Hello,
I have a new set of Marples blue-chip chisels that is flat across the
chisel face (as much as I can tell), but is slightly convex along its
length, maybe about 1mm out at the end if I lay a ruler flat at the
base of the face.
Is this slight convexity normal, or should I return the set? I am
aware I have to "flatten" the face before honing, but with a slight
round along the length, getting a straight cut by, for example, lining
up a chisel against a block of wood clamped to your workpiece is made
more difficult. Most discussions on flattening the face discuss the
area right at and behind the bevel.
Thank you!
- Daniel
don't be a fraidy cat; just come right out and say "they suck".
dave
Greg Millen wrote:
> Jim,
>
> I think the most obvious point has been missed entirely. How old are the
> chisels? Were they made this year or ten years ago; and have been sitting on
> the shelf since. Assumptions, always assumptions.
>
> FWIW, I have a set of so-called Marples Blue-chip chisels that I purchased
> overseas, I am convinced they are a fraudulent copy but have no way to prove
> it - they do exist. Still, after grinding, squaring, flattening and
> sharpening they are ok for what I wanted, which was everything other than
> chopping mortices.
>
"Daniel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello,
>
> I have a new set of Marples blue-chip chisels that is flat across the
> chisel face (as much as I can tell), but is slightly convex along its
> length, maybe about 1mm out at the end if I lay a ruler flat at the
> base of the face.
>
> Is this slight convexity normal, or should I return the set? I am
> aware I have to "flatten" the face before honing, but with a slight
> round along the length, getting a straight cut by, for example, lining
> up a chisel against a block of wood clamped to your workpiece is made
> more difficult. Most discussions on flattening the face discuss the
> area right at and behind the bevel.
>
> Thank you!
>
> - Daniel
Return the set, the back needs to be flat. My own are like mirrors over
about 2".
Bernard R
These chisels will be all but impossible to flatten properly. If they
were slightly concave across the chisel width they'd okay, but convex
down it's length is not good. If you decided to use them anyway they'd
be impossible to use well in most chiseling operations where a flat
back is necessary for a straight cut.
Layne
On 6 Apr 2004 11:35:43 -0700, [email protected] (Daniel) wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have a new set of Marples blue-chip chisels that is flat across the
>chisel face (as much as I can tell), but is slightly convex along its
>length, maybe about 1mm out at the end if I lay a ruler flat at the
>base of the face.
>
>Is this slight convexity normal, or should I return the set? I am
>aware I have to "flatten" the face before honing, but with a slight
>round along the length, getting a straight cut by, for example, lining
>up a chisel against a block of wood clamped to your workpiece is made
>more difficult. Most discussions on flattening the face discuss the
>area right at and behind the bevel.
>
>Thank you!
>
>- Daniel
Bay Area Dave wrote:
>
> the tide seems to be turning against Marples lately. did I
> lead the charge? :)
>
> (In my humble, highly unqualified, seldom respected newbie
> opinion, the Marples are tres substandard, due to the
> softness of the metal they are currently using; just like
> the Buck I tried for grins.)
>
> dave
>
> dave
>
Give me a call and come over and you can try my
Marples,
Bucks,
Two Cherries
a couple of Robert Sorby firmers
a couple of Japanese bench chisels
AND
you can wack the living CR*P out of one or more
Mr. Wilson's beefy mortise chisels
You're bound to find that one of them will live
up to your expectations.
charlie b
Dave:
Bring your Marples and Bucks when you wander by, I'd like
to sharpen 'em up and see how they work. Have scraps of
rosewood, maple, teak, ipe, mahogany (the King of Woods),
sycamore, walnut, ash, beech (or it could be birch) and some
cherry to play on.
And now you're going to have to try Jim's mortising chisels.
If you roll and edge on one of his chisels you're doing something
wrong.
charlie b
> Layne wrote
> > These chisels will be all but impossible to flatten properly. If they
were slightly concave across the chisel width they'd okay, but convex
down it's length is not good.
Mike <[email protected]> schreef
> It's my understanding that, although a flat chisel back is optimal, a
> slightly convex shape down the length is acceptable. Concave along
> its length is absolutely no good.
+ + +
Why should concave be worse than convex?
Concave certainly is easier to sharpen properly.
PvR
> "P van Rijckevorsel" <[email protected]> wrote
> > Why should concave be worse than convex?
> > Concave certainly is easier to sharpen properly.
Mike <[email protected]> schreef
> Imagine you're paring a bit of wood off of the wall of a mortise. The
> back of the chisel serves to keep the edge of the chisel cutting along
> a single plane. The benefit of a flat back should be apparent. If
> the back has a concave curve along its length, the edge will tend to
> dig in rather than maintain a flat cut. If the back has a convex
> curve, the edge will tend to come out of the cut. This can be
> compensated for by slightly adjusting the angle of the chisel relative
> to the wood, but I don't think you can compensate for the concave
> situation. I could be missing something here so please fill me in if
> you have a different conclusion.
+ + +
It seems to me that having a slipping chisel (convex), shooting off to
wherever, is worse than a chisel digging in (concave). In both cases you
will have to correct and orient the chisel by feel, but I'd say that a
chisel that tends to dig in is safer and and easier to correct than a chisel
that loses its grip?
PvR
Bay Area Dave wrote...
> for craps sake's Jim the proof is in the pudding, so to
> speak. I don't need to be a metallurgist to know that the
> chisel was a POS. If you saw the chisel in question, I
> think you'd be hard pressed to give it a passing grade.
> Same with the Buck. Their qualities were identical.
If you *were* a metallurgist, you wouldn't make a statement like you did.
It's wrong, and it shows that you don't know much about metal, or
specifically, how Marples makes their chisels and why yours didn't work
the way it should. You're not expected to, of course, this being
rec.woodworking. The problem is, you make an incorrect assertion as if it
were fact, and then are surprised and defensive when you're called on it.
Look. It is ok for you to say, "The edge on a Marples chisel I just
bought failed when it shouldn't have." You know that much. It's not ok
for you to say, "Marples chisels suck now because they use too soft a
metal." That is codswallop. Get it? There's no proof and no pudding
involved. It's black and white. One is something you know, the other is
meaningless blather.
> I don't know why you are obsessed with "proving" me wrong.
I'm not obsessed. I'm not trying to "prove" you wrong. You were wrong all
by yourself. I just pointed it out. You asked what I meant, so I showed
you *why* it was wrong. You then think I'm obsessed with proving you
wrong. Not at all. I'm trying to help you to be right. The fastest way
you can get there from here is to admit your error (even if only to
yourself) and move on.
> In YOUR mind I'm wrong. so be it. Knock yourself out.
Uh, no, in FACT, you're wrong. What I think or say has no bearing on the
truth of the matter. Unless what you claimed were actually true, you were
wrong with no help from me!
Cheers!
Jim
Jim,
I think the most obvious point has been missed entirely. How old are the
chisels? Were they made this year or ten years ago; and have been sitting on
the shelf since. Assumptions, always assumptions.
FWIW, I have a set of so-called Marples Blue-chip chisels that I purchased
overseas, I am convinced they are a fraudulent copy but have no way to prove
it - they do exist. Still, after grinding, squaring, flattening and
sharpening they are ok for what I wanted, which was everything other than
chopping mortices.
--
Greg
"Jim Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave, you're applying a personal experience of yours inappropriately, and
> reaching a faulty conclusion. Marples don't "now suck."
<snip of successfully trolled response>
Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<tJ%[email protected]>...
> an some folks accuse ME of starting a ruckus around here??? :)
>
> His ploys are so thinly disguised it's a no brainer to see
> he just wanted to piss me off. The best solution to
> maintain a bit of harmony around here is for me to avoid him
> and Charlie.
Am I the only one who is reminded of the chicken-hawk from the old
Foghorn Leghorn cartoons?
Chuck Vance
I say, son ... you're doing a lot of choppin', but no chips are
flyin'.
[email protected] (Patrick Olguin) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Greg Millen" <[email protected]> wrote to the BAD One (in part):
> > I hardly need to add that you seem to be almost
> > universally "misunderstood", the only common factor is yourself.
>
> http://www.despair.com/demotivators/dysfunction.html
I love that site. Here's another one for BAD:
http://www.despair.com/stup24x30pri.html
> FWIW, the initial grind on Marples Blue Chip bench chisels is way too
> delicate for morticing. My set of Blue Chips, while hardly
> aesthetically pleasing, were rather serviceable for the time I used
> them. For various reasons, I upgraded to Two Cherries (also too
> delicate for pounding out mortices, BTW).
>
> Just another data point.
Oh sure, you're just another one of those wreck idiots who dares to
question the results that BAD got. You keep posting facts and you're
going right into that killfile (along with every other wrecker of
note).
Chuck Vance
"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message ...
> don't be a fraidy cat; just come right out and say "they suck".
>
That's the point dave, they don't suck or I would have said so. To chop
mortices they would suck, but bevel edge chisles are not designed for
morticing, the angles are wrong, making the metal at the edge too thin
generally. They were good value-for-money, not great, but I don't regret the
purchase.
I bought the chisels in Malaysia in 1983-4, and have used them ever since,
so I really can't say they suck with any conviction (not since I paid around
AUS $10 for the set). Like most chisel sets I have used, when I got 1/4" or
so back from the original edge they cut better anyway.
Try initiating a discussion centered on supportable facts and objective
observations rather than histrionics and inflammatory remarks. It will mean
you will need to stop trolling but you may find you like it.
BTW, you didn't answer how old the chisels were - do you know if they are
old or new stock? I didn't think so.
Greg
"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message ...
> calm down, greg...are you ALWAYS so serious? You and I never
> are on the same wave length. you can't sense a
> tongue-in-cheek comment if it smacked you silly. sigh.
The meaning was clear, or did I miss an emoticon or similar indicator? I
thought not. You can't change the meaning retrospectively dave, take the
time to be more careful initially and you may find you don't have to bother
with such posts in response. I hardly need to add that you seem to be almost
universally "misunderstood", the only common factor is yourself. Please
dwell on that a little.
> the marples I tried was just a few months ago. NOT the
> Bluechip; it was a ProTouch or pro whatever. black
> rubberized handle. I mentioned all that in the initial
> complaint post back when I purchased it. I didn't use it to
> open paint cans.
I was responding to Jim's post, not yours. which is why the name "Jim"
started the post, to focus the response to him.
FWIW, I happen to think you may have a point regarding the chisels but have
done an abysmally poor job of presenting it. Your initial post stated you
used a bevel edged chisel for mortising and you had a Sears chisel that kept
it's edge longer.
I don't recall you mentioning the chisels were of similar age, cost,
construction, thickness, bevel angle, side bevel angle or overall length.
You also didn't mention whether the Sears chisel was sharpened to the same
degree as the Marples. All of these are factors if you are to fairly compare
them.
Finally, you would need to compare them in the purpose for which they are
originally designed - chopping mortices is not that purpose.
Greg
Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> no, you are just an asshole
Geeze, April 7 and the meds have already run out. Hmmmmmm, I can't
tell from here. Could be hominy, could be corn. Anyone?
Alan Bierbaum <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Well he did manage to escape my killfile (through repost) and sucker
> in two of the wreck's nice guys who are trying to reason with him.
Alan, with all due respect, reasoning with BAD is akin to reasoning
with a brand new baseball sitting on a tee, with the outfield fence
just a few feet shy of 200'. Reasoning would be inappropriate. So,
ya limber up a little bit, take a slightly uppercut swing and watch it
sail out of the tiny park. Not very challenging, but somewhat
satisfying as you put your gear away and go do something productive.
Best regards,
O'Deen
obww - allowing one's shellac top-coat to dry that extra week or so
makes rubbing-out a ridiculously easy experience, as the shellac has
thoroughly hardened, and still cuts easily with whatever abrasive it
is you've chosen.
"Greg Millen" <[email protected]> wrote to the BAD One (in part):
> I hardly need to add that you seem to be almost
> universally "misunderstood", the only common factor is yourself.
http://www.despair.com/demotivators/dysfunction.html
FWIW, the initial grind on Marples Blue Chip bench chisels is way too
delicate for morticing. My set of Blue Chips, while hardly
aesthetically pleasing, were rather serviceable for the time I used
them. For various reasons, I upgraded to Two Cherries (also too
delicate for pounding out mortices, BTW).
Just another data point.
O'Deen
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 20:04:58 GMT, Jim Wilson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Bay Area Dave wrote...
>
>> >>>>Marples are tres substandard, due to the softness of the metal they
>> >>>>are currently using; just like the Buck I tried for grins.)
>
>> Jim Wilson wrote:
>
>> > I would hazard a guess that you made this claim rather foolishly, having
>> > no knowledge -- nor even evidence -- to back it up. You're free to
>> > retract it.
>
>And Dave wants to know...
>
>> No knowledge of WHAT, specifically?
>
>No knowledge of what you claim in the quote above. To wit, "Marples are
>... substandard, due to the softness of the metal they are currently
>using."
>
>If you know it to be a fact, that the Marples chisels are now being made
>with a different metal than previously and that in fact this new metal is
>softer than what was used before, please do share how you came upon the
>information. I suspect you were merely fishing for an explanation of why
>your chisels failed. My suspicion is supported by the rest of your post:
>
>> The edge crumpled after
>> a few moments use. My other chisels don't do that! I've
>> got 15 other chisels, all of which I can rely on.
>
>Jim
ah, what do you expect from a guy with only 15 chisels....
Now YOUR response is the one that Chuck the attacker should
have presented. You are correct that my chisel experience
with Marples was limited, BUT if you go through the archives
(don't bother) you'll see quite a few others to agree with
my assessment of Marples quality.
No knowledge of WHAT, specifically? The edge crumpled after
a few moments use. My other chisels don't do that! I've
got 15 other chisels, all of which I can rely on.
Jim Wilson wrote:
> Bay Area Dave wrote...
>
>>no, you ... just ... can't figure out that
>>Marples now suck.
>
>
> Dave, you're applying a personal experience of yours inappropriately, and
> reaching a faulty conclusion. Marples don't "now suck."
>
> Think of it like a car. If you bought a lemon, would you then conclude
> that the maker "now" produces nothing but junk? Of course not. Your one
> personal experience isn't a reasonable measure of the maker's entire
> product line.
>
> I believe Chuck was trying to point this out to you -- that's why he
> included his yellow-handled Marples mortise chisel with his Blue Chips in
> his defense.
>
> The truth of the matter is this: Various chisels having different levels
> of quality have been marketed under the Marples brand. (The same thing
> happens in virtually every large tool maker, including Stanley, and even
> -- hold on to your seat! -- Veritas and Starrett.) It's because the large
> producer must heed the market. The chisels you purchased are substandard
> (apparently -- I'm trusting your opinion on this). That's about all you
> can say.
>
> In reality, the Blue Chips are a medium grade that will perform quite
> well for the average woodworker in ordinary use. Being a medium grade,
> some particular examples naturally will be substandard; some will be very
> good. The occasional blade will be excellent.
>
> In general, they (the Blue Chips) are OK. The best woodworkers recognize
> them for what they are, use them appropriately at tasks for which they
> are suited, making sensible and reasonable adjustments to the edge and
> their technique so that the tools will work well enough to produce
> excellent work. They will not look back. They do this with virtually all
> their tools.
>
> Many average woodworkers will find them satisfactory out of the wrapper
> and would give them no second thought, except to wonder what all the fuss
> is about. Finicky yuppie newbies with more money than need for the tool,
> and who "always buy only the best" will complain that the tool is junk,
> return it or throw it away, and buy a German or Japanese import of equal
> or slightly better average quality, while sniffing their superiority at
> the "lesser" mavens of the wreck who would defend a tool that does the
> job only adequately.
>
>
>>>>Marples are tres substandard, due to the softness of the metal they
>>>>are currently using; just like the Buck I tried for grins.)
>
>
> I would hazard a guess that you made this claim rather foolishly, having
> no knowledge -- nor even evidence -- to back it up. You're free to
> retract it.
>
> Jim
[email protected] (Daniel) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Hello,
>
> I have a new set of Marples blue-chip chisels that is flat across the
> chisel face (as much as I can tell), but is slightly convex along its
> length, maybe about 1mm out at the end if I lay a ruler flat at the
> base of the face.
>
> Is this slight convexity normal, or should I return the set? I am
> aware I have to "flatten" the face before honing, but with a slight
> round along the length, getting a straight cut by, for example, lining
> up a chisel against a block of wood clamped to your workpiece is made
> more difficult. Most discussions on flattening the face discuss the
> area right at and behind the bevel.
>
> Thank you!
>
> - Daniel
I would have just taken the chisel set back to the store and asked
them to provide me with a better set....opening up the packages till I
found a set I could be happy with. Most stores with a reasonable and
educated staff would be willing to do this.
the tide seems to be turning against Marples lately. did I
lead the charge? :)
(In my humble, highly unqualified, seldom respected newbie
opinion, the Marples are tres substandard, due to the
softness of the metal they are currently using; just like
the Buck I tried for grins.)
dave
dave
Leon wrote:
> Ditto that.
>
>
Conan the Librarian wrote...
>
> Thank you, Jim. That was exactly my point. I'm afraid that Dave
> long ago stopped reading for content in my posts and simply is looking
> for excuses to namecall. And frankly, I'm guilty of goading him on.
>
> It's a fault of mine, and I'm trying to deal with it. :-)
Hey, I'm feeling a little twinge of the same guilt myself. (G)
Jim
Bay Area Dave wrote...
> >>>>Marples are tres substandard, due to the softness of the metal they
> >>>>are currently using; just like the Buck I tried for grins.)
> Jim Wilson wrote:
> > I would hazard a guess that you made this claim rather foolishly, having
> > no knowledge -- nor even evidence -- to back it up. You're free to
> > retract it.
And Dave wants to know...
> No knowledge of WHAT, specifically?
No knowledge of what you claim in the quote above. To wit, "Marples are
... substandard, due to the softness of the metal they are currently
using."
If you know it to be a fact, that the Marples chisels are now being made
with a different metal than previously and that in fact this new metal is
softer than what was used before, please do share how you came upon the
information. I suspect you were merely fishing for an explanation of why
your chisels failed. My suspicion is supported by the rest of your post:
> The edge crumpled after
> a few moments use. My other chisels don't do that! I've
> got 15 other chisels, all of which I can rely on.
Jim
What Jim wrote is accurate -- I don't blame anyone in particular; I just
wish that the S/N of this newsgroup would improve from this current morass.
Bay Area Dave wrote:
> that's mighty presumptuous of you.
>
> dave
>
> Jim Wilson wrote:
>
>> Bay Area Dave wrote...
>>
>>> don't blame yourself. Blame Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> He doesn't blame himself. He is expressing disappointment. He doesn't
>> blame Chuck either. Nor should he.
>>
>> Jim
>
>
I'll take you up on that, Charlie. I've been super busy
lately; the only time spent in my shop lately has been to
clean it up. I still would like to try your shoulder plane,
too. I'll bring a couple of the Sears chisels so you can
give 'em the once over.
I still have your phone number (surprise) after my hard
drive crash. I'll give you a call next week, at the latest.
Take it easy...
dave
charlie b wrote:
> Bay Area Dave wrote:
>
>>the tide seems to be turning against Marples lately. did I
>>lead the charge? :)
>>
>>(In my humble, highly unqualified, seldom respected newbie
>>opinion, the Marples are tres substandard, due to the
>>softness of the metal they are currently using; just like
>>the Buck I tried for grins.)
>>
>>dave
>>
>>dave
>>
>
>
> Give me a call and come over and you can try my
> Marples,
> Bucks,
> Two Cherries
> a couple of Robert Sorby firmers
> a couple of Japanese bench chisels
> AND
> you can wack the living CR*P out of one or more
> Mr. Wilson's beefy mortise chisels
>
> You're bound to find that one of them will live
> up to your expectations.
>
> charlie b
calm down, greg...are you ALWAYS so serious? You and I never
are on the same wave length. you can't sense a
tongue-in-cheek comment if it smacked you silly. sigh.
the marples I tried was just a few months ago. NOT the
Bluechip; it was a ProTouch or pro whatever. black
rubberized handle. I mentioned all that in the initial
complaint post back when I purchased it. I didn't use it to
open paint cans.
Friday I spent a bit of time with 2 Sears chisels on a
mortise and found minimal edge damage after at LEAST 15-20
times more tool usage than the Marples or Buck. The amount
of damage I'd estimate as around 20% as bad. That's a heck
of a lot more longevity I'm getting from the Sears chisels.
I'm SURE there are plenty of other brands that are way
better than my lowly Sears but at least they are light years
better than the Marples and Buck I tried. It goes without
saying I didn't try 100 samples of either. and I've no
intention of trying a second sample.
dave
Greg Millen wrote:
> "Bay Area Dave" wrote in message ...
>
>>don't be a fraidy cat; just come right out and say "they suck".
>>
>
>
> That's the point dave, they don't suck or I would have said so. To chop
> mortices they would suck, but bevel edge chisles are not designed for
> morticing, the angles are wrong, making the metal at the edge too thin
> generally. They were good value-for-money, not great, but I don't regret the
> purchase.
>
> I bought the chisels in Malaysia in 1983-4, and have used them ever since,
> so I really can't say they suck with any conviction (not since I paid around
> AUS $10 for the set). Like most chisel sets I have used, when I got 1/4" or
> so back from the original edge they cut better anyway.
>
> Try initiating a discussion centered on supportable facts and objective
> observations rather than histrionics and inflammatory remarks. It will mean
> you will need to stop trolling but you may find you like it.
>
> BTW, you didn't answer how old the chisels were - do you know if they are
> old or new stock? I didn't think so.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
go argue with a tree. this thread is SO over for me. you
are hopeless.
dave
Jim Wilson wrote:
> Bay Area Dave wrote...
>
>>for craps sake's Jim the proof is in the pudding, so to
>>speak. I don't need to be a metallurgist to know that the
>>chisel was a POS. If you saw the chisel in question, I
>>think you'd be hard pressed to give it a passing grade.
>>Same with the Buck. Their qualities were identical.
>
>
> If you *were* a metallurgist, you wouldn't make a statement like you did.
> It's wrong, and it shows that you don't know much about metal, or
> specifically, how Marples makes their chisels and why yours didn't work
> the way it should. You're not expected to, of course, this being
> rec.woodworking. The problem is, you make an incorrect assertion as if it
> were fact, and then are surprised and defensive when you're called on it.
>
> Look. It is ok for you to say, "The edge on a Marples chisel I just
> bought failed when it shouldn't have." You know that much. It's not ok
> for you to say, "Marples chisels suck now because they use too soft a
> metal." That is codswallop. Get it? There's no proof and no pudding
> involved. It's black and white. One is something you know, the other is
> meaningless blather.
>
>
>>I don't know why you are obsessed with "proving" me wrong.
>
>
> I'm not obsessed. I'm not trying to "prove" you wrong. You were wrong all
> by yourself. I just pointed it out. You asked what I meant, so I showed
> you *why* it was wrong. You then think I'm obsessed with proving you
> wrong. Not at all. I'm trying to help you to be right. The fastest way
> you can get there from here is to admit your error (even if only to
> yourself) and move on.
>
>
>>In YOUR mind I'm wrong. so be it. Knock yourself out.
>
>
> Uh, no, in FACT, you're wrong. What I think or say has no bearing on the
> truth of the matter. Unless what you claimed were actually true, you were
> wrong with no help from me!
>
> Cheers!
>
> Jim
maybe you should re-read YOUR previous super rude,
egotistical comments. I only responded at your level.
except for the name calling. Your attitude towards my
recounting the facts of current Marples quality has been
persistently RUDE.
And you still haven't responded to the fact that many others
share my opinion.
Judging from your comments about "a better response", your
sole purpose in posting your earlier comments were to piss
me off, rather than to have a polite discourse on the topic
of chisels. You reap what you sow.
Welcome to the FIRST spot on my NEW twit list. My hard
drive crashed recently. I hadn't seen anything here to
complain about in the past week, running without filters,
but then again there were only a few guys on the list,
besides all the filters for obscenities.
anything further you write will be for the consumption of
your cronies. Talk to the hand!
dave
Conan the Librarian wrote:
> Bay Area Dave wrote:
>
>> no, you are just an asshole who can't figure out that Marples now
>> suck. (An asshole for the tone of your reply; not for your reluctance
>> to recognize that many people here share the same low opinion of
>> Marples as I do. Bet you skipped those posts from approximately 10
>> other folks over several threads, since I first posted my experience
>> with Marples. Or you just discounted their opinions as you did mine,
>> you egotistical prick.)
>
>
> Thanks, Dave. I couldn't have asked for a better response from you.
> First you call people idiots for daring to have a different experience
> than yours. Then you try to take credit for changing others' opinions.
> Now you up the ante and call me an asshole and a prick (egotistical,
> no less ... pot meet kettle) for daring to have a different experience
> than yours.
>
> Truly outstanding work. Please keep it up.
>
>
> Chuck Vance
>
Yeah, Charlie, I'll bring a few with me, probably next week.
they are already sharp! easily cut the hairs on my arm at
the slightest touch.
I was gonna tease you earlier about my bringing a 5 lb.
sledge to whack your mortising chisels with! :)
dave
charlie b wrote:
> Dave:
>
> Bring your Marples and Bucks when you wander by, I'd like
> to sharpen 'em up and see how they work. Have scraps of
> rosewood, maple, teak, ipe, mahogany (the King of Woods),
> sycamore, walnut, ash, beech (or it could be birch) and some
> cherry to play on.
>
> And now you're going to have to try Jim's mortising chisels.
> If you roll and edge on one of his chisels you're doing something
> wrong.
>
> charlie b
don't blame yourself. Blame Chuck (Conan) for his utter
lack of self control. He even admitted he went into bait
mode; all because he and I aren't exactly the best of buds. :)
Keep posting!
dave
foo wrote:
> Thank you all for replying, especially to the few who posted useful
> comments.
>
> I apologize for being the genesis of some bad flame wars.
>
> Daniel wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have a new set of Marples blue-chip chisels that is flat across the
>
> [snip]
>
"P van Rijckevorsel" <[email protected]> wrote in news:40853460$0$72210
[email protected]:
>> Layne wrote
>> > These chisels will be all but impossible to flatten properly. If they
> were slightly concave across the chisel width they'd okay, but convex
> down it's length is not good.
>
> Mike <[email protected]> schreef
>> It's my understanding that, although a flat chisel back is optimal, a
>> slightly convex shape down the length is acceptable. Concave along
>> its length is absolutely no good.
>
> + + +
> Why should concave be worse than convex?
> Concave certainly is easier to sharpen properly.
> PvR
>
>
Japanese chisels typically are hollowed on the back, either ground or
hammered. The back is then flattened so that there is a flat surrounding
the hollow. I've read that this is for easier flattening in the future as
the chisel is sharpened (and thus shortened), and for less friction during
use. After many flattenings the back may need to be rehollowed with a
little hammering.
--
John Snow
"If I knew what I was doing, I wouldn't be here"
reason? NOT!
they are trying their best to ignore my experience and the
experience of about 10 others (approx) that Marples chisels
don't hold an edge. What's to "reason". It's just facts
they don't want to face.
dave
Alan Bierbaum wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2004 09:47:47 -0700, [email protected] (Patrick Olguin)
> wrote:
>
>
>>Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>>no, you are just an asshole
>>
>>Geeze, April 7 and the meds have already run out. Hmmmmmm, I can't
>>tell from here. Could be hominy, could be corn. Anyone?
>
>
> Well he did manage to escape my killfile (through repost) and sucker
> in two of the wreck's nice guys who are trying to reason with him.
>
> Alan Bierbaum
>
> web site: http://www.calanb.com
Bay Area Dave wrote:
> the tide seems to be turning against Marples lately. did I lead the
> charge? :)
Yeah, sure ... whatever ...
> (In my humble, highly unqualified, seldom respected newbie opinion, the
Well, you're right on two counts.
> Marples are tres substandard, due to the softness of the metal they are
> currently using; just like the Buck I tried for grins.)
Well, just last week I chopped a dozen mortises (1/2" wide x 1" deep
by 1-1/4" long) with one of my "substandard" Marples mortising chisels
(the ugly plastic yellow-handled ones that Garrett Wade used to sell as
a set). Didn't even have to hone the blade.
Then I used my 1" Blue Chip to do the final cleanup on the matching
tenons. Yeah, it was only paring, but it performed exactly as expected.
I reckon I've chopped 50-60 sets of dovetails with my Blue Chips
since I got them in late 1997. And guess what? I haven't had an edge
fold yet, and the only time I chipped an edge was when I tried to use a
1/8" chisel in cocobolo.
I've chopped a hundred or so mortises of various sizes with the
mortise chisels. And guess what? Not a single folded or chipped edge.
Of course, I guess I'm one of those wreck idiots, so what do I know?
Chuck Vance
Just say (tmPL) I'll see your anecdotal experience and raise it.
Bay Area Dave wrote:
> no, you are just an asshole who can't figure out that Marples now suck.
> (An asshole for the tone of your reply; not for your reluctance to
> recognize that many people here share the same low opinion of Marples as
> I do. Bet you skipped those posts from approximately 10 other folks
> over several threads, since I first posted my experience with Marples.
> Or you just discounted their opinions as you did mine, you egotistical
> prick.)
Thanks, Dave. I couldn't have asked for a better response from you.
First you call people idiots for daring to have a different experience
than yours. Then you try to take credit for changing others' opinions.
Now you up the ante and call me an asshole and a prick (egotistical,
no less ... pot meet kettle) for daring to have a different experience
than yours.
Truly outstanding work. Please keep it up.
Chuck Vance
Jim Wilson wrote:
> Dave, you're applying a personal experience of yours inappropriately, and
> reaching a faulty conclusion. Marples don't "now suck."
>
> Think of it like a car. If you bought a lemon, would you then conclude
> that the maker "now" produces nothing but junk? Of course not. Your one
> personal experience isn't a reasonable measure of the maker's entire
> product line.
>
> I believe Chuck was trying to point this out to you -- that's why he
> included his yellow-handled Marples mortise chisel with his Blue Chips in
> his defense.
Thank you, Jim. That was exactly my point. I'm afraid that Dave
long ago stopped reading for content in my posts and simply is looking
for excuses to namecall. And frankly, I'm guilty of goading him on.
It's a fault of mine, and I'm trying to deal with it. :-)
> The truth of the matter is this: Various chisels having different levels
> of quality have been marketed under the Marples brand. (The same thing
> happens in virtually every large tool maker, including Stanley, and even
> -- hold on to your seat! -- Veritas and Starrett.) It's because the large
> producer must heed the market. The chisels you purchased are substandard
> (apparently -- I'm trusting your opinion on this). That's about all you
> can say.
Yes, and on some of the other threads relating to this, it does seem
that there is a legitimate concern that since Marples was bought out by
Rubbermaid, there may be more issues with QC. Time will tell.
> In reality, the Blue Chips are a medium grade that will perform quite
> well for the average woodworker in ordinary use. Being a medium grade,
> some particular examples naturally will be substandard; some will be very
> good. The occasional blade will be excellent.
Exactly. And my own experience has been more towards the good side.
> In general, they (the Blue Chips) are OK. The best woodworkers recognize
> them for what they are, use them appropriately at tasks for which they
> are suited, making sensible and reasonable adjustments to the edge and
> their technique so that the tools will work well enough to produce
> excellent work. They will not look back. They do this with virtually all
> their tools.
And this was another point I was trying to convey earlier in a
similar thread. You have to understand the limitations of the tool. I
vary bevel angles depending on what I use a chisel for, and I adjust
factory bevels on almost every single chisel I get. I even do that with
mortise chisels; I raised a largish secondary bevel (actually looks
more like a "hump" on the bevel) to give it a steeper angle which I've
found holds up better under the abuse a mortise chisel is subjected to.
Thanks for being the voice of reason here, Jim. I know Dave has
already (supposedly) dumped me into his killfile, so he may not see my
response, but I hope he takes heed of all your comments.
Chuck Vance
Jim Wilson wrote:
> He doesn't blame himself. He is expressing disappointment. He doesn't
> blame Chuck either. Nor should he.
Thanks, Jim. What's sad is that I really was going to avoid the
urge to slap Dave around a little until he posted the following:
> the tide seems to be turning against Marples lately. did I lead the
> charge?
>
> (In my humble, highly unqualified, seldom respected newbie opinion,
> the Marples are tres substandard, due to the softness of the metal
> they are currently using; just like the Buck I tried for grins.)
The sheer hubris (look it up, Dave) of it was more than I could stand.
FWIW, my comments about using the chisels this past week were
absolutely true. But I had decided I would not post any more of my own
experiences with them, since it serves no purpose. I had even resisted
the urge to address his comments about "wreck idiots" (i.e., folks who
disagree with him, and/or have more knowledge or experience than him).
But when he posted that load above ... well, I just lost it. :-)
Chuck Vance
Bay Area Dave wrote:
> reason? NOT!
>
> they are trying their best to ignore my experience and the experience of
> about 10 others (approx) that Marples chisels don't hold an edge.
> What's to "reason". It's just facts they don't want to face.
Just in case there is anyone reading this thread for any reason
other than "entertainment value", I would recommend that you do a Google
groups advanced search of the wreck on the phrase "blue chips". Add a
qualifier like "value" or "bargain" to limit the search if needed.
I'm sure you'll find that these chisels have been widely-regarded as
a good value. Not great, but decent, and worth the money.
It is certainly possible that the newer ones are suffering from QC
issues, but I don't think it's wise to dismiss the experiences of *many*
knowledgeable wooddorkers (certainly a heckuva lot more than 10) just
because Dave says it's so.
FWIW, even the folks who said that Blue Chips are a good value
warned that you still have to be aware of the possibility of getting a
bad one in the bunch.
Chuck Vance
Layne <> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> These chisels will be all but impossible to flatten properly. If they
> were slightly concave across the chisel width they'd okay, but convex
> down it's length is not good. If you decided to use them anyway they'd
> be impossible to use well in most chiseling operations where a flat
> back is necessary for a straight cut.
>
> Layne
>
> On 6 Apr 2004 11:35:43 -0700, [email protected] (Daniel) wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >I have a new set of Marples blue-chip chisels that is flat across the
> >chisel face (as much as I can tell), but is slightly convex along its
> >length, maybe about 1mm out at the end if I lay a ruler flat at the
> >base of the face.
> >
> >Is this slight convexity normal, or should I return the set? I am
> >aware I have to "flatten" the face before honing, but with a slight
> >round along the length, getting a straight cut by, for example, lining
> >up a chisel against a block of wood clamped to your workpiece is made
> >more difficult. Most discussions on flattening the face discuss the
> >area right at and behind the bevel.
> >
> >Thank you!
> >
> >- Daniel
Layne, Daniel, et al.,
It's my understanding that, although a flat chisel back is optimal, a
slightly convex shape down the length is acceptable. Concave along
its length is absolutely no good. 1mm along the length of a Blue Chip
doesn't seem too outrageous since they have relatively long blades.
Only try to polish the business end of the back and they should work
fine. Just my opinion.
Cheers,
Mike
"P van Rijckevorsel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Layne wrote
> > > These chisels will be all but impossible to flatten properly. If they
> were slightly concave across the chisel width they'd okay, but convex
> down it's length is not good.
>
> Mike <[email protected]> schreef
> > It's my understanding that, although a flat chisel back is optimal, a
> > slightly convex shape down the length is acceptable. Concave along
> > its length is absolutely no good.
>
> + + +
> Why should concave be worse than convex?
> Concave certainly is easier to sharpen properly.
> PvR
Imagine you're paring a bit of wood off of the wall of a mortise. The
back of the chisel serves to keep the edge of the chisel cutting along
a single plane. The benefit of a flat back should be apparent. If
the back has a concave curve along its length, the edge will tend to
dig in rather than maintain a flat cut. If the back has a convex
curve, the edge will tend to come out of the cut. This can be
compensated for by slightly adjusting the angle of the chisel relative
to the wood, but I don't think you can compensate for the concave
situation. I could be missing something here so please fill me in if
you have a different conclusion.
Cheers,
Mike
On 7 Apr 2004 09:47:47 -0700, [email protected] (Patrick Olguin)
wrote:
>Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> no, you are just an asshole
>
>Geeze, April 7 and the meds have already run out. Hmmmmmm, I can't
>tell from here. Could be hominy, could be corn. Anyone?
Well he did manage to escape my killfile (through repost) and sucker
in two of the wreck's nice guys who are trying to reason with him.
Alan Bierbaum
web site: http://www.calanb.com
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 07:22:44 -0500, Conan the Librarian <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Jim Wilson wrote:
>
>> He doesn't blame himself. He is expressing disappointment. He doesn't
>> blame Chuck either. Nor should he.
>
> Thanks, Jim. What's sad is that I really was going to avoid the
>urge to slap Dave around a little until he posted the following:
>
> > the tide seems to be turning against Marples lately. did I lead the
> > charge?
> >
> > (In my humble, highly unqualified, seldom respected newbie opinion,
> > the Marples are tres substandard, due to the softness of the metal
> > they are currently using; just like the Buck I tried for grins.)
>
> The sheer hubris (look it up, Dave) of it was more than I could stand.
>
> FWIW, my comments about using the chisels this past week were
>absolutely true. But I had decided I would not post any more of my own
>experiences with them, since it serves no purpose. I had even resisted
>the urge to address his comments about "wreck idiots" (i.e., folks who
>disagree with him, and/or have more knowledge or experience than him).
>
> But when he posted that load above ... well, I just lost it. :-)
>
>
> Chuck Vance
hey, don't forget folks who simply have more *chisels* than him.
<G>
In article <[email protected]>,
Jim Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
> In reality, the Blue Chips are a medium grade that will perform quite
> well for the average woodworker in ordinary use. Being a medium grade,
> some particular examples naturally will be substandard; some will be very
> good. The occasional blade will be excellent.
This is the part I think that makes me not buy something like Blue
Chips. I don't mind "medium grade" chisels, but I expect them to be
consistently medium grade or better with no substandard examples. If the
company doesn't have quality control, then they are substandard and
should be charging a substandard price. If they want to do better, then
get some control over the process.
There isn't really any excuse for selling a chisel that has a convex
back, short of shipping damage, or you are charging $1/chisel.
Perhaps my standards are too high.
Bay Area Dave wrote...
> no, you ... just ... can't figure out that
> Marples now suck.
Dave, you're applying a personal experience of yours inappropriately, and
reaching a faulty conclusion. Marples don't "now suck."
Think of it like a car. If you bought a lemon, would you then conclude
that the maker "now" produces nothing but junk? Of course not. Your one
personal experience isn't a reasonable measure of the maker's entire
product line.
I believe Chuck was trying to point this out to you -- that's why he
included his yellow-handled Marples mortise chisel with his Blue Chips in
his defense.
The truth of the matter is this: Various chisels having different levels
of quality have been marketed under the Marples brand. (The same thing
happens in virtually every large tool maker, including Stanley, and even
-- hold on to your seat! -- Veritas and Starrett.) It's because the large
producer must heed the market. The chisels you purchased are substandard
(apparently -- I'm trusting your opinion on this). That's about all you
can say.
In reality, the Blue Chips are a medium grade that will perform quite
well for the average woodworker in ordinary use. Being a medium grade,
some particular examples naturally will be substandard; some will be very
good. The occasional blade will be excellent.
In general, they (the Blue Chips) are OK. The best woodworkers recognize
them for what they are, use them appropriately at tasks for which they
are suited, making sensible and reasonable adjustments to the edge and
their technique so that the tools will work well enough to produce
excellent work. They will not look back. They do this with virtually all
their tools.
Many average woodworkers will find them satisfactory out of the wrapper
and would give them no second thought, except to wonder what all the fuss
is about. Finicky yuppie newbies with more money than need for the tool,
and who "always buy only the best" will complain that the tool is junk,
return it or throw it away, and buy a German or Japanese import of equal
or slightly better average quality, while sniffing their superiority at
the "lesser" mavens of the wreck who would defend a tool that does the
job only adequately.
> >> Marples are tres substandard, due to the softness of the metal they
> >> are currently using; just like the Buck I tried for grins.)
I would hazard a guess that you made this claim rather foolishly, having
no knowledge -- nor even evidence -- to back it up. You're free to
retract it.
Jim
Jim Wilson responds:
>> >> Marples are tres substandard, due to the softness of the metal they
>> >> are currently using; just like the Buck I tried for grins.)
>
>I would hazard a guess that you made this claim rather foolishly, having
>no knowledge -- nor even evidence -- to back it up. You're free to
>retract it.
I'm waiting for you to post his reply. I've got him filtered, so can't read it
without your repost, and won't change that, but I'm almost willing to
bet...no, let's see what he says.
Charlie Self
"Adam and Eve had many advantages but the principal one was that they escaped
teething." Mark Twain
Charlie Self wrote...
> Jim Wilson responds:
>
> >> >> Marples are tres substandard, due to the softness of the metal they
> >> >> are currently using; just like the Buck I tried for grins.)
> >
> >I would hazard a guess that you made this claim rather foolishly, having
> >no knowledge -- nor even evidence -- to back it up. You're free to
> >retract it.
>
> I'm waiting for you to post his reply. I've got him filtered, so can't read it
> without your repost, and won't change that, but I'm almost willing to
> bet...no, let's see what he says.
Done. (G) I bet you'd have won. I'm guessing you meant he'd neither stick
to his guns nor retract it (to put it nicely).
Jim
Jim Wilson responds:
>>
>> I'm waiting for you to post his reply. I've got him filtered, so can't read
>it
>> without your repost, and won't change that, but I'm almost willing to
>> bet...no, let's see what he says.
>
>Done. (G) I bet you'd have won. I'm guessing you meant he'd neither stick
>to his guns nor retract it (to put it nicely).
Yes. That or telling you you didn't know what you were talking about. But I
guess even his nerve failed at that point.
Charlie Self
"Adam and Eve had many advantages but the principal one was that they escaped
teething." Mark Twain
how does one "win" from an indefensible position? YOU, nor
Charlie saw the chisel in question.
AND you still continue to stick your head in the sand about
all the other negative Marples comments made by quite a few
other Wreckers over the course of 3 different threads recently.
give it up.
you have your opinion, and a bunch of others have theirs.
and NEVER the twain shall meet.
dave
Jim Wilson wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote...
>
>>Jim Wilson responds:
>>
>>
>>>>>>Marples are tres substandard, due to the softness of the metal they
>>>>>>are currently using; just like the Buck I tried for grins.)
>>>
>>>I would hazard a guess that you made this claim rather foolishly, having
>>>no knowledge -- nor even evidence -- to back it up. You're free to
>>>retract it.
>>
>>I'm waiting for you to post his reply. I've got him filtered, so can't read it
>>without your repost, and won't change that, but I'm almost willing to
>>bet...no, let's see what he says.
>
>
> Done. (G) I bet you'd have won. I'm guessing you meant he'd neither stick
> to his guns nor retract it (to put it nicely).
>
> Jim
Bay Area Dave wrote:
> tell charlie for me he's #2 on my recently reconstituted twit list, ok?
> thanks!
Wow, thanks Dave. Charlie has more woodworking knowledge (and
common sense) in his little finger than you could ever hope to get in
your whole lifetime.
To be included in his company is high praise, indeed.
So what are you gonna do when your killfilter is complete and it's
just you talking to yourself?
Chuck Vance
Just say (tmPL) Oh, that's right ... you can't see this.
Chuck Vance writes:
>Bay Area Dave wrote:
>
>> tell charlie for me he's #2 on my recently reconstituted twit list, ok?
>> thanks!
>
> Wow, thanks Dave. Charlie has more woodworking knowledge (and
>common sense) in his little finger than you could ever hope to get in
>your whole lifetime.
>
> To be included in his company is high praise, indeed.
>
> So what are you gonna do when your killfilter is complete and it's
>just you talking to yourself?
If he kill filters everyone who dislikes the way he answers posts, he shouldn't
have anyone to talk to but his cat. If he has a cat.
#2, huh? Since I respond to his stuff about twice a year, I was expecting to be
#899 or #900, so I am truly honored.
Charlie Self
"Adam and Eve had many advantages but the principal one was that they escaped
teething." Mark Twain
Bay Area Dave wrote...
> how does one "win" from an indefensible position? YOU, nor
> Charlie saw the chisel in question.
Dave, how do you so often and so grossly misunderstand? Are you doing it
on purpose??? Do I have a great big hook in my mouth?
Charlie was almost willing to bet on how you'd respond. He predicted
correctly. So I said he would have won his bet. It had nothing to do with
the chisel!
> you have your opinion, and a bunch of others have theirs.
...and it has nothing whatever to do with opinion.
Jim
tell charlie for me he's #2 on my recently reconstituted
twit list, ok? thanks!
But unlike HIS request to see quotes of filtered posters, I
prefer you leave him hidden to me. I've gotten my quota of
aggravation from him for a life time.
Now let's see if you honor my request...
dave
Charlie Self wrote:
> Jim Wilson responds:
>
>
>>>>>Marples are tres substandard, due to the softness of the metal they
>>>>>are currently using; just like the Buck I tried for grins.)
>>
>>I would hazard a guess that you made this claim rather foolishly, having
>>no knowledge -- nor even evidence -- to back it up. You're free to
>>retract it.
>
>
> I'm waiting for you to post his reply. I've got him filtered, so can't read it
> without your repost, and won't change that, but I'm almost willing to
> bet...no, let's see what he says.
>
>
> Charlie Self
> "Adam and Eve had many advantages but the principal one was that they escaped
> teething." Mark Twain
no, you are just an asshole who can't figure out that
Marples now suck. (An asshole for the tone of your reply;
not for your reluctance to recognize that many people here
share the same low opinion of Marples as I do. Bet you
skipped those posts from approximately 10 other folks over
several threads, since I first posted my experience with
Marples. Or you just discounted their opinions as you did
mine, you egotistical prick.)
dave
Conan the Librarian wrote:
> Bay Area Dave wrote:
>
>> the tide seems to be turning against Marples lately. did I lead the
>> charge? :)
>
>
> Yeah, sure ... whatever ...
>
>> (In my humble, highly unqualified, seldom respected newbie opinion, the
>
>
> Well, you're right on two counts.
>
>> Marples are tres substandard, due to the softness of the metal they
>> are currently using; just like the Buck I tried for grins.)
>
>
> Well, just last week I chopped a dozen mortises (1/2" wide x 1" deep
> by 1-1/4" long) with one of my "substandard" Marples mortising chisels
> (the ugly plastic yellow-handled ones that Garrett Wade used to sell as
> a set). Didn't even have to hone the blade.
>
> Then I used my 1" Blue Chip to do the final cleanup on the matching
> tenons. Yeah, it was only paring, but it performed exactly as expected.
>
> I reckon I've chopped 50-60 sets of dovetails with my Blue Chips
> since I got them in late 1997. And guess what? I haven't had an edge
> fold yet, and the only time I chipped an edge was when I tried to use a
> 1/8" chisel in cocobolo.
>
> I've chopped a hundred or so mortises of various sizes with the
> mortise chisels. And guess what? Not a single folded or chipped edge.
>
> Of course, I guess I'm one of those wreck idiots, so what do I know?
>
>
> Chuck Vance
> Just say (tmPL) I'll see your anecdotal experience and raise it.
no, just asshole comments (not YOURS; Chuck's)
...but you are teetering on the edge.
dave
Patrick Olguin wrote:
> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>no, you are just an asshole
>
>
> Geeze, April 7 and the meds have already run out. Hmmmmmm, I can't
> tell from here. Could be hominy, could be corn. Anyone?
an some folks accuse ME of starting a ruckus around here??? :)
His ploys are so thinly disguised it's a no brainer to see
he just wanted to piss me off. The best solution to
maintain a bit of harmony around here is for me to avoid him
and Charlie.
dave
Jim Wilson wrote:
> Conan the Librarian wrote...
>
>> Thank you, Jim. That was exactly my point. I'm afraid that Dave
>>long ago stopped reading for content in my posts and simply is looking
>>for excuses to namecall. And frankly, I'm guilty of goading him on.
>>
>> It's a fault of mine, and I'm trying to deal with it. :-)
>
>
> Hey, I'm feeling a little twinge of the same guilt myself. (G)
>
> Jim
sounds like you want to start a pissing contest on who has
the most chisels. I defer to you, oh great tool laden
woodworker.
and I'm sure your vehicle will beat mine in a quarter mile race.
and you could arm wrestle me to the ground.
and you speak more languages than I.
BITE ME!
dave
[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 20:04:58 GMT, Jim Wilson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Bay Area Dave wrote...
>>
>>
>>>>>>>Marples are tres substandard, due to the softness of the metal they
>>>>>>>are currently using; just like the Buck I tried for grins.)
>>
>>>Jim Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>>I would hazard a guess that you made this claim rather foolishly, having
>>>>no knowledge -- nor even evidence -- to back it up. You're free to
>>>>retract it.
>>
>>And Dave wants to know...
>>
>>
>>>No knowledge of WHAT, specifically?
>>
>>No knowledge of what you claim in the quote above. To wit, "Marples are
>>... substandard, due to the softness of the metal they are currently
>>using."
>>
>>If you know it to be a fact, that the Marples chisels are now being made
>>with a different metal than previously and that in fact this new metal is
>>softer than what was used before, please do share how you came upon the
>>information. I suspect you were merely fishing for an explanation of why
>>your chisels failed. My suspicion is supported by the rest of your post:
>>
>>
>>>The edge crumpled after
>>>a few moments use. My other chisels don't do that! I've
>>>got 15 other chisels, all of which I can rely on.
>>
>>Jim
>
>
>
>
> ah, what do you expect from a guy with only 15 chisels....
for craps sake's Jim the proof is in the pudding, so to
speak. I don't need to be a metallurgist to know that the
chisel was a POS. If you saw the chisel in question, I
think you'd be hard pressed to give it a passing grade.
Same with the Buck. Their qualities were identical.
I don't know why you are obsessed with "proving" me wrong.
In YOUR mind I'm wrong. so be it. Knock yourself out.
dave
Jim Wilson wrote:
> Bay Area Dave wrote...
>
>
>>>>>>Marples are tres substandard, due to the softness of the metal they
>>>>>>are currently using; just like the Buck I tried for grins.)
>
>
>>Jim Wilson wrote:
>
>
>>>I would hazard a guess that you made this claim rather foolishly, having
>>>no knowledge -- nor even evidence -- to back it up. You're free to
>>>retract it.
>
>
> And Dave wants to know...
>
>
>>No knowledge of WHAT, specifically?
>
>
> No knowledge of what you claim in the quote above. To wit, "Marples are
> ... substandard, due to the softness of the metal they are currently
> using."
>
> If you know it to be a fact, that the Marples chisels are now being made
> with a different metal than previously and that in fact this new metal is
> softer than what was used before, please do share how you came upon the
> information. I suspect you were merely fishing for an explanation of why
> your chisels failed. My suspicion is supported by the rest of your post:
>
>
>>The edge crumpled after
>>a few moments use. My other chisels don't do that! I've
>>got 15 other chisels, all of which I can rely on.
>
>
> Jim