Spoon / Ladle Blocks

[Glenn]

You may want to look at the Wally Yater design of 2 matching swage blocks.

[GNJC]

Hello Glenn,

The Yater blocks are real classics, but bigger than what I'm planning. If cost was not an issue I probably would be considering two complimentary blocks. The thing that I like most about them is that they are good for a lot of uses but they don't try to do too much at the risk of making a block that could easily be broken.

Regards,

G.

[Dave Budd]

I hadn't given shovels any thought (fire sets aren't something I've every got into making) but I can't see any harm in having them there, certainly it wouldn't put me off. So I'm still in. Looking forward to seeing what shapes you come up with :)

[GNJC]

Hi Dave,

As I wrote to Colleen, I am trying to fit in a shovel pattern (and the ability to make crusie lamps too), two seem unlikely, but spoons and ladles are the priority. If, when I present my initial design, there is no concensus amongst us or approval from the chosen foundry it will mean me going back to the drawing board.

At the moment, between a toodler and sick wife, the 'fun' of designing in 3D using a 2D graphics program is a rest. I am seriously considering getting a 3D program!

Regards,

G.

[teenylittlemetalguy]

. I am seriously considering getting a 3D program!

Regards,

G.

Google SketchUp is free. I don't know much about design programs, but I liked that I was up and drawing useful items in a single evening of study and practice on it. I love it for layout of welding projects as I can calculate all my cuts and visit the band saw once, instead of 57 times of back and forth between welding table and saw. Its also nice when you don't have a third hand to measure something while you hold all the parts in place.

[teenylittlemetalguy]

.

It still amazes me that there is not one for sale over here, esoteric maybe, but still in demand.

G.

I have been thinking about this, and have a theory that I think holds some water. I also could easily be full of BS, so bear with me here.
Spoons are kitchenware and would have been made by a Tinker and/or a Silversmith. Neither of which would really need a forming block to make a spoon, as there are skills to shaping sheet that can easily take it's place. Those skills were likely more readily known in Great Britan than stateside owing to your grand tradition of Silversmiths, something that was not nearly as prevalent stateside. I am guessing that since not many of us possed the skills someone decided it was easy to bash a piece of metal into a recess to create a spoon shaped object. That became our "tradition" and so you are left without any spoon swage blocks.

[GNJC]

Hmm... true to a point. There was at least one old-time American silversmith, Paul Revere!

But seriously, if you look at many old British blocks (say, before the late Nineteenth Century) you will see depressions that were used for making ladles and, very occasionally, spoon shaped ones too.

Tinkers did not make many spoons here, the poor would have used spoons of horn or wood depending upon suitability and teh availability of materials. The middle classes would have used pewter and the wealthy silver.

I am by no means an expert in this field, but my guess for the reason for a much larger number of such blocks in America (later to become the USA) is, first of all, the ban on manufacture in the American Colonies and then, secondly, that you have given. Over here there were – post Industrial Revolution – so many cutlery manufacturers that a general blacksmith simply could not have competed on price.

I am playing around with google sketch and something called 3Dvia; both are freeware.

Regards,

G.

[teenylittlemetalguy]

Hmm... true to a point. There was at least one old-time American silversmith, Paul Revere!

But seriously, if you look at many old British blocks (say, before the late Nineteenth Century) you will see depressions that were used for making ladles and, very occasionally, spoon shaped ones too.

Tinkers did not make many spoons here, the poor would have used spoons of horn or wood depending upon suitability and teh availability of materials. The middle classes would have used pewter and the wealthy silver.

I am by no means an expert in this field, but my guess for the reason for a much larger number of such blocks in America (later to become the USA) is, first of all, the ban on manufacture in the American Colonies and then, secondly, that you have given. Over here there were – post Industrial Revolution – so many cutlery manufacturers that a general blacksmith simply could not have competed on price.

I am playing around with google sketch and something called 3Dvia; both are freeware.

Regards,

G.

yeah good points, and the fact it spans so much time, could be multiple coflicting reasons.
Good luck with your quest on a a block.

[GNJC]

Right, the situation so far… (apologies for a long post) Have learnt a lot, 1st lesson = don’t believe everything foundries initially tell you.

The reality is that for something complex like this a successful pattern will need to be made by someone who really knows what he’s doing i.e. a pro’. So probable cost of a pattern has gone up (from a few hundreds to up to a thousand pounds, ha!); no matter, within reason I’ll still fork out with regard to that.

Also, since it takes a lot longer to prepare for each casting, complexity of pattern also increases cost. Fair enough, but that is not a cost I will cover.

So, how can cost be kept down but still leave us with a block worth having? No doubt there are many options, most obviously: 1 Reduce complexity of the block’s design; 2 Reduce size of the block; 3 Finish blocks ourselves (a bit of grinding and sanding).

3 is a given; but numbers 1 & 2 are linked and could reduce a block’s utility. Any other ideas? (size will have least effect on cost because material is cheap.)

The Current plan is a standard rectangular block with all faces utilised, containing (in inches):

LADLE CIRCLES = 5 shallow; 4, 3 & 2 hemispheres.
SPOON OVOIDS = 4.5x3; 4x2.5; 3.75x2.5; 3.5x2.5; 3x2; 2.75x1.75 & 2x1.5.
SHOVEL 4x3.25 – looks alright to fit in at the moment.
(Anywhere with space could have small varying sized hemispherical recesses for heading / upsetting if cost allows.)

SO… is that too much, not enough or just right? My preference, if necessary, would be to lose smaller sizes and the shovel rather than large sizes (sorry Colleen.)

I have contacted / will contact a few more foundries further afield to see if they prove more economical; once they get back to me I’ll post again about cost.

Lastly, apologies to a well-known swage block website, no offence intended when I posted a link to your excellent site earlier.

G.

[John B]

Hi, with regard to your any other ideas? Patterns are expensive, and materials relatively cheap. One of the reasons for the expense in setting up the mold is because you are trying to utilise all six sides of the block. This immediately creates problems A) when making a suitable pattern and B)when trying to cast blocks from the moulders perspective. I know standard swage blocks have all six sides (normally) with useful cut outs in them. Because of the shape of the cut outs the blocks can be sand cast in a top and bottom cope and drag very simply, with your design you are trying to cast a series of closed/individual depressions on each face of the block and this is what is increasing the cost. Consider pricing for a larger two working face block as it would be easier for the foundry to set up and cast. You could possibly reduce the thickness to keep the overall weight down, your initial block size was not very large, less than an A4 sheet of paper size and you have some fair size cavities to include. Time for Beth to step in with some input as she has some casting experience.

[beth]

well john, i do have a littel experience, and in another world perhaps we could have made our own but i dont really know what to add , except that we only need a few depressions, cant we do series of single anvil/vice tools, with only one working face? i also dont see why a pro has to make the pattern? why would that be difficult?, we can absolutely finish off the casts ourselves after the pour, these dont need to be precision casts do they?... i can ask about here with my local foundries if you like for some comparison giles? did not want to get involved with that though because too many cooks can spoil a soup i think a simpler block would be better if we are worrying about cost.... only a thought.

[GNJC]

Hello,

Spot on John, it is the six-face complexity that pushes up the cost. I was, initially, reluctant to make a block that was on the large side; however, I am coming round to the idea.

Beth, following something you wrote earlier I did look into the option of several smaller tools, not ecomomic sadly. At the moment John's looks like the best suggestion. But I will try some other foundries for prices too; Beth please PM me with the names of any foundries you think highly of.

There is also another possibility in the works, but I'll save that until I have more info...

G.

[jake pogrebinsky]

Giles,i'dlike to pipe up here briefly,sorry beforehand if any/all of what i'll say may be irrelevant.

I've gone to visit a small foundry a few years back,and the owner complained bitterly about the difficulty in finding the pattern-maker,and the expense.Our conversation revolved mostly around patterns,as a matter of fact,and i got to handle and examine a few,some that he made,and some that came out of a legit patternmaking shop.

Now,the Pattern-maker's trade is an old and honored one,let not anything that i may say be interpreted as a slight to it in ANY way,it's an Extremely qualified process.But,for what you need(with certain adaptations,maybe),to make a pattern would not be rocket science!Just indulge me by hearing these(harebrained) thoughts:

Look at some regular,old blocks.They are Quadrangular,normally have those spoon-type depressions in the Faces,while the Edges are used for swages of assorted shapes.Their symmetry axis is in plane with their Faces,it transects those edges in the middle.Imagine this flattened quadrangle getting buried in the cope up to it's midline,as it lays flat,getting covered by a drag.Can you picture that,a flat square shape buried in sand to the middle of it's thickness?

That midline,running the circumference of that block,(transecting those crenellations of swages),is the Largest set of points in the whole shape,imagine it bulging out pillow-like.THAT is the crucial quality of any pattern,it's called Draft.Because it'll allow you to With-Draw the pattern from the sand,without ruining the impressions in it.
After casting,those swages will of course be humped in the middle,because the draft-line runs through them.But,it'd be easy to dress out,also,that may not be a bad thing anyway,allowing you the beginning of the relief that every swage has anyway.

But,back to the pattern.The foundry can tell you what slope,the degree,of Draft they like.From this it's simple,as you can even exceed that slope,to be safe.
You obtain a block of wood of necessary dimentions,and carefully strike a line that'll become your midline.Trace it in marker,eventually,as it'll be a part of the tool that you're building.(The patterns are made very smooth,and are coated with a few coats of varnish.Under that clear coating your lines,and inscriptions in different color markers look neat,you'll like it!).
From that line you simply reduce the block into a trapezoid on each face,reducing each face's area.
It'd be a simple job,allowing you to lay everything out precisely with a square.Once you have these lines,you carefully cut to them,using some depth-gauge cuts,and plane the resulting planes.
Actually,that Draft,and the Midline are the only critical parts,all else can be as wild and curvacious as you like,provided that nowhere is there an hourglass shape,ruining the draft.

All in all,it'd be a simple cabinetmaking process,plus,you'll need some gauges to carve your spoon-shapes.
Possibly,if you've a cabinetmaker nearby,you may inquire how much a block sloped to the necessary draft would cost?
For finishing,something like 220 to 400 grit paper,and some spray clear varnish,and it's done.
The foundry SHOULD appreciate that effort very much,including the financial part of the deal.
But again,i may be way off,and you had never wanted to be a Pattern-maker when you grow up!

Warmest regards,and all the best however it works out! :ph34r:

[tzonoqua]

If you need to omit the "shovel", then do so and I won't be offended... :)

[pkrankow]

Jake has a good point. The difference is that instead of the pattern being split in the middle, it is going to be split at the depth of the depressions on the "top" side. The "hard" part is the sprue and risers, and those may be pre-made pieces that get fastened on.

Make your own pattern!

Phil

[GNJC]

Jake,

Your comments are most welcome. To be frank, they back up what I initially thought, but - and it is a big but - of the various founders I have spoken to so far only one has been more than cool towards the idea of a pattern made by other than a professional. Perhaps they have been mucked about before and had their time wasted, I don't know.

Irritatingly, I am being given conflicting advice by some of them; so I am having to take all views into consideration. Today I think I have seen some light with one chap, but time will tell.

No matter what, your input in re' patterns and John's in re' size is constructive and very helpful.

G.

[GNJC]

Colleen, just saw your post. It will be in if possible, a chap down the road from me is keen for one too and will have a look at designing a depression that will be good for a shovel and other 'things' (his word). Hmm. G

[John B]

Simple press type tooling is probably easiest for shovel making. These can be made for a fly press if you have one, or to use in a vice if not.

[JNewman]

As a patternmaker and someone who has made swage block patterns, I do want to correct a couple of comments made. Varnish should not be used as a pattern coating as it can cause the pattern to stick in the sand, lacquer and lacquer based paints are most often used as pattern coatings. The split between Cope (top) and Drag (bottom) is called the "parting line". It does not have to be a flat line it can and quite often does move up and down, this is called an "offset parting" Something like a swage block where the "draw face" (sides) is important the parting line should be on an edge if possible. Two reasons for this, is any shift between cope and drag will cause a step in the casting which cannot be fixed, and any flash is easier to clean when it is on the edge rather than in the middle.

Cavities on a "draw face" rather than the top and bottom will not draw out of the sand mould. There are two ways around this, cores around the sides or "loose pieces" which means the sides come off the pattern and stay in the mould they are then draw into the middle of the mould and then taken out. However "loose pieces" would be tricky or impossible to strip from the mould because the shapes in the drag face would make raised pieces in the mould which would prevent the "loose pieces" from being draw into the middle. As well on a small casting like this foundries often do not like to work with loose pieces.

[JNewman]

I've gone to visit a small foundry a few years back,and the owner complained bitterly about the difficulty in finding the pattern-maker,and the expense.Our conversation revolved mostly around patterns,as a matter of fact,and i got to handle and examine a few,some that he made,and some that came out of a legit patternmaking shop.

This is a favorite complaint of many foundry owners, Patterns always look easy when they are done. The foundry gets to make money on every casting made from the pattern, the patternmaker only gets to make money once from the pattern.

[jake pogrebinsky]

Wow,John,that's right,now i remember you mentioning somewhere before that you're a Pattern-maker!Respect! So,what you're saying,if i understood you correctly,is that it's NOT a good idea to scallop the edges of the block-pattern,and have a parting-line pass through the middle of them?As the scalloping would not draw? Is it then possible to just scallop the two opposing edges,have the parting-line traverse those on their very edges,and the other two,leaving them smooth,to be bisected by the parting-line on a diagonal?(Or,following John B's sage advice,just leave the edges smooth?Especially now that i think of it,i'd put Giles before the problem of also scaling the whole pattern correctly for shrinkage,as the swages need to end up in nomonal size range?). (And even all that only provided that making his own pattern would be constructive,under the circumstances,as Giles writes,some foundrymen are not too terribly excited by the idea). Do you think that it was rash thinking on my part to suggest to Giles to make his own pattern,that it was an over-simplifying of the process on my part? Giles,i hope that you'll excuse my butting in like this,especially if the net result of my doing so makes the planning even harder for you.

[GNJC]

Jake,

No problem about 'butting in', the more questions answered before I commit to anything, the better as far as I am concerned.

I am still awaiting replies from a number of firms about basic pricing. I am surprised that they are not chasing up as much business as possible.

Calculating for shrinkage is not a problem, as mentioned before, the sizes for the features are arbitrary, people won't complain about a ladle being 3 15/16" rather than 4.

My design is continuing to evolve; it will certainly be a larger piece than had originally intended (so as to allow more cavities on the main faces.) John has been very helpful, sage advice would not be putting too strongly. I am trying to incorporate useful features for the draw faces, but can see no point in repeating those found on the everyday swage blocks that we have,

It seems to me that having a couple of blank areas could be a good thing, thereby allowing people to have them machined with recesses of their own design / choice at a later date.

G.

[JNewman]

Jake a pattern split down the middle with draft would draw just fine. But if there is any "shift" (cope and drag not lined up properly) the half round swages on the sides now have a step in them which can be difficult or even impossible to grind out. So by putting the whole pattern in the drag you not only get a better casting but it is EASIER to make than splitting it. The features that are in the cope face are in the cope but that is all. A swage block could be angled so there was a better draw on the faces but the other two draw faces would have to have any features set on an angle, as well some features on the cope and drag faces could be more difficult to draw.

A swage block is a fairly simple pattern, but there are lots of potential problems with a pattern. If there are any problems with getting the pattern to draw or getting a mould closed due to not enough clearance on mounting board locators, a 10 minute moulding job could become a half hour one. A pattern that tears up the mould or that scraps a casting any other way can cost the the foundry more than any profit made in casting the blocks. So that is why many foundries can be leery of homemade patterns. If you refuse to pay for the castings due to problems caused by the pattern that is a problem they do not want. That being said the pattern is almost always the first thing blamed for problems with a casting.

[jake pogrebinsky]

Ah,i see...It's incredible how much the Informed thinking differs from the casual view!I never even thought about the pattern non even vaving to be split at all!!!

Than you,John,it's great to hear from a person on the inside of any given trade,very different view,very educational.

Frankly,i've only seen one swage-block in my life,and never used one...Seems like a great tool,in so many ways,as even in my very general work the lack of bottom-tooling is so sorely felt...

Here we have it,Giles,i'm afraid that now it's a matter of waiting for the rest of your research to provide the final direction that this may take.

I've only have one more suggestion,and it's the least effective one,having to do with a one-off principle:Raise or sink your swage form from 3-4-5 mm or so thick mild steel,and then carve an oaken,or similarly dense wood,matrix into which it'll fit,and attach them together with a couple of screws.
The steel then serves as a hard form,resisting the localised deformation,and the wood backing as an anvil-like mass,that absorbs the energy from the blow.
A series of devices like that can be made,their bottom sized to fit into a shallow recess in the top of a stump,or into some simple device restricting their movement on an anvil face.

All the best of luck with the project!

[GNJC]

Well…

The good news is that I have heard back from a few more foundries.

The bad news is that the production prices for blocks, as discussed in ‘phone conversations, have – following the submission of more detailed information – increased, in one case doubling. The cost of a pattern remains the same.

Having gone further afield, I am still waiting to hear back from another three foundries, one of them was a lot more enthusiastic than the others and a lot more understanding about the likely production run being small. However, should each of these prove to be a no-go, I shall look to others even further away; hopefully one, at least, will prove to be interested.

Again, I am very surprised that some businesses who claim to welcome orders of any size have been unenthusiastic; I have several friends with small businesses and all of them are grateful for whatever they can get at the moment. Whinge over.

G.