Historic axes, 18th century

John A. Larsen said:
Veeteetee who posts on the Finnish/Earlier Scandi Axes-Knives sent me a study done in Finland I think in the 30's where Birch tested out as well as Hickory for axes handles. I do not have the email he sent me anymore. I wonder if it is because the Birch trees in Finland are exposed to hard winters? I ask as years ago we did work with Klepper Folding Boats, made in Germany. Mr Klepper used birch rods as the frame of the boats, but only from Birch trees that grew on the North side of the hills in Finland, as their growth rings were closer together, smaller? John
Click to expand...

The Nordic birch species are stronger than our paper birch and are more akin to yellow birch, though I'm having a surprisingly hard time finding specific species in English. I've read that those used for axe handles were especially selected from shady locations that caused them to be even more slow-growing and dense. Yellow birch isn't as good as hickory is, and there's a reason why so many Nordic axes have large eyes and/or collars. I'd be very surprised if it was able to test equal to hickory. But depending on species, birch can be a very strong wood, though prone to rot. Scythe nibs in the USA were traditionally birch since the wood would crush rather than split if over-tightened.
 
When I lived off grid in the Shenandoah Virginia area I cut and used a lot of Osage Orange and Black Locust. Both make very fine mauls, mallets, beetles, commanders, gluts, etc. Osage is my all time favorite for these kind of homemade tools. I brought a small supply with me when I moved to Hawaii from Montana.

It would really be great if some of our members who live on "the other side of the pond", as they used to say, would post "Historic Axes, 18th century ( and other centuries as well ) for those of us on this side of the pond.
 
Old Axeman said:
I am reviving this great old thread for anybody who might not have seen it. And, I want to correct something I said about there being no substitute for Hickory as haft wood. I have lately been making some hafts out of two local indigenous woods--Koa & Ohia. I must say that while Koa is a very strong and attractive wood, Ohia reminds me a lot of Hickory as a great user haft.
Click to expand...
Wood database has some specs on Ohio and says it has interlocking grain. Must be good in tension? Elm has the interlocking grain also and can be hard to split, but Elm don't have that kind of density.

Ohia | The Wood Database (Hardwood)

www.wood-database.com www.wood-database.com
 
Old Axeman said:
I am reviving this great old thread for anybody who might not have seen it. And, I want to correct something I said about there being no substitute for Hickory as haft wood. I have lately been making some hafts out of two local indigenous woods--Koa & Ohia. I must say that while Koa is a very strong and attractive wood, Ohia reminds me a lot of Hickory as a great user haft.
Click to expand...

Hi, Bernie. Thanks for bumping the thread.

I've come to accept that there are at least other woods besides hickory that make a satisfactory axe handle. I haven't tried Koa or Ohia but I think black locust and hard maple have mechanical properties close enough to hickory to make a decent handle.

On a side note: Hello forum. I've recently lost access to the free email account that I used to create my original 'Square_peg' account at Bladeforums. I can no longer verify my Bladeforums account with that old email aacount. I've had to create a new account. If anyone knows a friendly mod who can help me retrieve my old account I would be grateful.
 
The title of this thread leads me to believe that there are axes on here from the 1700's. Very misleading.
 
JTR357 said:
The title of this thread leads me to believe that there are axes on here from the 1700's. Very misleading.
Click to expand...
O

Post in thread 'Historic axes, 18th century'

Axe 1--I found this unhung axe head about 42 years ago inside a unmolested wall during a renovation project. The house was a colonial era, built about 1760. That makes this axe 256 + /-. All that was needed to sharpen was to stone the edge and hang it. Who knows how it got in the wall. The head weighs about 2.5lbs, it has a high center grind, it has forge welded insert bit and a forge welded poll. I hung it with a 23" hand riven haft in a straight pattern that works well for me and its intended use. It swings and cuts very well. In photo 2, for comparison, I put it next to a 50 year old...
  • Like
Axe 1--I found this unhung axe head about 42 years ago inside a unmolested wall during a renovation project. The house was a colonial era, built about 1760. That makes this axe 256 + /-. All that was needed to sharpen was to stone the edge and hang it. Who knows how it got in the wall. The head weighs about 2.5lbs, it has a high center grind, it has forge welded insert bit and a forge welded poll. I hung it with a 23" hand riven haft in a straight pattern that works well for me and its intended use. It swings and cuts very well. In photo 2, for comparison, I put it next to a 50 year old Plumb 2.25lb boys axe that I hung with a 25" straight octagon slim taper haft ( I was not completly happy with the grain in this haft, but my hickory supply is about gone and I can not get any decent sticks where I now live).

Axe 2--I found this head in the dirt under another colonial era renovation. It needed quite a bit of work. The head weighs about 2.25 lbs, it has a wedge grind, it also has forge welded bit and poll. I hung it on a 28" haft. It does not cut as well as axe 1, but it does split very well and thats what my use will be.

Both of these axes are the origins of what we call the "American Axe"

If you have any 1750 to 1850 axes, adzes, or hatchets please post them up.

Thanks for looking, Bernie
 
Is there a reason behind the 1850 cutoff date?
I'm just curious and am not trying to argue.

For example, here is my Yerkes belt axe dated December 1864.
It varies slightly but verall it's essentially just a 1LB little brother to axe #1.
20250611_182314.jpg
20250611_182333.jpg
20250611_182405.jpg

If nothing else my belt axe here is a good point of comparison.
In comparing it to axe #1 I'm realizing how much of what I thought was rust pitting is just from the forging process.

It also shows the importance of knowing an axe's history, if this belt axe was unmarked just like axe #1 I might have thought it was much earlier .
Likewise if we didn't know where / how axe #1 were found who could say it wasn't a late period example like my little Yerkes.
 
The 1850 cut off date is arbitrary. My particular interest has always been using axes from the USA colonial period to the post civil war industrial revolution period. This I believe to be the most important time frame of development for what we refer to as the American axe. I have been lucky in my work with the National Park Service and the U S Forest Service to be allowed to inspect all the Axes, Adzes, Hatchets in the collections of the Smithsonian Institute, Colonial Williamsburg, and the Mercer museums. The best part for me was being allowed to see the archived axes, not just the axes on exhibit.
Bernie
 
Last edited:
Old Axeman said:
The 1850 cut off date is arbitrary. My particular interest has always been using axes from the USA colonial period to the post civil war industrial revolution period. This I believe to be the most important time frame of development for what we refer to as the American axe. I have been luck in my work with the National Park Service and the U S Forest Service to be allowed to inspect all the Axes, Adzes, Hatchets in the collections of the Smithsonian Institute, Colonial Williamsburg, and the Mercer museums. The best part for me was being allowed to see the archived axes, not just the axes on exhibit.
Bernie
Click to expand...
Thank you for the explanation.

That timeframe certainly is important, that is when the ubiquitous features of the north American axe were developed.
The poll, eye shape , the convex cheeks, and the lugs still found on the most popular axes on the market today.

If only the long poll had stuck around.
 
Hickory n steel said:
Thank you for the explanation.

That timeframe certainly is important, that is when the ubiquitous features of the north American axe were developed.
The poll, eye shape , the convex cheeks, and the lugs still found on the most popular axes on the market today.

If only the long poll had stuck around.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the reason why it was abandoned was because when you make the tool perfectly balanced to start, rather than slightly bit-heavy, is that over time as the bit loses mass it becomes imbalanced with the bias towards the poll. Building in just a little bit of bit-heavy bias means you approach perfect balance as the tool wears, and isn't so much as to severely influence the stroke. Furthermore it means that for a given head weight you get a slightly deeper bit that is less impacted by the bit/eye transition, which allowed for the larger more oval eye shape of modern axes.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
I'm pretty sure the reason why it was abandoned was because when you make the tool perfectly balanced to start, rather than slightly bit-heavy, is that over time as the bit loses mass it becomes imbalanced with the bias towards the poll. Building in just a little bit of bit-heavy bias means you approach perfect balance as the tool wears, and isn't so much as to severely influence the stroke. Furthermore it means that for a given head weight you get a slightly deeper bit that is less impacted by the bit/eye transition, which allowed for the larger more oval eye shape of modern axes.
Click to expand...
That makes a lot of sense.
It could probably still be great for some small axes and hatchets that are much less likely to see as much bit wear as a felling axe , but I never really thought about how an axe would become so imbalanced with a heavily used up bit.
 
The best early primary source info I am aware of is a advertisement from the PENNSYLVANIA PACKET AND DAILY ADVERTISER, July 7,1789 for "Wm. Perkins, Blacksmith". It has a drawing of an axe head that matches my two 18th century axes shown on page one of this post. You can see this advertisement on page 25 of AMERICAN AXES by Henry J Kauffman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top