The drawback in the Hudson Bay pattern

[halfaxe]

Hudson Bay is my favorite pattern. It doesn't piss me off if others don't like it. I can even see their points, which are valid. Not to the point of changing my mind though. A Hudson Bay is for fun, all other patterns are for work.

 

[Square_peg]

That's a good way to loook at it.

 

[Old Axeman]

Fun axes need love too.

 

[Square_peg]

....anyway, getting axes stuck is 98% an issue of technique.

I would argue that it's 98% the shape of the cheeks and bit!

 

[jmarston]

I suspect they were more of a pattern that was easy to churn out in volume. They're essentially a narrow rectangle with an eye drifted and a bit forged out on one end.

I truly think this was a huge design consideration when these axes were originally introduced. Cut a piece of barstock, flare one end and punch a hole. Voila you have a serviceable axe. The other benefit of this pattern would be how well it would pack in crates or barrels. Two could be laid opposite leaving little wasted space.

The fact that they were used extensively by early fur trappers, I suspect, was because they were shipped over in the thousands and thus available. Not because they were inherently better than other designs but because they were economical to manufacture, ship and purchase. The benefits of a lightweight head and ability to choke up were merely byproducts that works out well.

 

[axes of keevil]

Resurrecting this old thread to post a link to a video that I just made that I think is relevant to the discussion about origins of the Hudson Bay pattern, if not the thread title. Although it also touches on the titular problem with the Hudson Bay because I included a photo of a 1922 ad for Campbell's special patent pending Hudson Bay axe that won't loosen so easily. I am also adding and some photos of a Hudson Bay pattern 'Hunters' Tomahawk' circa 1898 and a screenshot of the catalogue page from the 1898 Rice Lewis and Son (Toronto) catalogue of general hardware.

The gist of the video is that the Hudson Bay pattern axe gets it name the same way Hudson Bay blankets and Hudson Bay pattern sleds and Hudson Bay pattern knives etc. get their names which is that it was the type sold by the Hudson's Bay Company. The Hudson Bay Company (HBC) is the oldest corporation in North America and had a monopoly over much of the Canadian fur trade and had standardized products (and it's own currency at one point). HBC had axes manufactured for them but also manufactured them themselves via smiths working at some of the posts (for example, Fort Vancouver). The Hudson Bay pattern overlapped with trade axes, at times both were being made, likely by the same smiths, and sold at the same posts. The earlier 19th century distinctively HBC pattern had a poll and generally looked like what you think of as a Hudson Bay axe except that it had a wide ellipse eye and was presumably intended to be hung as a slip fit. However; after 1860 the HBC axes had developed into the modern pattern with a narrow ellipse eye like they have today. By 1890, Welland Vale in St Catharines, Ontario, was making "Hudson's Bay pattern" axes. The turn-of-the-century HBC mail order catalogues had various axes for sale including "Hudson's Bay axes", and it seems reasonoable to guess that by this point that at least some were being made by Welland Vale because HBC also sold WV "Black Prince" axes. Welland Vale continued to produce Hudson Bay axes for decades and since the pattern was later picked up by many other manufacturers offering their own interpretations, it's probable that the 'modern' Hudson Bay pattern has been in continuous production for the last 170 years. The sources for this are documented with links in the video description on YT.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

The modern Hudson Bay was developed as a marketing conceit during a point of time where nostalgia for colonial pioneering and a fascination with outdoor recreation had gripped the public consciousness, and were made to ape the aesthetics of the original trade axes while being made in the then-current manner.

 

[axes of keevil]

The modern Hudson Bay was developed as a marketing conceit during a point of time where nostalgia for colonial pioneering and a fascination with outdoor recreation had gripped the public consciousness, and were made to ape the aesthetics of the original trade axes while being made in the then-current manner.

Fur trade iconography certainly played a role in later marketing and certainly the continued popularity is tied up in frontier nostalgia but the Hudson Bay pattern developed in Canada in the 19th century as the particular pattern traded by the Hudson's Bay Company.

Rusty axe photos with scale bars from Bradley Hyslop Trad Axe Collection and a Royal Ontario Museum artifact from a Hudson Bay post at Port Severn. Not sure what the date is on the chopping woman with what looks like a Welland Vale version but the woman harvesting birch sap was photographed in 1913. The chopping woman photo is from the Canadian Museum of History and the birch woman photo was from The Beaver (the Hudson's Bay Company quarterly magazine). Links to these sources are in the video description.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Actual period trade axes sold by the Hudson Bay Company were quite varied in form if I'm remembering correctly. There was not a "standard" pattern per se, and while the sort resembling the modern version of the pattern did exist, it was more of an emergent property of "punch an eye in a rectangular bar and fan out on end into a bit" more than anything else. Other styles abounded, and the consistent element of all of them was that they were fast and cheap to produce.

 

[Blue Sky]

As noted, the short eye vs. the extended head length is a definite drawback. You do have to be careful about levering out a stuck bit.

One other drawback is the long drop of the heel is much thinner than the handle behind it. When splitting, if you hit to the far side of the round, after the heel goes in it doesn’t spread the opening far enough to clear the handle, so the handle can take a beating. I’ve learned to try and keep the the heel a little off the near side to avoid that. Makes things a little less efficient.

This would apply to any bearded type axes I imagine, though most of those are not geared toward splitting as their main focus.

 

[axes of keevil]

There was not a "standard" pattern per se, and while the sort resembling the modern version of the pattern did exist, it was more of an emergent property of "punch an eye in a rectangular bar and fan out on end into a bit" more than anything else.

In the period in question (middle decades of the 19th century), HBC made their own axes to standard patterns at their central hubs like York Factory. HBC was operating since 1670 so they did trade in many different axes over the centuries and continued to do so into the 20th century as they morphed into outfitters and department stores but people in the 19th century and archaeologists in the present era seem to think that a Hudson Bay Axe was a particular type of axe, distinct from other 'trade axes' (which HBC also traded and which were sometimes referred to as Hudson Bay Tomahawks as distinct from HB axes). The HBC around the mid 19th century was a vertically integrated corporation with a legal or de facto monopoly that traded standardized products, many of which were made by HBC itself, to a set standard of exchange and outfitted their facilities and personnel with standard equipment.

Here is a description from the 1955 final report on the excavation of Fort Vancouver

Axes. These tools were not found in arty quantity, but from those found it appears that a number of different sizes had been made of two styles. The larger axes have been called the Hudson's· Bay Company type. Because of their weight and size they must have been used mainly around the forts for construction and maintenance and the supplying of firewood. They have a shape (Fig. 6) which is distinct and could never be mistaken for any other type of axe of the same period. A number of perfect specimens appear in collections in museums of the Northwest. One in the Oregon Historical Historical· Society Museum has the letters JB deeply stamped on one side. Other markings, probably of the manufacturer or distributor,. also are stamped on some of those axes, but cannot be read. The trade· axes were not common in the excavations. but must have been made by the thousands for barter.

Fort Vancouver closed in the 1840s so these are the earlier type but they are already pretty similar to the post 1860 version except for the shape of the eye.

Here's one that looks to be of this type in the Canadian Museum of History

The site of Fort Vancouver is in the States now, which is why the US National Park service is involved in the archaeology, but when it was operating it was in the HBC's Columbia District until the border with the US was negotiated in 1846. Other than that, the Hudson Bay Company and its axes were mostly made and traded in what is now Canada (the bulk of Canada's surface area being purchased from the Hudson's Bay company paid for by a loan from the Hudson's Bay company).

The fur trade in Canada continued longer than the fur trade in the US (at least the lower 48) and there's no gap between the fur trade economy and the evolution of the HBC axe. As far as I can tell, the popular, vague story of the origin of the Hudson Bay pattern came from later American authors who seem to have been mostly unaware that the pattern developed in Canada and instead they made a guess by interpolating between a pile of old pre19th century American trade axes from different sources on the one hand, over to axes sold by 20th century American companies LL Bean, Collins, and Norlund on the other. But there's no need to extrapolate, they were literally called the Hudson's Bay pattern axe in the 19th and early 20th century in Canada the same way that many things, like snow shoes, sleds, coats, firearms, etc were referred to as being alike or distinct in some way from the then familiar "Hudson's Bay pattern" of that thing. That's why the 1922 Campbell's ad I showed can refer to their modification to the Hudson Bay axe and the drawbacks of the original design and expect readers to be familiar with that type of axe. It's also why this 1908 ad for Walters hunters' axe and Hudson Bay pattern axe did not feel the need to illustrate the Hudson Bay pattern (although they did illustrate the hunter's axe).

It is probably true in a sense that the modern Hudson Bay axe is inspired by earlier trade axes and evolved from them, at least in part, but this occurred during the fur trade in Canada as part of the fur trade system. When American companies started making Hudson Bay Axes they were copying a pattern that Canadian manufacturers had already been making for decades.

Changes in manufacturing methods likely did change the Hudson Bay pattern, but those effects on the basic shape had already occurred before the end of the 19th century. They did vary somewhat depending on the manufacturer (the Welland Vale ones in particular stray a bit close to a Montreal pattern, which WV also produced) but to me it looks like the Hudson Bay pattern the HBC traded was pretty consistent as they were made to adhere at least generally to a standard (that is what a 'pattern' in this sense referred to, standard specifications to be met by various manufacturers to ensure some degree of uniformity, like a Hudson Bay musket or a British 1853 pattern cavalry saber). In any case, in the mid 19th century when the pattern was established HBC axes were made by HBC smiths working at HBC hubs like York Factory and Fort Vancouver, which is attested to in correspondence as well as archaeology of the smithies featuring different types of axes in various states of completion.

 

[Square_peg]

When splitting, if you hit to the far side of the round, after the heel goes in it doesn’t spread the opening far enough to clear the handle, so the handle can take a beating. I’ve learned to try and keep the the heel a little off the near side to avoid that.

Right. What you’re describing is an overstrike. It’s the most common cause of haft damage on splitting axes. And your solution of only striking the near side is an important rule for splitting axes.

 

[Square_peg]

Fort Vancouver closed in the 1840s so these are the earlier type but they are already pretty similar to the post 1860 version except for the shape of the eye.

That eye has been deformed by someone using the axe as a sledge or as a wedge.

 

[Alberta Ed]

I picked up a Snow & Nealley Hudsons Bay 3/4 single bit at a trappers supply outlet in the Yukon a few years ago and have been extremely impressed. Works well on everything from firewood to big game field dressing.

 

[Blue Sky]

Right. What you’re describing is an overstrike. It’s the most common cause of haft damage on splitting axes. And your solution of only striking the near side is an important rule for splitting axes.

Actually I’m not. It’s possible to get the bit on the round and still have the handle behind the heel get torn up. Hard to describe fully I suppose.

 

[axes of keevil]

That eye has been deformed by someone using the axe as a sledge or as a wedge.

The previous example I posted earlier (from the Canadian Museum of History) to accompany the diagram does have poll damage and maybe it's not a very good example but the Oregon Historical Society Museum has a nice one from Fort Vancouver in their collection and you can see that the poll does not show signs of damage from pounding sufficient to deform the eye:

Oregon Historical Society Museum Collection

museumcollection.ohs.org

It looks to be in better shape than the one the diagram was probably based on. This type is an earlier 1820s-1840s version of a Hudson's Bay Company pattern that predates the modern narrow ellipse eye (after 1860); these were manufactured with this wider eye and I am guessing they were normally hung slip fit.

 

[axes of keevil]

Forgot about this one, this is the Frothingham & Workman 1872 catalogue out of Montreal and it lists but, does not illustrate, Hudson's Bay Axes or Tomahawks in various weights. The manufacturer is J.J. Higgins & Co. which had an axe factory just outside of Montreal. The illustrated notched pattern at the top is probably a Quebec pattern because Welland Vale advertised a very similar version of the Quebec pattern.

 

[Old Axeman]

There is no "do all, end all" for axes and hatchets. You have to match the head pattern, weight, bevel angle, haft shape and length to the work at hand.
I do not find the Hudson Bay pattern to suit me for felling, limbing, bucking, scoring (used in broad axe hewing), or trail work. I do find the Hudson Bay pattern to suit me very much for camp chores and log building construction and repair work, and for wood carving work. Of course, log buildings are really just large wood carvings. Why I like it for those work projects is that you can get your hands directly behind the edge to swing or push the bit.
Bernie