Overcoat Versus Inserted Bit On Vintage Axes?

J

joshiecole

Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
515
Hi there,

I've seen divergent opinions on the merits of the overcoat welding method versus the inserted bit method. I'd be grateful to collect your opinions regarding these two methods. Both are discussed here

If you were to get a contemporary maker to make you an axe which method would you choose, assuming that he was equally skilled in both?

I ask because most contemporary makes seem to go with the inserted bit method, but you see plenty of fine old axes from makers like Emerson Stevens, Kelly and Peavey with overcoat welds.

Or would you ditch the welded bit altogether and go for a monosteel head?
 
I like both, never seen a weld fail on either. I've had, used, and sold plenty of both types. The only reason I'd prefer a monosteel is if you start to run out of high carbon bit, you can always re-temper.
 
Wow, fast reply. I suspect that in that era should the axe get resharpened beyond the tempered bit, it would be sensible simply to re-weld another high carbon bit over the end? Like resoling a handmade shoe.
 
Look back in time to when carbon steel was very expensive and difficult to come by in any quantity. Wrought iron was readily available and easily worked by village blacksmiths. A tool steel blade insert (whether overcoat or insert) on an axe head made the difference between a long-wearing sharp tool and a dud. Evolution of steel manufacture (for military rifles and artillery) was fast-tracked by invention of high pressure smokeless powder and repeating actions during the 1880s. The spin-off to the Bessemer steel-refining process was increased availability and reduced price of steel for ordinary tools. Axes have been made entirely of steel for quite some time now (at least 100 years) but those blades are tempered after the head has been forged. The temper/non-temper zones tend to be quite visible when you vinegar bathe an axe head.
This demarcation does not indicate that an axe head was made of two types of metal.
You pay through the nose to buy a Swedish boutique axe these days. Watch one of their recent manufacture videos and then tell us which method of manufacture you prefer.
By the way you have to go all the way to China in order to obtain wrought iron now because nobody else can be bothered to make or market that material anymore, for love nor money.
 
Axe makers using the inserted bit method would sometimes explain in their catalogs why the overcoat method was inferior, typically because the hardened edge would eventually wear away sooner with repeated sharpenings. Here's an excerpt from Kauffman's book American Axes about "overcoating", with text from a Mann catalog which defends their use of the overcoat method, and states that the two methods had exactly the same manufacturing costs:

http://books.google.com/books?id=x5ZiYCZRdHwC&lpg=PA146&ots=1C9tevcoyO&dq=overcoat%20bit%20axe&pg=PA53#v=onepage&q=overcoat%20bit%20axe&f=false



Another comparison of the overcoat and inserted (sometimes referred to as "dovetailed") bits:

books


https://books.google.com/books?id=o6lBAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA49&ots=AzFeOwRqyW&dq=overcoat%20axe&pg=PA49#v=onepage&q&f=false

A related article:
https://books.google.com/books?id=6_4aAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA145&ots=wDmBpQZRDl&dq=overcoat%20axe%20weld&pg=PA144#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
I prefer insert to overcoat because the the cutting edge will be high carbon further back with an insert.


joshiecole said:
I suspect that in that era should the axe get resharpened beyond the tempered bit, it would be sensible simply to re-weld another high carbon bit over the end? Like resoling a handmade shoe.
Click to expand...

Good point. Back then tools were routinely repaired by a blacksmith. It would have been a simple enough matter to add a new high carbon bit.

Edit: I should have finished reading this thread before I posted. Steve Tall already covered what I was saying.
 
I've often wondered about this too because it seems there was a switch (to some degree) from one to the other. I've had friends bring over a number of axes with bits worn through to iron and I've never personally seen an axe made with an inserted bit - all overlaid - so I have no experience. In Steve's link they talk about the idea that if you used the same amount of steel then there isn't much real world difference between the two and that is about how I see it. If you're making two identically dimensioned axes and use the same amount of iron and steel in both, then I don't suspect there would be a huge difference. In the Emerson Stevens video out there on youtube, you see them overlaying their bits. I do expect that a lot of blacksmiths repaired axes by overlaying the steel just because it must be simpler to do that way. And maybe that carried over into manufacturing over time. As for preference, I guess I'd be happy with either one. It makes sense, from the standpoint of making the axe, to just insert the steel, particularly when you are folding the head anyway, and have the gap available to insert the bit.
 
Just thinking about it, it seems that the overlay would be the easiest method to re-steel? a worn edge. Many ax heads were made by drifting and punching the eye, for these the overlay would seem to be the easiest. Also, the overlay could be a simple butt weld and edge forge. No need to split the edge or steel. For those that were wrapped as cithofthesouth noted - inserting and welding the bit would be part of the process.
 
The overcoat method was the more "modern" method. Maybe because it was easier or faster in manufacture and not otherwise better. I always feel it is a bonus when I find an axe made by either method. I think they are better than one piece axes but maybe it's because of the amount of time and skill that went into the making of the axe. I don't know which is better but I'm sure it's easier to shape an insert rather than a hard overcoat piece.
 
Does anyone have any field comparisons?

Like Bo T I wondered whether the overcoat method might make for an easier patch job on a worn down edge?
 
Another company using the overcoat method was Warren Axe & Tool (from 1921 article).

books


a: stock for the axe head
b,c: after punching for the eye, single and double bit
d: bar stock for the overcoat bit
e: overcoat after shaping
f,g: axe heads after "hand forging" the bits using trip hammers


books


These trip hammers are obviously older technology than the open die drop forging machinery currently used at Gransfors, Wetterlings, etc.

Article from The Iron Trade Review, September 22, 1921, p. 747
 
I looked back at your initial post; merely asking for recommendations of steel 'insert' VS ''overcoat' bits. Sorry I brought up references to all current manufacturing process of using monosteel for axe heads. If in fact you're going to commision some (hopefully very much metallurgy savvy) maker to custom-make you an axe head using 120+ year old technology (and I look forward to seeing what you come up with!) then 'insert' is the only way to go. Good luck finding wrought iron. 120 years ago the situation was reversed; good luck finding good steel.
Axes outwardly appear to be ultimate lo-tech but hundreds of years of evolution made them durable-enough-without-bending-breaking-dulling where needed. 'Too hard' is bad news as is 'too soft' and figuring all this out just for making a "one off" is not going to be straightforward.
 
300Six,

There's no need for it to be wrought iron -- although it is still available with relative ease here in the UK. Makers like Lee Reeves, Autine Tools and others use a mild steel for the head with higher carbon (usually around 1080ish) steel for the bit. These are among the most sought after new axes.

As for bringing in monosteels, that's perfectly reasonable since I left that as a third option at the bottom of the OP. I myself would be in two minds about whether I'd go for the monosteel or the welded bit. I suspect in the real world it doesn't make much difference, but I wanted to gather a few opinions on what is an interesting topic.
 
Even if this thread is somewhat academic, I have to say I'm really enjoying it, thanks for all the contributions.
 
I have a number of forge welded axes (and most of the guys replying do too), Snow & Nealley, Keen Kutter, Old Yank, I've hung a few as well and I've seen a few worn through. With Warren doing it in Steve's 1921 article, Emerson Stevens doing it clear up until 1965 (and these are widely considered high quality axes), Douglas (another of the greats who, BTW, made their last axe in 1910), and I would imagine almost every major brand, there is likely no real difference. Theses are all the big names in axes and they all overlaid the bit. It can't come down to anything other than longevity and the axes I've seen worn through to the iron, all were a useless profile by then. Even if one lasts longer than the other, the bit is getting so thick by the time it matters, the tool is already beyond it's useful profile. It could as easily be a matter of these guys do it this way, these guys do it that way, neither is better, both work. I think the fact that most major names in axes in the 20th century at least were doing it by overlaying the steel, says plenty about what works and what doesn't. If it really just boils down to which will last longer, an all steel axe is obviously the best, because it could simply be heat treated for a mile.

Here is the Old Yank. You can see how much steel would have to be ground away, and how thick and stumpy the axe would be by that point.
oldyank_forgewelded by city_ofthe_south, on Flickr


Here is a Keen Kutter that's shot. Just imagine if the orientation were reversed, sure there would be some steel in there, but the axe is a club by this point.
keenkutter_wornbit1 by city_ofthe_south, on Flickr
 
Illustration from a post above:

books

https://books.google.com/books?id=o...W&dq=overcoat axe&pg=PA49#v=onepage&q&f=false

The author seems to be in favor of the insert and offers that illustration to make his point. To my eye Fig. 22 has less steel than Fig. 23. So if they were being sold at the same price 22 would probably be a bad buy. The bit obviously won't last as long.


Here is an altered version of the above illustration:


IMHO my altered drawing is just as valid as the original. My point being that a comparison of the two methods used be based on two axes (one insert and the other overlaid) of the same pattern with bits of the same steel and weight.



Bob
 
rjdankert said:
How about a dovetailed bit?

256548_1900x.jpg

https://www.jimbodetools.com/products/jaw-dropping-etched-presentation-axe-by-h-h-stricker-55448


Bob
Click to expand...

At first glance i was Really surprised...but looking closer,i think that it's a faux dove-tail...with a real overlaid bit weld-line showing towards the eye(similar to a welded-on poll)....
But in any case,What an odd creation!!!:)

OR, possibly the dove-tail pattern is chiseled through the (possibly de-laminated)layer of the overlaid bit on that side...(wonder what's it like on the obverse)
 
Last edited:
Could the whole dovetial be a recent etch? Maybe etched twice.

If the bit were attached that way the whole would still have had to be heated and hammered. The two sides of the dovetail would have been hammered flush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top