On the Origin of Phantom Bevels

There seems to be a lot of confusion here about what type of steel was made when and how that steel was used. Most 19th century axe bits were made from crucible steel, a process that had been around since the 6th century (with improvements over the years). It was a slow and costly process, especially when compared to Bessemer and open hearth steel production.

Crucible steel remained better steel for knives and axe bits into the early 20th century. When axe makers (like Fulton) advertised their axes as being made with 'razor steel' they were talking about crucible steel. Fulton was advertising it until at least 1927!

So good high carbon was at a premium at the time phantom bevels emerged. Overcoat bits weren't common yet, too wasteful and also high carbon steel was harder to work, meaning your average blacksmith (with no power hammer) wouldn't have wasted time forming an overcoat bit.

Some reading for anyone interseted:
https://www.thebalance.com/steel-history-2340172
https://www.thebalance.com/a-short-history-of-steel-part-ii-2340103
https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/backbone/ra_4_1.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucible_steel
https://www.britannica.com/technology/crucible-process
 
Square_peg said:
It was a slow and costly process
Click to expand...

I wanted to elaborate on this a bit. Conservation of high quality steel was an important factor in making an axe before the open hearth steel process had been perfected. As evidence have a look at this old wrought iron broadaxe. The skill by which the high carbon steel was inserted only as needed is spectacular! It's the best example of crucible steel use I've seen.

First off, it's obviously not an overlay. No high carbon steel is seen at the bit beyond 1/4" from the edge.
1.jpg


But look how far back the carbon steel extends on the contact surface of the broadaxe! And look how precisely it ends!
2.jpg


Look how thin the carbon steel layer is. And take at look at that poll!
4.jpg


It's very clearly a wrought iron body. But look at how the bit and poll laminations also shows layering. I'm not certain what process created this look in the carbon steel poll. But in any case it's a very thin precisely made carbon steel poll. No extra steel was wasted. I think this must have been made by a pretty exacting factory method. It's evidence that even an advanced axe factory was very careful in their allocation of high carbon steel.
5.jpg


Again showing a thin cap of high carbon steel carefully layered over the poll.
6.jpg

7.jpg

8.jpg


High carbon steel was not wasted in overcoating during the early period of axe manufacture when phantom bevels would have first appeared.
 
I'll just put this out for anyone who has a quantitative answer. Given the two examples below, overlay and insert using the same amount of iron and bit steel, and both the same price and quality, how much money will the buyer loose when buying the overlay which will run out of usable bit steel sooner? Pick any date.


To be honest I don't have the inclination to calculate this myself, but maybe there are eager beavers out there that may want to take this on? My hunch is that someone who wanted the overlay would never notice the cost, but I never argue with arithmetic.;)


Bob
 
Square_peg said:
It's very clearly a wrought iron body. But look at how the bit and poll laminations also shows layering. I'm not certain what process created this look in the carbon steel poll.
Click to expand...

The layering,or the striations,in the high-carbon parts of the laminate probably point to it being so-called Shear steel.
It was an early,(and very laborious) method of increasing the C content by "piling" of the carburised plate,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cementation_process

But other than the exact method of obtaining the steel(and there were several,pre-Bessemer),all else remains equal.

What a beautiful old tool.Those striations in the WI body in the top view clearly show how the forging was bent around at the poll.
 
This doesn't change the fact that you could insert steel into a piece of wrought and then overcoat or scarf-weld on the new bit instead of trying to draw out an uncertain quantity of remaining steel.

Edit to add: Wouldn't even need to chisel a groove to do the overlay. Take a strip of steel, and fold a wider strip of wrought over that, and weld together, slit the remaining fold, and then forge weld to the prepared bit.
 
Last edited:
^^^

This shows your inexperience with blacksmithing. You're claiming that making 2 forge welds will be easier then simply drawing out the existing steel. It's ludicrous!

And there are/were many means by which a smith of old could determine how much and what type of steel was remaining. You're placing your own lack of knowledge of steel and smithing onto blacksmiths who had a lifetime of experience dealing with the metals of their age. You really think those guys couldn't read a spark test? A file test? You think vinegar didn't exist?
 
It would be interesting to know whether there were many precedents to such varying the depth of the blade....

I do remember a discussion elsewhere,some time ago,where Ernest brought up this curious German carpenter's axe,that he says was in use between 15th and 19th c.c.,and sometimes known by a (hilarious)name Dumstorfer.

Here're cool historic photos that Ernest posted,https://imgur.com/a/NM8Aq

And here is the creature in current production,today:

https://www.dictum.com/en/tools-for...raight-handle-708459?ftr=_19__98.02_1_48_12__

(Just as a curiousity,i 've not any ideas or theories at this point...)
 
Ernest DuBois said:
Huhh?
Click to expand...

Sorry for my barbarous English...Just meant the depth of Terrain,how in that regional style they were not shy at all about the thickness of that raised area on the blade...(made me wonder why...as a chip-breaker?).

Ernest DuBois said:
And yet it is a common solution.
Click to expand...

It Could've been,and even was probably Meant to be,(as in designed into the tool;in that 1927 Wira factory film,how Modest is that amount of steel in the bit),but in that crazy century,the 1800's,in US...I don't know.

I've thought of what Square_peg said,and i'll agree:HT being equal(having to be done either way),a few forging heats no matter how heavy would indeed be prefferable to making a fair-sized weld(And having a chunk of edge-steel handy).
As in easier to do,more likely to be chosen by a non-professional smith.

But it's all Such a difficult proposition...19th century in the(by then Vast in area and population)USA,about total dynamism and confusion,clash of everything old and established and newly being adopted....
 
Square_peg said:
^^^

This shows your inexperience with blacksmithing. You're claiming that making 2 forge welds will be easier then simply drawing out the existing steel. It's ludicrous!

And there are/were many means by which a smith of old could determine how much and what type of steel was remaining. You're placing your own lack of knowledge of steel and smithing onto blacksmiths who had a lifetime of experience dealing with the metals of their age. You really think those guys couldn't read a spark test? A file test? You think vinegar didn't exist?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I'm claiming that it would be a more certain repair that would put more life back into the tool without having to alter the shape of the bit so significantly. If your goal is to restore steel to the cutting edge, why try pushing a piece that's been worn so far back forward instead of re-steeling the head? You're going to have to bother with re-heat-treating the head to begin with regardless of the method so you might as well do the job right instead of cutting such massive corners on a tool that's being purported to be critically important to the client doing their job properly. A spark or file test will not show you how much steel is left in the heel or toe. Vinegar etching would take time and could still reveal that only a little steel was left, which would necessitate another repair much sooner than re-steeling. And if trying to restore an original shape, it's also much easier to achieve an approximation of that shape through welding the material back on. As far as making two forge welds goes, it's not that much worse than making a single one. You'll have to get the fire prepped for the one anyhow, so doing a second one is not much worse when you have things set up for the task.

Again, maybe you're right, but I see many reasons why they may have arrived at the form by different means, and why repairing a worn bit would make more sense to do by other means.

This isn't an argument about what's easier but an argument about what makes the most sense.
 
I just find the narrative of a half-cocked repair yielding an axe that performed so much better as to allow the user who would pay for such a shortcut repair job to be able to influence people to such a degree that it became a common industry practice to be...unlikely. I think it much more likely that it was arrived at through deductive reasoning since a high centerline is the natural consequence of trying to balance penetration and preventing sticking with a bit of a given depth, width, and head weight. Phantom bevels are just a variation on that theme, and we know there have been many such variations in axe heads from different manufacturers, all of which are essentially doing similar things with different aesthetics.
 
jake pogg said:
(Russia's role as iron supplier i'm not very aware of..they generally managed to mess up anything they undertook,and i've never heard or read in any old blacksmithing info of them being any source of note,but i may've missed something).
Click to expand...

For some notes on competition between the Swedish and Russian iron trades, check out this document. :)
 
jake pogg said:
Sorry for my barbarous English...Just meant the depth of Terrain,how in that regional style they were not shy at all about the thickness of that raised area on the blade...(made me wonder why...as a chip-breaker?).
Click to expand...
Or a depth guide? I don't know. I can't wait to get my grubby hands on it in July.
 
Would think the simple fix would be the cheapest.Imagine a blacksmith would end up with a pile of wore out heads,maybe sell them to those that couldn't afford a better one.
 
Does anyone have any documents on actual steel costs in colonial America? I haven't been able to turn up anything. @Steve Tall ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top