On the Origin of Phantom Bevels

junkenstien said:
In that link I posted earlier he says the highest praise for hand tools at the centennial exposition in 1876 was for the American felling axe,easy to rework and ease of removal after striking are what it says.Would think high center line.
Click to expand...

There's a ton of good stuff at that link. I hadn't dug deep enough to find that yet.
 
Well,i think we all here thank you,Square_peg,for bringing all this up...We're here to learn,aren't we...And what better way is there than to get into it as deep as possible?...Need to keep them old neurons on their toes,sharp as can be...:)
 
Guy named Briann77 posted on the pic thread about the steamboat Arabia museum,if you Google that and look at the images they have a bunch of different pattern axes and they all look flat.Mail order didn't get big till the 1870's.
 
There's an old adage that distinctly applies to tool nutz: "two heads are better than one"; and in this discussion the input from various sources is bearing fruit. Great thread!
 
Well,Bob,i don't want to speak for Square_peg here,but i think what this thread is about is the relocation of some of the "reserve"(put it that way) mass from in front of the eye to further towards the edge,as Necessary.
So(thanks for that,Hacked)the guy with that Connie only wanted to relocate enough metal to restore the shape of the toe,and it appears he accomplished it just as planned.
And to do so it looks like he didn't need to get too close to the center-line of blade,but found enough to move closer by the edge(and then ground it to come up with that "bevelled all around" grind,not sure what the technical term would be).

(the gent is obviously a farrier,i really like the use of that little gas clam-forge,seems like a perfect tool for heating an axe:).

The phantom bevels per se are a radical version of the principle involved,it's probably maxed out in that form,or nearly so.Where nearly all the available mass is moved towards the edge to begin with.

There's also an old method that haven't been mentioned here-modeling the proposed forging process in playdough,or better Plasticine(any non-hardening clay type of substance).
It's never the Whole story,forging is more complex than that,but it does work well for a bit of a preview of the potential,planned solution.
So say you have a worn axe that you're considering repairing in this wise,you could model it in plasticine,and determine fairly exactly where the needed mass is to come from,and in which way it'd be best to move it to where you'd rather it be.
 
rjdankert said:
I don't see the phantom bevels?


Bob
Click to expand...

Can't say I've seen a single example of them in this thread, nor the discussion of them or the creation of them. Rather it seems to be more so about the origins of the high centerline which we can presume inspired the phantom bevels of the original Kelly perfect and future axes to come. Can we at least agree on that?

Just wanted to point out a real world example of what the OP was about occurring with to my knowledge no influence from this thread. That is to say I offer it as anecdotal evidence that this idea is both plausible and possible.
 
rjdankert said:
I don't see the phantom bevels?
Click to expand...

Hacked said:
Can't say I've seen a single example of them in this thread
Click to expand...

Of course you're both correct. What we're really talking about here are bevels in general. "Phantom" bevels are the shallow stylistic imprints on a late model Kelly Perfect or the like. They are only for show as discussed by Woodtrekker.
http://woodtrekker.blogspot.com/2011/11/axe-head-geometry-phantom-bevels-and.html

But in the common vernacular most axe collectors now call any bevel a phantom bevel. I took some liberties with the term. The thread title could more accurately be 'On the Origin of Bevels'.

Hacked, thank you for the link to the other forum. There's a lot of overlap between their forum members and our forum members. Many axe folks read and post on both forums. I've mostly limited myself to this forum as of late because I think the discussion is more in depth here.

jake pogg said:
....but i think what this thread is about is the relocation of some of the "reserve"(put it that way) mass from in front of the eye to further towards the edge,as Necessary.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I intended this thread to be about and so far it has been (mostly).
 
Square_peg said:
Read this from Hubbard, a renowned maker of railroad tools including track chisels. Begin below the images of the Hubbard Chisels at "All Hubbard Chisels..." The maker is explicitly acknowledging that their tools are going to be redressed by local and company blacksmiths to extend their working life.
Click to expand...

I need to correct this statement. It should read, 'Begin at "The former is..." '. The key phrase is "it's design provides ample breadth of face for drawing down and redressing."
 
Hacked said:
Can't say I've seen a single example of them in this thread, nor the discussion of them or the creation of them. Rather it seems to be more so about the origins of the high centerline which we can presume inspired the phantom bevels of the original Kelly perfect and future axes to come. Can we at least agree on that?

Just wanted to point out a real world example of what the OP was about occurring with to my knowledge no influence from this thread. That is to say I offer it as anecdotal evidence that this idea is both plausible and possible.
Click to expand...
When closed die forming/forging enters into manufacture mainstream it would have been a golden opportunity to create products that are difficult to produce (clearly defined, decorative and shallow bevels being one) the traditional way. But Kelly (or whoever started this trend) had to have conceived of the idea from something somewhere. I'd be interested to know when all this began. I suspect a similar revolution occurred when copy lathes began mass producing handles that were conveniently curved. Suddenly simple-to-whittle straight hafts lost their appeal and became passe'.
 
300Six said:
When closed die forming/forging enters into manufacture mainstream it would have been a golden opportunity to create products that are difficult to produce...But Kelly...
Click to expand...
For reference, here's Kelly's 1889 patent showing the closed dies (for a drop forge) to make axes with bevels like the Kelly Perfect. The patent mentions iron as the body (poll) material, with the steel bit added later "in the usual manner, drawing out the blade".

US397368-0.png

Patent No. 397368
Patented Feb. 5, 1889
Ax Poll
W.C. Kelly

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d5/9b/4c/033a53c8649a58/US397368.pdf
 
Steve Tall said:
For reference, here's Kelly's 1889 patent showing the closed dies (for a drop forge) to make axes with bevels like the Kelly Perfect. The patent mentions iron as the body (poll) material, with the steel bit added later "in the usual manner, drawing out the blade".

US397368-0.png

Patent No. 397368
Patented Feb. 5, 1889
Ax Poll
W.C. Kelly

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d5/9b/4c/033a53c8649a58/US397368.pdf
Click to expand...
Thank you Steve! Any inventive machine-controlled-processes designed to circumvent the expense of skilled labour (in what's become historically-renowned for 'Yankee' ingenuity/expediency), that became 'Bible' all across industrialist America and then the World, is a revelation. Eli Whitney began manufacturing cotton gins with machine-reproducible-interchangeable parts already in the late 1700s which must have lit a proverbial fire amongst American Captains of Industry. If late 1800s (holy cow, almost 100 years later!) is when pressed-made-insert-bit Kelly axe heads first appeared on the scene it's no wonder that major competitor Lafayette-Plumb progressed on to homogeneous-steel-formed heads not long after.
The discussion here is about the origin of machine-made 'scalloped' (phantom bevel) blades but history has an interesting way of confounding things after the pioneers/instigators (along with refurbishers of traditional-made predecessors) have long since passed away.
 
Howdy all. First post here, although I've seen from time to time some good info on this board. But it seemed slow, so I'd rarely check it. Livelier now though, maybe I'll stop by more often.

A birdie told me to check it back out, I'm the one whose post in BCUSA was linked above by Hacked, for the Rixford Connie repair. It's the second of those I've done. The other a michigan, couple years back, just to see if I could. That one seemed to work well also.

Not sure how it relates to the Phantom bevel historically, but it's pretty easy compared to welding a new bit on. In this axes case, all steel, the thing that really matters is if you can heat treat it again.

Anyway, i would think its something that was done by woodcutters and farmers who logged in the winter, if no one else. Bigger Logging Companies might have thought it was jumping dollars to save dimes. BUT I really only know I had good luck with it.
 
Muleman77,hey,excellent job,just thinking in that direction is mighty cool(never woulda thunk to do meself had it not come up here first),and thanks for all your thoughts.
Something in your description caught my eye:When you have re-drawn temper that second time,you say that you've made a point of only tempering the very edge,leaving that after-part of the bit as hard as possible.
Is there a special reason for that?(like maybe you figure that steel to be shallow-hardening,and wished it to be maximally hard?Or ...?)
Thanks in advance.
 
jake pogg said:
Muleman77,hey,excellent job,just thinking in that direction is mighty cool(never woulda thunk to do meself had it not come up here first),and thanks for all your thoughts.
Something in your description caught my eye:When you have re-drawn temper that second time,you say that you've made a point of only tempering the very edge,leaving that after-part of the bit as hard as possible.
Is there a special reason for that?(like maybe you figure that steel to be shallow-hardening,and wished it to be maximally hard?Or ...?)
Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

What I meant more exactly, was that it was already as soft as I wanted, other than the last 3/8 or 1/2 ", going by color. So just trying to bring that edge down a bit more, but not the inch behind it. If that makes sense.
 
muleman77 said:
What I meant more exactly, was that it was already as soft as I wanted, other than the last 3/8 or 1/2 ", going by color. So just trying to bring that edge down a bit more, but not the inch behind it. If that makes sense.
Click to expand...

It makes Perfect sense,thank you.(I should've figured that's what you done,now that you said that:)).

Again,wonderful job,and what a beautiful old axe,too.Right on!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top