[IDENTIFICATION] Is this a Biscayne French trade axe?

I do,Ernest,but i make that judgement based on intuition only...
The angle of haft to radius of blade cannot be measured definitely,it can be opened or closed by the hang itself,and even more radically by the curve of the haft.
But if one judged by the back of the eye,as in inserted a ruler and laid it up against it,from the inside,then i think that the radius of the blade of both these axes MAY lay at a very similar angle to it.
And IF so,then it may indicate a tool similar in purpose...
(which,in this case,and in my intuited opinion,would be a short-motion,end-grain hatchet,a French sabotier hatchet-like...)
 
jake pogg said:
But if one judged by the back of the eye,as in inserted a ruler and laid it up against it,from the inside,then i think that the radius of the blade of both these axes MAY lay at a very similar angle to it.
Click to expand...

I think this is the correct way to measure the presentation of the axe bit. I recently demonstrated this in my Walters resto thread. I did just as you suggest, I inserted a ruler against the back of the eye and marked its location on the top and bottom of the axe. Then connected those points and constructed a perpindicular out to the bit. A 2nd vertical line at the bit parallels the back of the eye. It is this line that I shape my bit to.
Axe%201.jpg


https://www.bladeforums.com/threads...d-handle-wip-pic-heavy.1535911/#post-17640512
 
Pindvin's axe is certainly very similar to the one Jake found online.
Side-by-side%201.jpg


We see that they are both wrapped and forge welded in the same location on the same side of the axe. The stamps are in the same location. The eyes are both similarly formed though one is necked up a little higher than the other. We wouldn't expect two hand forged axes from different smiths to be like clones of the True Temper manufacturing line.

Side-by-side%202.jpg


We see that they both have 'D'-shaped eyes and a thick bit in front of the eye. The both have overlaid steel bits, very evident in the sketch but only hinted at in the photograph of Pindvin's axe.

Pindvin%20bit%202.jpg


But a closer examination of the bit on Pindvin's axe shows an overlaid bit. Look at the top where corrosion has revealed the softer wrought iron under the steel bit. See that jog in the steel just below the top of the bit?

The heel on the sketched axe drops more dramatically than on Pindvin's axe but we don't know what the buyer requested when the smiths made these. The construction methods are very similar even if the axes aren't identical.
 
Thank you,Square_peg,well put,all that sounds balanced and rational.

What i think the axe-world lacks most sorely is a typology,a classification of axes based on their intended work,the type of cutting for which they were meant.
Vs what we Do have,typologies such as Petersen,based on length and shape of langettes...:(
 
Thanks for photo shopping up the images and bringing them side by side Square-Peg. Comparing that way is much different.
Not wanting to run down a list of counter claims at the moment, seeing them like that only highlights how different the axes appear to me. Isn't it funny how we take away completely opposite impressions?
I did my own effort at photoshopping in the hopes it might give illustration to what I was seeing as possible differences in the make-up of the axes, leaving the bit section intentionally vague.
n6krlze.jpg
 
Ernest,your intuitive take on it may well be right,and in the way these two balance and the kind of chore they were designed for,all that may differ.

You may also be right about the sequence of components and welding.But i think that Ugaldie has put it very well,about how two neighboring forges may easily work differently.
Depending on any factor,from preference and tooling and onto the material batch-difference.
Also,i must add that bloom iron can be more-,or less-refined,kinda up to the circumstances.
In the dirtier stuff(that axes frequently are),the inclusions of Si and oxides can run far and wide.They are technically cold-shuts,and they remain a separate layer getting only thinner with forging.
Being irregular they tend to spall off at times.
A smith had to be ready to weld all this stuff together in a bunch,in order to reinforce it by that overlayed bit.

One never knows about those seams in bloom material,they can be the result of bloom-refining,or have to do with technique,or maybe the smith lost a bit too much mass in welding,and welded on an extra chunk from that collection on the floor.
(i've never worked with bloom,but did fairly extensively with puddled iron,some-quite dirty,and in shaping needing to be welded back to itself every few heats).)
 
Allow me to distance myself from the idea that anything I have typed has intentionally implied a claim to place(s) of origin or even a similarity in the dates of the two axes at hand - thanks to Square-Peg I am thinking now the two differ also greatly in age. Where I say eye, sockets and regional connections..., it seems another, or at least premature, topic, that I let myself get drawn on when it was sprung on me. I'm sticking to the distinctions in terms of construction and form, who knows, maybe even material, who am I to set boundaries? that can be made by the admittedly limited scope of what's on the screen, (or am I being revisionist or backtracking in some way I didn't pick up on reading back through). But please, when the discussion steers towards these two particulars - place and time - I'm all ears and eyes.



Jake, are you going on up there about the visible structure, laid bare by time (and vigorous scouring and other vexations) we can make out at the surfaces? In other words, inherences of the material, in opposition to something intentional? I guess the former. But there does seem to my eye to be two clear lines of distinction outlining the (supposed) filler, no apparent central seam, anyway not like we see it in the sketch, and the nib off a seam at the front inside of the eye, (pointed at with the arrow).
 
Here is my example of the fluidity of forging techniques and axe forms.

https://archive.org/details/BernardForgingSwedishAxe

Bernard, the blacksmith of France, is having a go at reproducing an old Swedish axe, butterfly construction, bit lamination, the whole 70 yards.

We can never say these two axes, the Pindvind and axe№2 are not coming to us now the same way - I exaggerate of course as an illustration.
 
If it were made as a symmetrical structure like this:
n6krlze.jpg


then what explains the appearance of the forge weld on one cheek but not the other?
bZcRBU6

0PODlrk.jpg

bZcRBU6.jpg


From the top down image I couldn't determine that the center material wasn't just the same wrought iron only exposed more completely by uneven corrosion, perhaps because it wasn't as work-hardened from hammering.
 
Work hardening it could be, the other too, or innumerable conditions that have exposed the solid material that remains, uneven corrosion as you say. Which is the more plausible? Still more questions to be answered before it becomes apparent, I'd say. For example, there are indications from the top down view that the center is distinguishable from the sides, from work hardening or otherwise, while none I see that a central joint is there. If the lines are at all recognizable to you along the sides, you can see the left one is smaller than the one on the right. This also correspond to the two sides of the eye, left smaller than right, (check in all the photos showing the eye, though none completely objectively, angles, lack of focus ect, ect.... A good look at the inside of the eye would also probably give indications but I see this interruption pointed at by the arrow. It lines up pretty well with the line extending along the top. That would be a secondary indication that the outside wraps a central core.
That what looks like a seam or weld is visible on the scoured surface and not on the un-scoured you mean? Looking back through the pictures its seems that the seam is there on both sides. It even looks like the central core serves as the base for the bit. I just may be on one but I'll throw that out there with the rest of my speculation binge.
gztJTq8.jpg
 
It's ALL of it,everything mentioned,can be the possible construction method!:)...It is notoriously difficult to judge thr weld-seams from a photo(and we're luckily looking at some Good photos,actually).
Here:https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/finnish-earlier-scandi-axes-kirves.1428809/page-21
Agent_H has most kindly posts up a good example of how Random things Can be,inside any old axe...:)
Looking at some of those,where(on cross slices)one can see the dark,punctuated lines?Those are welding flaws,filled with dirt that does not allow them to join.
And those could be in material,or made by a smith in a process...And one could never again tell the difference...The ENTIRE material has been folded back on itself and welded several times prior to shaping into the axe...
(btw,what Protrudes,in relief,are the non-metallic parts,as iron itself erodes much faster and easier than the glassy mineral slag parts).

Ernest,you're probably right in that there was extra material added to the front of eye(probably in Both axes).It is one of the ways to retain all that mass in front there .
That extra mass may've been Added,at whatever stage,or Reduced from starting with larger mass....(and have a seam there from a previous fold and weld cycle).
That's the trouble with forging,often,there're several ways to the same end,and reverse-engineering can be most challenging...
(To me,personally,it always came very hard...In the past(more than once)I've gone through the entire process before realising that no,i was wrong in interpreting it afterall,this tool was made some other way yet...:(

The blade-material seems (to me) fairly symmetrical on both sides.The weld-seam is not that obvious on left side,but i think i discern the visual difference in texture.
Steel corrodes at a different rate(faster,actually),and ut's fibers would likely be finer,and oriented differently,at 90 deg. to the edge,normally.So often it's visible,the juncture,but again-not necessary.
None of this is mono-steel like we're all used to.It's all one big mass of weldments,like fillo-dough...
 
Thanks,Ernest,for that last photo-it Really shows the steel/iron boundary on that left side..

And thanks to everyone,i think these discussions are important,without them we can(and do)miss out on interesting constr.details.

It's not at all uncommon to run into a tool-body welded from 4 to as many as 9 pieces,smith's logic being quite hard to figure out after the fact...
Larger,more complex axes like some goosewing type....As many methods as there were shops,or even individual smiths...
 
jake pogg said:
It's not at all uncommon to run into a tool-body welded from 4 to as many as 9 pieces,smith's logic being quite hard to figure out after the fact...
Click to expand...

Even today a smith often has to make do with what materials he has on hand. I can imagine that a smith from 200-300 years ago might have different materials available from day to day, and have to adapt his methods to what was at hand. I've even read that many buyers supplied the metal to the smith for the object they wanted forged.
 
Absolutely,a customer bringing scrap was a common practice.
Bloomeries also produced different consistency material each and every time,too.
The particulars of the construction method often depended on specifics of the particular batch,physically(degree of refinement) AND chemically.P and S content especially,affecting the temperature of any particular process,by making material Hot-,or inversely,Cold-short....
Which could easily change the welding method or sequence....
 
Here's a couple of photos of my attempts to bootleg a Stephen Ronnquist type carving hatchet,where conserving the mass in front of eye was critical to design.... https://imgur.com/a/LVyun....,and https://imgur.com/a/u7Fwd

Pre-form for an asymmetric weld:https://imgur.com/a/zI7ID on one of them....

Another strategy for an asymm. weld where the filler-piece and the steel for(inserted)edge are welded to the forging Before folding/welding the eye:https://imgur.com/a/O1eHF

And here it is right before welding:https://imgur.com/a/TNlOM....and immediately after:https://imgur.com/a/5uFC7

....resulting proportion,eye to neck in front,inadequate....losses to forging exceeded the extra mass provided by planning...https://imgur.com/a/6QML1

The moral is that the 3rd component,a filler-piece,is a good technique,and was used commonly.
 
Stumbled across this schematic,https://imgur.com/a/Qh6fo
It is of course only a few of a Myriad ways by which the necessary mass distribution was obtained.
These are old methods,having to do precisely with lack of consistency in each component of the laminate.
(Otherwise,it could all be accomplished by forging a solid).
And once again,it's impossible to tell the welds made by the smith from those already present in a chunk of bloom.
It's all of it-Diffusion welding,often in very thin layers.
When Pindvin tried etching his axe it didn't do very much.Stands to reason,as the bloom iron is interspersed with slag inclusions,And coated by it on the outside too.Silica has a lower melting point than the T of many forging operations,welding-especially.
And that silicate,ceramic in essence coating of course would not etch.
 
Sorry for the long break. It's actually hard to swallow that you found the most related info in my mother tongue ...
I actually hung the axe that were talking about here and it is a very nice carver. The cheeks are flat, which results in a very low cutting angle. It can chop through thicker branches in one swing, carves fine feathersticks, but sticks to thicker wood when chopped. Moreover, it is perfectly symmetrical and aligns with the haft evenly when looked from above.
My axe was bought here in Poland where i live.
It weighs 1kg whereas the one from the publication weighs just above 2kg. They argue whether it was meant for battle or carving/hewing. I'd say the cutting edge is too thin and fragile to be used efficiently in battle. Some people say i basically destroyed a beautiful axe by grinding it with an angle grinder ...
 
I don’t think you ruined your axe. As far as your video and pictures show, you did use an angle grinder to clean it and pull some of the pitting out of the edge. I’m not a fan but then again I don’t make a living running an axe.

Maybe you can use it until it needs sharpening then use files to shape the edge and set a bevel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top