explain as i don't know that model? ground down phantom bevels are not anouncing quality stuff, but, what is the issue with it?

The bevels on the Collins commanders ( 1980's or early 90's ) are useless and barely existent , and the heads are a very ugly narrow poll vague representation of a Michigan pattern.
They're basically the polar opposite of this new Warwood which is a good representation of a Dayton pattern with functional well defined bevels.

 

[Honed_Edge]

I just took a peek at their site. That's not my style of axe. The head looks tiny on that log of a handle.

I'm picky and gripe too much so ignore me probably. I'm just spoiled with lots of Kelly and KeenKutter axes with nice thin handles. When you have basically lots of new old stock, nothing actually new is very nice.

Sorry young people of the world.

 

[garry3]

I just took a peek at their site. That's not my style of axe. The head looks tiny on that log of a handle.

I'm picky and gripe too much so ignore me probably. I'm just spoiled with lots of Kelly and KeenKutter axes with nice thin handles. When you have basically lots of new old stock, nothing actually new is very nice.

Sorry young people of the world.

No not picky at all, they have proven designs to copy, all they have to do is not screw it up and they can't get it right. Not a single modern manufacturer gets it, none of them.

 

[Twindog]

It's a pretty nice axe, but not that close to the Kelly Perfect.

The raised cheeks are about the same height as the original True Temper Kelly Perfect, but the axe head is thicker and softer. And the raised cheeks have a different sweep, as you can see below.

I have a 3.5 pound Kelly that is pretty worn and larger than the Warwood Perfect, which is a 2.25 pound head. The old Kelly Perfect is quite a bit thinner on the outside edges behind the bit, despite being the larger head. On the outside edge, where the cheek sweeps in behind the edge, the old Kelly is 0.21 inches thick. The corresponding point on the Warwood is 0.31 inches thick.

Where the cheek sweep ends before the haft, on the outside edge, the Kelly is 0.41 inches and the Warwood is 0.57 inches.

I don't know the hardness of either head, but the Kelly is harder. I can scratch the Warwood with the Kelly, but the Warwood cannot scratch the Kelly.

The Warwood came with a beautiful haft, with the grain perfectly parallel to the head. The fit was good, and left with a little less than an eighth proud. The bit was fairly sharp, but there was a considerable burr on one side. The balance is nice. It's fun to use.

 

[crbnSteeladdict]

It's a pretty nice axe, but not that close to the Kelly Perfect.

The raised cheeks are about the same height as the original True Temper Kelly Perfect, but the axe head is thicker and softer. And the raised cheeks have a different sweep, as you can see below.

I have a 3.5 pound Kelly that is pretty worn and larger than the Warwood Perfect, which is a 2.25 pound head. The old Kelly Perfect is quite a bit thinner on the outside edges behind the bit, despite being the larger head. On the outside edge, where the cheek sweeps in behind the edge, the old Kelly is 0.21 inches thick. The corresponding point on the Warwood is 0.31 inches thick.

Where the cheek sweep ends before the haft, on the outside edge, the Kelly is 0.41 inches and the Warwood is 0.57 inches.

I don't know the hardness of either head, but the Kelly is harder. I can scratch the Warwood with the Kelly, but the Warwood cannot scratch the Kelly.

The Warwood came with a beautiful haft, with the grain perfectly parallel to the head. The fit was good, and left with a little less than an eighth proud. The bit was fairly sharp, but there was a considerable burr on one side. The balance is nice. It's fun to use.

I assume they were trying (and failed miserably ) to base 2023 model on much earlier Kelly Perfect; Your axe looks like True Temper era.
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/antique-c-kelly-axe-co-perfect-axe-1899815160
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/antique-c-kelly-perfect-axe-3869895140

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

That is a BIZARRELY anemic poll, though, I must say. And the bit is real thick behind the edge bevel, so the cheeks could stand some extra grinding.

 

[garry3]

Modern makers absolutely refuse to make axes that are thick where they should be thick and thin where they should be thin. It's not like the axes that were made that way were all hand forged either.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Modern makers absolutely refuse to make axes that are thick where they should be thick and thin where they should be thin. It's not like the axes that were made that way were all hand forged either.

The only current maker I've come across that does a good job of making the geometry right behind the edge properly thin is Rinaldi, but they're southern European styled axes rather than American. I honestly wish that more makers would take their approach if economical edges were desired. Their edges come with a ragged burr on them that comes off with a few strokes of a file, but that backing geometry is nice and thin like it should be.

 

[Square_peg]

It's a pretty nice axe, but not that close to the Kelly Perfect.

The raised cheeks are about the same height as the original True Temper Kelly Perfect, but the axe head is thicker and softer. And the raised cheeks have a different sweep, as you can see below.

I have a 3.5 pound Kelly that is pretty worn and larger than the Warwood Perfect, which is a 2.25 pound head. The old Kelly Perfect is quite a bit thinner on the outside edges behind the bit, despite being the larger head. On the outside edge, where the cheek sweeps in behind the edge, the old Kelly is 0.21 inches thick. The corresponding point on the Warwood is 0.31 inches thick.

Where the cheek sweep ends before the haft, on the outside edge, the Kelly is 0.41 inches and the Warwood is 0.57 inches.

I don't know the hardness of either head, but the Kelly is harder. I can scratch the Warwood with the Kelly, but the Warwood cannot scratch the Kelly.

The Warwood came with a beautiful haft, with the grain perfectly parallel to the head. The fit was good, and left with a little less than an eighth proud. The bit was fairly sharp, but there was a considerable burr on one side. The balance is nice. It's fun to use.

Crude cast finish. Blunt edge. Crappy radial grind. What an afterbirth!

 

[Old Axeman]

This axe is far from "perfect". Square peg is correct, this axe shows me that nobody at Warwood Tools involved with any part of this axe has any experience with using an axe for what a axe is all about- moving wood. It is sad to me that axes are getting popular again, but (at least from my perspective) very few of the people involved with this new popularity know their akole from their elbow when it comes to using an axe. Now I always like to wait until I put my hands on a axe before I pass judgement on it. But I can see from the enclosed pictures that this axe is way off base. It is a shame, they could have done this right, but did not.

 

[Hickory n steel]

I think it might make a decent little campsite splitting axe, but it doesn't seem well suited to it's intended purpose.

 

[Twindog]

This axe is far from "perfect". Square peg is correct, this axe shows me that nobody at Warwood Tools involved with any part of this axe has any experience with using an axe for what a axe is all about- moving wood. It is sad to me that axes are getting popular again, but (at least from my perspective) very few of the people involved with this new popularity know their akole from their elbow when it comes to using an axe. Now I always like to wait until I put my hands on a axe before I pass judgement on it. But I can see from the enclosed pictures that this axe is way off base. It is a shame, they could have done this right, but did not.

I'm happy to start a pass-around for people who would like to try this axe out. The original packaging is sturdy and easy to mail.

Last one can send it back to me.

[It's been a week with no interest, so I'm pulling back the offer just so it isn't outstanding forever.]

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Crude cast finish. Blunt edge. Crappy radial grind. What an afterbirth!

Cast? Absolutely not. Just a rough drop-forged finish with no finish grinding. There's lots wrong with it from what I'm seeing, but it's definitely not cast.