Mathieson Cabinetmaker's Floats and Early Shapers

.
I have some of those and whilst I raise an eyebrow at the prospect of, not only sharpening, but cutting with those so-called floats, cabinet-Makers' floats are a completely different animal and really do cut when both flat and sharp.

Rather I think that these seem to come in convex and concave form made-up in a beefy piece of steel - more akin to retaining heat and acting as a former of some kind.

Somewhere in the depths of the memory-bank is the notion that they were originally intended for workers in animal horn, though I could conceive of using them to form veneer onto a curved ground.

If you find out any more - please let me know.

They are called "Cabinetmaker's Floats" in the Mathieson catalog - complete with an illustration. This is what is so puzzling - I didn't make up the name.

Is it possible that the Mathieson floats were made for putting a curved edge on a convex surface rather than on a flat piece of stock? That would mean that there would be some relief. An example would be to round over the edge of a circular picture frame.

If they work like plane maker floats, then the first tooth is the cutting tooth and the other teeth work like a scraper following the cut. Just a wild guess. They certainly look different than plane maker floats.

If they do work like plane maker floats, then from the pics in the blog they are not sharpened. The bottom should be ground flat and then the leading edge of each tooth filed until it forms a sharp intersection with the bottom. When using, the first tooth has to start the cut with the other teeth following. A great reference is "Making Side Escapement Planes" by Larry Williams.

Could you grind/sharpen each "tooth" a bit more than the one behind it? So the first one in front would be the shortest? Perhaps then it would work.

If it quacks like a duck ...

Could it be that they were used by pulling rather than pushing the tool?

Am I correct that the relief angle is zero? If so that would explain why the don't cut a flat piece of wood. It's like trying to pare a flat piece of wood with the bevel up and the back of the chisel against the wood. I'm suspicious of how well they would work on a piece of molding with regularly spaced rises and falls. My guess is it would be like trying smooth the molding with chisel, back against the wood.

The problem with these suggestions for radical sharpening (or re-shaping, really) is that this suggests the tools were originally sold in a state totally unfit for use, and if that was the case we should see some examples which have been modified to cut "properly." I don't think we learn much about early tools if we modify them extensively to fit our notions of how they should work. I think that by using them pretty much as found, and discovering what they are actually capable of, Joel is learning something useful about these oddball tools. Personally, I am delighted to learn that they are nothing I need to seek out for my own kit!

Having been a machinist for 55+ years, I would have to agree with Joel. The zero relief would indeed cut small bumps; the tool then could be used in both forward and reverse direction.

This is an interesting topic that I had not previously pondered and I have no experience with tools that even resemble those. While I do think you may be correct I have an alternative explanation which might make be worth considering.

If you consider the cornice of say, an Acadian Armoire for instance, they quite commonly have a rounded profile. The mouldings meet at a 90 deg angle. The intersection is then carved into a rounded profile making for a rounded moulding. For reproduction work I carve these with gouges but I am wondering if your floats would work for this given the radius?

While some relief would still make them work much better this has my wheels spinning. Any chance you could test this theory?

Something to ponder.

Regards,

Jean Becnel

Looking at them, I'd have come to the same conclusion. Actually, I did, but I had to read the entire blog post to see that you also did - that they are a finishing tool and not a tool meant to cut a molding, rather one to remove stuff from a moulding that shouldn't be there (hills, valleys, etc) and finish the profile so that there are not chatter marks or any other such fluff.

Maybe this is because of its design and merely looking at the picture above it doesn't look very sharp so I won't wonder if it really would not work at all.

I have a pair of these tools; although I don't see the name Mathieson on them. One is convex with convex curvature and the other is concave with convex curvature. I'm intrigued by the possible uses and yet reluctant to hone them to get sharp leading edges. Perhaps they were meant to shape plaster or clay. I hope to locate and acquire some more geometries for the time when I discover their original purpose.