What did you rehang today?

Rogueman_1 said:
I recently acquired a find from the workplace of my recently deceased stepdad. I believe it actually initially belonged to his father because I vaguely remember seeing in the garage at our house when I was a kid.

Anyway, When I found it down at his shop the handle was pretty rotted and it had obviously been rehung at some point because it was the wrong style handle. It had a single bit handle which didn't make much sense to me. The head pretty much fell off so I just tossed the handle without snapping a pic first.

The head was covered completely in what looked like dried tar? The handle also had a bunch of this "tar" substance all over it and I wondered what in the world it had been used for. Roofing perhaps? I don't know. It is a full sized double bit. To me it looks like a Western / Lippincott. It had no markings on it other than a stamped number "5" on the head which I only discovered after restoration had begun. I'm not sure of what the original make is.

The head as I found it:
49722935277_caea1622e4_c.jpg


After removing most of the tar-like substance with a drill and wire brush bit, it started to reveal what was underneath:
49722081648_5699447dce_c.jpg


Some more grinding this time with a stripping bit and drill. I was pleasantly surprised that it had no cracks with only minor surface pitting and clean cutting edges:
49722081673_d8b933c409_c.jpg


After more time spent on sanding with various grits of sandpaper and finally a polish, the head really looked beautiful. I didn't want to remove too much of the metal so I left most of the pitting as I think it gives it a classic, old look:
49722935267_3ac0e49197_c.jpg


I'm not sure what the number "5" stamped into the head means. It doesn't depict weight as it weighs about 3.5 lbs:
49722081853_7046820ee7_c.jpg


I ended up at my local hardware store to pick up a new (and correct) handle. It was a nice piece of hickory with some good looking grain. I hung it and applied boiled linseed oil and viola! I've got a great tool now:
49722935632_71cb3592a6_b.jpg

49722621711_cf4aa71bb3_c.jpg


Boiled linseed oil on the handle and some Rem Oil on the head until I can get around to making a custom leather sheath which is my next project. I'm happy with the final result:
49722935552_0626fc9992_b.jpg
Click to expand...

Great job on the axe restoration and hang! it looks really good!

I found this axe head in the forest near an old stone foundation using a metal detector. It also has a 5 stamped on it, but I don't know what it means - definitely not weight as it also weighs about 3 1/2 pounds.



I've seen a picture of an axe head with a 5 stamped on it that was also stamped DEMON (If I'm remembering right).
 
FLINT77 said:
Great job on the axe restoration and hang! it looks really good!

I found this axe head in the forest near an old stone foundation using a metal detector. It also has a 5 stamped on it, but I don't know what it means - definitely not weight as it also weighs about 3 1/2 pounds.



I've seen a picture of an axe head with a 5 stamped on it that was also stamped DEMON (If I'm remembering right).
Click to expand...

That one also started life as a 5 pound axe. Look how it's worn back into the phantom bevel. When new it would have had 1-1/2"-2" inches of steel beyond the phantoom bevel.

Wear probably accelerated on the toe once it got past the hardenable steel.
 
Rogueman_1 said:
That's a heck of a lot of steel missing!! Hard to believe.
Click to expand...

Not so hard with a double bit in particular, the weight is mostly between the edge and the eye. Lose a pound and a half total, per side that's 12 oz of steel, only 2.63 cubic inches.
With that much edge gone, those axes will make good splitters without wearing you out like a maul can. They won't stick so bad like a cutting profile does.
 
Square_peg said:
Believe what you choose to believe.
Click to expand...

I don't care enough to make an arguement about it but I'm also doubting that either of these axes started off at 5lbs.

the primary reason is the nature of the 5 stamps on both these and on another axe I've seen with a similar stamp - they are randomly placed and much larger and deeper than any other weight stamp that I've ever seen. Generally weight stamps are positioned very specifically and not stamped any larger or deeper than other stamps - and if anything usually shallower than the brand stamp. its also unusual that these big deep randomly placed stamps are always a 5. you don't see any 3s or 4s stamped like that. I have no idea what the significance or meaning is of these large 5 stamps and I know that the seemingly most obvious reason for a number on an axe is the weight, but I'm not quite yet convinced in this case. again, if anyone can prove me wrong, and show me some axes with huge, deep, randomly placed 5s that actually weigh 5 lbs, or show me some other axes with large, deep, randomly placed other numbers that also equal the actual weight of the axe, then I'd gladly admit that I'm wrong. Its not that I don't WANT to believe they are weight stamps, I just like to make informed decisions based on evidence (and I'm not meaning that to be taken by anyone as an insult either)!

final comment; notice that on both axes, the ammount of wear and pitting (especially on my axe) is such than no other stamps are remotely visable, but the big 5 stamps remain very deep and clear. Those were some very deep stamps originally - also, the position and orientation - reminds me more of those hourglass or half moon or square, or other random shape stamps that you also sometimes see on similar locations of axes, and those are also deeper than a name/weight stamp, and also randomly placed and not inline with any plane of the head.

again, DEFINITELY not trying to make a thing about it, just my thoughts on the subject, as it seemed like a discussion
 
Here's another one with a similar stamp. this one looks like a 5 or an S, and like the others is not straight and is deep
Its a union tool, charleston wv axe

 
Here's an unmarked double bit I have that's pretty pitted and worn down decent, has a random placed deep 5, although it weighs 4 lb. 10oz so I figured it started as a 5lb. One I have that confuses me is a KP I have that has a 3 stamped on the bottom, and weighs 3lb 15 oz. Sorry, probably not the thread to discuss this, but I figured while we were on the subject...



 
Last edited:
TJLyon711 said:
Here's an unmarked double bit I have that's pretty pitted and worn down decent, has a random placed deep 5, although it weighs 4 lb. 10oz so I figured it started as a 5lb. One I have that confuses me is a KP I have that has a 3 stamped on the bottom, and weighs 3lb 15 oz. Sorry, probably not the thread to discuss this, but I figured while we were on the subject...



Click to expand...

Look how much meat that axe has beyond the bevels.
IMG-20200402-144620576.jpg


Then imagine how much this 3.5 pound axe weighed when the bit was even longer.
foundaxe.jpg
 
Square_peg said:
Look how much meat that axe has beyond the bevels.
IMG-20200402-144620576.jpg


Then imagine how much this 3.5 pound axe weighed when the bit was even longer.
foundaxe.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes, definitely. Also, the back side of that axe is pitted much worse that the side in the picture, so I imagine this head could have weighed a good bit more when new.

After looking at a bunch of axes, it looks like my understanding of how weights are stamped on axes was influenced by the age of most axe heads that you commonly run into - which is what something like 1920 - 1960? think about the typical kelly true temper or plumb stamps, all pretty consistent in location, etc. But it looks like weight stamps on earlier axes seem to be more randomly placed, so I'll definitey acknowledge that those big 5 stamps could be weight stamps. However, there are still stamps including number stamps that I'm sure are not weight stamps. For example, I saw one standard sized head with an 8 stamp, which it clearly never weighed over half that much. Also, even on ebay right now there are 3 or 4 union tool heads with a big deep S stamp on them. So, I still think that some of these stamps are maybe makers marks or something - but again, totally acknowledge that some big randomly placed numbers are in fact weight stamps. And actually, after looking at the Union Tool S stamps, I'm starting to wonder if the stamp on my axe is really a pitted S that looks like a 5 due to erosion of material. I'm 50/50 on that one. Could be a 5 weight stamp, or a union tool S. However, the 5 on rogueman's axe is very clearly a 5, and was probably a weight stamp.
 
FLINT77 said:
I still think that some of these stamps are maybe makers marks or something
Click to expand...

Definitely. Some of these have some other other meaning. They could be a batch number used for QC for an example. But before I entertain those other meanings I'm going to ask myself if it could be a weight stamp. Could it be an underweight axe solely from wear? Then I will apply Ockham's razor ("the simplest solution is most likely the right one") before I happen a guess as to its meaning.
 
Good job,man,nice re-hang.

TJLyon711 said:
.the tounge had seen better days
Click to expand...

If i had to call the cause of failure i'd blame 3 different factors:The kerf is probably way too deep;the shoulder was left too fat relative the tongue,and the transition formed as an abrupt inside corner has acted as stress-riser;and lastly,that wood inside the break ain't looking too healthy-either it was getting moisture in there and bacteria chewing out parts of the cellulose structure,or it was over-cooked in kiln-drying process...
 
jake pogg said:
Good job,man,nice re-hang.



If i had to call the cause of failure i'd blame 3 different factors:The kerf is probably way too deep;the shoulder was left too fat relative the tongue,and the transition formed as an abrupt inside corner has acted as stress-riser;and lastly,that wood inside the break ain't looking too healthy-either it was getting moisture in there and bacteria chewing out parts of the cellulose structure,or it was over-cooked in kiln-drying process...
Click to expand...

I agree, I think it was a little of all of it, mostly the poor condition of wood in the tongue, combined with me not thinning out the shoulders gradually enough. I was giving it some good swings, and just cracked in a fracture type break right along bottom of the head. That haft had ridges cut into the tongue before I repurposed it for this head, large gap in front part of eye I soaked up with a piece of dowel, and the tongue was thin to begin with. It looked nice, but didn't pass the longevity test. No good if you can't use it...glad I had a spare haft ready to go...cleared some more windfall off the trail today with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top