I’ve seen this question a few times. Someone pointed me to a dumpster fire post on Sawmill Creek describing what firmer is, and it slipped on a cowpie into declaring registered chisels as being something made up or a made up word, as if they’re no different than firmers.
As usual, the discussion devolved into assertions that firmers are flat-sided only, and are “firm” so they can be hit harder.
Before this morning, I’ve never looked up firmer. If a word in English doesn’t make much sense or describe function, it’s probably a mangled version of another word. In woodworking, I guess we don’t have too much German or we’d have chisels that go by five-word compound names.
The short answer is findable in a regular dictionary. Imagine that. Firmer is an English mangling of a French word that means “to form” or “former”.
Referring to Nicholson’s Mechanic’s companion, the firmer is described in a way that probably won’t make sense to the typical 21st century hobbyist. Basically, the way I make chisels and probably many did before they become “tapered flat planes”. A flat bottom, and a top with curvature leading to a relatively thin edge (with flat sides as of 1840) with the last few inches closer to parallel. If that doesn’t make sense, it will if you ever seen an older firmer and wonder “why is a chisel intended to be ‘hit firmly’ not thicker”. The reaction to this is sometimes that “tools now are made better, they’re heavier”. That’s also not correct.
Understanding why a firmer is the “former” of the wood, according to Nicholson to be followed by a paring chisel when needed, clues us in to why the heavier chisels referred to as registered chisels are not the same thing. They are, in fact, much heavier cross section chisels with a heavier tang and stronger bolster design, intended to be struck. A 1928 Marples catalogue shows these at this page, this picture specifically.
If you travel to the the first link, you’ll find the picture mentioned, and you can see firmers listed on the prior page, with and without bevel edges. Entirely different purpose and format vs. registered chisels, and the firmers aren’t “fat” chisels intended to be pounded. I would imagine two factors led to the introduction of bevel edge firmers later, which explains why nicholson described them as flat sided – synthetic abrasive wet wheels so that a trade grinder could quickly grind side bevels on a hard chisel. And steel that could have added thickness at the middle and still through harden without being quenched in water. When you use the plainest of water hardening steels, many will cease to through harden fully on cross sections bigger than 1/8th inch.
One of the other differences (firmer vs. registered) that you will find with factory handled chisels is the registered chisels are also hooped, but catalog listings show them sold unhandled, so this isn’t a guarantee, and I’ve had more than one thin cross section delicate firmer that’s been rehandled with a hoop. To get an idea of what chisel would’ve been sold as a registered chisel if it matters to you has more to do with understanding the thickness of the chisel’s profile – which type would have come from the maker with the intention that it could be levered in heavier work. Firmers are generally more like a bench chisel, but longer and thinner. The whole idea of fat “bench” chisels and fat overweight firmers (not registered chisels) is a modern thing, also aided by oil and air hardening steels that can through harden pretty easily, but then the chisel becomes overweight and not very nimble in work. On a jobsite, though, such a chisel would be harder to bend over and break by apprentices.
I didn’t look up the origin of the word “registered” in the context of chisels, but the average person would probably consider that “registered”, like an internet tough guy would say “these chisel using hands are registered as lethal weapons in 14 states”. I would guess that the original word was also not English and has nothing to do with that, but rather like the firmer, the use or function of the chisel. It is more reasonable to say “i’m guessing” because, that’s what I’m doing.
I could probably ask Warren and not have to do any work. Next time I see him, maybe I will. If it also started out as French, he’ll know.
One Could Look at this Two Ways
Why forums (and writers, and woodworking personalities and magazines) remain such a terrible source of information other than who is currently selling woodworking tools is probably a combination of two things.
The first: The resident experts usually providing information will not peel an onion back very far, and they’ll refer often to someone who they like. It could be Paul Sellers or in this case, Adam Cherubini, who declared that the term registered appears to have been made up. It’s a little weird for someone to be that involved (costume and all) and not be curious enough to answer this question. The person who overruled a legitimate comment by referring to Adam as if he is the atomic clock of tools, less surprising.
That’s my relatively dim view of it – the first round of answers you’ll get may include a correct one (it could be Warren, he’ll answer briefly). After that, a fast layer of guesses and answering “from reliable friends” and personalities. One in this case referring to Adam Cherubini – someone I don’t really care for but that’s OK. If there is a right answer or something more likely, why don’t we just establish it and move on so we aren’t making insane guesses for 2 decades. Forums are generally traffic heavy in “at the bar” discussions of things, even topical, and the ancillary bits that could be used to define or clarify things are not well thought out. I don’t think they were intended to do that – I think they were intended to create an easy format to draw in beginners and connect them with advertisers in the interest of the forum owner. That’s important to remember – the system itself does not function to provide information. It functions mostly to coordinate advertising or e-begging members for money.
The second view about forums, and one that I discounted in the “could we curate this to move up a level and have better advice and real answers” frustration……..Nobody really cares on forums if answers are accurate. A few people will, but they’ll come and go. I remember George Wilson’s response, that eventually, he realized that if you provide good advice, it’s not as if people will necessarily follow it vs. the next blog post by Chris Schwarz, or an article about blue tape on dovetails as priority #1 before considering if a piece will have the potential to look nice in the first place.
And there is one more important point that goes with this. To have answered this question like I did here, were I still on the forums, creates two things. First, it kills productive follow up discussion. The origin of firmer is simple, it’s factual. And second, if it doesn’t kill discussion, what follows after it is a cow pie of “that’s probably wrong” or “what would a dictionary know about woodworking vs. Adam C.”. And that leads to resentment. If there was always a brief accurate response, which by necessity, would have to come from a number of different actual professionals or very enthusiastic Don McConnell (who used to provide superb dead-on answers, but long ago disappeared from doing it), that creates resentment. If good answers come from the same person in disagreement with “friends” (imagined friends, pointing also back to the strange dynamic that if you pay Paul Sellers, Rob Cosman or Chris Schwarz, then he’s nicer than someone who offers you a brief answer that you could go confirm), that creates resentment. And I can guarantee you some of those folks will complain to forum ownership, and you will find out that the purpose of the forum is more about 20 posts that leave the question standing than one that answers it.
I’ll be clear about this, too. I don’t know Adam C. and I doubt he posted an answer on knots eons ago thinking it would come back to bite. He just ends up being the source example in this case because that’s what actually occurred. He posted something, and it got referred to as if it is as reliable as Nicholson, an old Marples Catalogue or Holtzapffel.
Where do you really find answers to most of your hand tool questions? Not from me, not from Adam Cherubini, and certainly not from Chris Schwarz or Derek Cohen. You can just go to google books and read an older text. Just the bits you want a little at a time. You don’t have to buy stockings or a pirate shirt. You’ll be shocked for something like Nicholson’s Mechanic’s Companion how compact the descriptions of tools and their uses are. And how accurate they are. But if you start referring to those sources, you can expect that if you try to do it on a social mock-informational medium like a forum, it will work like citronella to create some social distance and you may hear crickets.
My Motivation Here is a Little Bit Selfish
I fell into the same trap early on. I thought Adam C. woodworked for a living. I never got a legitimate vibe from Chris Schwarz outside of his publishing other peoples’ works, and fortunately woodworked long enough before the loud Sellers videos to see that there was something missing there.
But I don’t want to be a better source of information. It’s not a competition. I have some resentment that when I figured out how to use a double iron more or less in a vacuum, it’s something that could’ve been taught to me earlier. I wasted 6 years to get to that point, and I’m sure others much more. My selfish motive is wanting to have accurate answers that I can learn from. Someone pointed me to Nicholson (probably Warren answering something), but it was years before I ever even heard of Nicholson. Before that, I was pointed hundreds of times to the woodworking personalities, etc, of the sorts mentioned above.
To look for this type of discernment ends up being a little bit dividing. At least if the folks offended by finding out they’re giving bad advice can’t get over it. I get that. But it’s more important to me to heat treat steel better in isolation than it is to do it the way Paul Sellers does it and come up with a subpar result that dozens will cheer for.
Of Making by Hand with Wood and Steel 
Funny, but I was thinking about firmer chisels recently too. My first set is of chisels was firmers, don’t really know why, probably just liked the shape. Before that I had three beaters one of which was lost one day. These firmers aren’t curved the way you describe, they’re later Sheffield and they rather wedge or brick shaped So I was zoninig out on a 1/2” firmer and thinking that Paul Sellers’ “firmers are clunky, ugly pieces of steel only good for paint scraping” is total BS, since this 1/2” firmer was in fact thinner, lighter and generally more elegant than a modern bevel edge chisel like Narex or Buck (and any other firmer chisel from the set). They also sharpen really sweet on oilstones, much more pleased feeling and an edge is way keener.
And you are totally right: regular rock rocks stars were a source of wrong info way too many times, the more mundane the question the more chances their answer will be wrong on many accounts. Nicholson btw isn’t an exception, apparently he wasn’t working wood for living in any form, he was an editor (exactly like Paul Hasluck , Bernard Jones or Chris Hayward), so he just assembled what was said by other authors. The book also was neither for a working tradesman or a reference to an architect, it was an expensive status symbol for a shop owner to be put next to a “Cabinetmaker’s director” and Vitruvius prints. What’s interesting is that Nicholson was probably aware about mistakes in Moxon’s book, but he never intended to correct them, just copied them verbatim. I think the earliest books written by somebody verifiably expert at the craft is probably Holtzappfel, though he doesn’t go much into details of cabinetmaking.
And it’s really mind blowing that people on the forums can have 20 threads or something just so they don’t have to read a complete book, not even ince. Otherwise traffic there would probably be close to zero.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I remember finding that nicholson and other publishers were prolific publishers and that was their trade (and probably hobby, too). I wonder if people were more particular or less distracted at the time, because the accuracy of the information is just head and shoulders above anything printed now. perhaps he had others read what he wrote and provide feedback, but it’s uncanny how paul sellers does work wood, but it’s my opinion that he’s evasive about how little fine work he’s actually done or that there’s much more rigor behind his statements than any other trade joiner (FAR detached from someone working by hand at a bench 200 years ago).
I see the same steel statements, and they come from people I used to have high regard for. I used to have more regard for DC, but just as today, a statement that “V11 is finer grained than A2” (it isn’t) or that it sharpens faster or easier (it doesn’t – it’s harder as LV makes it so it does let go of a wire edge more easily, but A2 would do the same if it were just tempered harder). People take this stuff and run with it.
The discussion of what’s finer grained and whether it matters isn’t even that simple, so I wouldn’t get into it, but there is this strange need for people to make statements that just aren’t true when they could just instead relay what they feel and avoid the need to make statements that get them trapped.
We get used to some of this stuff from ad copy. V11 “sharpens fast”. or “powder metals have finer grain than other steels”. the finest steels I’ve used are ingot type. I think a lot of the terminology gets adopted with idealistic notions, and the self skepticism leaves and then down the hill things go. E.g, paul sellers confidently just declares firmers fat without having a clue that none were originally. the chisels sold as firmers now probably aren’t any thicker than LV’s chisels or a stanley 750.
if someone is trotting by just hoping to justify what they’re just about to pull the trigger on, so be it. Once in a while someone new will come along and say something that’s somewhat accurate, describe a goal, and they’ll be left with the idea that they were wrong in the first place and everything is loose, sloppy and never was much defined for woodworking.
LikeLike
Moxon was a typist and a printer, so his second volume is way way better in terms of correctness and explaining the art (or so I’m told by printing nerds). He and Nicholson are revered for a reason, if anything they’ve been first attempts at systematic overview. In this regard mistakes are minor, they could have been corrected in subsequent prints.
I think Paul Sellers went a little bit over board and now tries to present his unique personal experience as pervasive and general. I think he’s a capable woodworker, or at least better than me, but I find his pieces quite tasteless, esp. the one he made for the White House. They’re okay and they have some common charm about them, but there’s something off about them. It’s okay though, he could just continue touting accuracy and neatness, but he has got on a horse so high I wonder how he breathes, there’s very little atmosphere at that altitude.
An then there’s people, usually a beginner type, that needs their opinions validated by somebody well know, be it a local forum pundit or some big name from YT, there’s a bunch of “acshually $celebrity_name says that…”. They’re annoying, esp when they garner enough credibility on a forum in any way they can. There’s also a type that needs constant validation of something they have posted before, so they will plug a blog into every response, even when a response wasn’t directly solicited from them. What’s really annoying is that it’s hard for me to see them as the part of the same community, in a sense “people that do/like stuff I do/like”, quite the opposite, there’s something that makes me want to be NOT like these people – do things differently, say different things. However, as you have pointed out, this is not what’s rewarded on forums/social media, but mindlessly agreeing with anyone rather is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have to admit I’ve never read moxon and only have gotten exposed to stuff from Roubo when warren has referred me to something useful (publicly, it’s not like he’s an independent roving consultant). the open sided wooden skate single purpose planes described in roubo are super practical for a hand worker. Someone referred me to nicholson and said it was a match for what I was doing, so maybe preferring what nicholson says is confirmation bias!
“common charm” is a good way to describe what Paul makes. A while ago, I saw one of his stories about his travels to where he is involving moving to texas and working the craft circuit and figuring out what to do to get stuff for the next craft circuit show. that world is familiar to me – my mother did it profitably for 35 years as a side business. it’s not good or bad, it’s different from fine work and it creates a different eye and aesthetic and need for production type speed working by hand (stuff is simple, plainer, but had anyone seen my mom paint, they would have the same “buh…she just lays the brush down and does every element in a stroke”. My mother also tried to do fine pencil drawing art and sell it earlier – I hope she never reads this! – she wasn’t able to do it to a level that was differentiating. But she could easily teach beginners pencil art or whatever you’d call it. That reminds me of paul, and I’m kind of a pattern guy. Call it spectrum or whatever you’d like, I see patterns and compare a lot. The piece in the white house is kind of harsh looking, but not sloppy. It looks like it was made by someone who does a lot of veneer – it doesn’t flow that well and the birds are kind of strange looking. I recall a mention that frank strazza was teaching at the homestead school around the same time, so who made the piece or did most of it – it looks an awful lot like some of the veneer work on Frank’s page (I had no idea who he was, but looked him up).
So who is making what and how much and why is it so difficult to just be straightforward? I don’t know.
But definitely, the people on the craft circuit making things were able to do what they did efficiently and the same or similar enough every time. it was just generally missing the fine end of design and difficult elements because you can sell 100 $40 items at a craft show, but you’d struggle to sell one $4,000 item. Smaller, simpler, higher volume items tend to leave you driving less back.
And there was one guy…wait for it ….who was a fine bird carver. I never saw anyone buy anything at his booth (i’m sure he sold stuff), but back then, about 35 years ago, he also taught classes. Otherwise retired from something else, so selling a bird or two for an entire show probably was fine – somewhere he figured out that people were interested in learning to carve birds. Like my dad, who went to about a dozen classes, carved a couple of birds, and quit or just likes to look at birds or read about carving.
Hopefully, there isn’t a stumpy numbs version of bird carving on youtube.
LikeLike
It makes me think that it’s a sort of unconscious or collective/tribal behavior. If you go along with the generally agreed wisdom and the pronunciations of the current gurus, you’re part of the in group. If you contradict the given wisdom, you get an aggressive push back.
The whole issue is so dumb though. Practically any catalog you consult calls a general purpose chisel a firmer, bench gouges are called firmers. Yet, firmer is still a straight sided chisel in some people’s minds.
I was the one rocking the boat on that thread, I don’t know why I bother, maybe to show my non-tool friends in what silly arguments we get.
LikeLike
The whole forum thing is a study in people, and since it’s isolated, you can find slowly (or quickly) figure out the cranks (me) or people who can’t let things go (me) or people who want to manipulate what others say or agree with (you know who) and try to steer the boat without owning it or even being given license to steer boats. And the friendly folks who seemingly can get along with everyone else. All kinds of things.
You can go for at least 15 years until you become bitter and anticipate a negative outcome like I did!
I don’t think you can make a dent in people defining a firmer properly without fanfare or fighting the next time, though.
LikeLike
David – I enjoyed this post. The ease of “publishing” on the internet certainly has led to the proliferation of “expertise.” I would point out, though, that the same “human behaviors” existed in the time of Nicholson et al. The exclusivity of publishing books and the varying degrees of literacy in the past also influenced who and what got published. I haven’t done a study, and these issues probably have been the subject of many writings. Still we should consider the conditions that allowed Nicholson, Roubo, Moxon, etc. to write and publish their works before we we consider them the final word on any subject. I’ve always wondered, for example, for whom Roubo wrote. My speculations are just that as I have done no research. I think Roubo’s intended reader wasn’t woodworkers. I imagine he wrote the book at a time of growing bourgeoisie for someone who might want to set up a furniture business. Again this is baseless speculation, but if true, would lead to a different selection of what to put into the book and what to discard.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d imagine you’re right about the customer for the books. They would likely have cost more than a typical layman could’ve afforded, and probably would’ve been stolen by a resentful friend. The “gentlemen” have ruled what’s recorded and what’s not.
I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m for an ideal where ability to provide information is curtailed or regulated, though it may come across that I’d hope for that. I guess my idealistic shortcoming here is I’d like the group of us (woodworkers, presumably thinking we’re sharing knowledge) to make the decision at the individual level to elevate the level of discussion in terms of accuracy and moving on. It’s not inclusive of beginners or people who talk about woodworking during the day on lunch break and then (instead of woodworking) binge neflix at night, but a separate section could be had for that.
I’m a big fan of observing outcomes. The first (nonwoodworking) vbulletin style forum I’d logged in to was in 2002. I’ve read or participated in woodworking forums since 2005 or 2006. Things have gone backwards a little bit but changed some, too – more of a lateral move. If there was to be some fundamental improvement, it would’ve occurred. The core information is findable elsewhere for someone who really wants it , though. Either through experimentation or just interested reading of older texts – most publicly available – and really trying to figure out what the texts meant. Nicholson is something I have the fuzzies for because it matches what I figured out on my own. Who was feeding this information to Nicholson? i don’t know the context at the time, but someone fed him very accurate information. The brevity and precision in the brevity can make it hard to really extract everything out of it for someone who would be reading it first and trying to apply it second, though.
LikeLike