Furnace1 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I have a question about the top plate on one of my Fisher anvils I hope some of you can shed some light on. To start with it is a 220lbs anvil made in 1920 that I had purchased last year. At the time it was covered in rust and I did not notice and problems after doing the usual checks and the top seemed normal . After cleaning it up however I noticed a thinness to the top plate toward the cutting table as you can see in the pictures which clearly shows thanks to the condensation the other day, the differences between the cast iron and the tool steel plate. It appears at first that the top had been milled down at some point in it's life but after a better look I'm not so sure. The first thing that's thrown me off on this is that the plate goes from about 1/16 to almost 1/2" across the span of the top. The anvil is dead level at 13" from one end of the top to the other. If it had been milled I would not think it would not have such a large difference in thickness going from normal to almost nothing. I was thinking perhaps this was a factory defect and that the plate had not been set level in the form when the cast iron was poured over it and then milled normally to finish ? That being said, it is one of my best rebounding anvils I have, all across the top regardless of where it's used and I have used it well, although I do try to stay away from that edge.... even rivaling the rebound on my 400lbs Fisher... Thanks guys for any input, I hope Njanvilman will chime in on this one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arftist Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Sadly it looks as if your anvil was indeed milled, but likely not by Fisher. The classic mistake is not ":squaring" the anvil first. It should have been mounted face down, and the bottom milled first. In looking closer though, I am not sure that even that is what happened. Fishers usually have a very decent surface finish. Yours doesn't. I am wondering if it wasn't a reject of some type. By the way, I personally do not endorse milling or grinding anvil tops. You are simply reducing the lifespan of the anvil by doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njanvilman Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I would agree that at some point your anvil was milled or ground to parallel. However, Fisher would not have done this. They would have expected the user to shim the anvil or mount in on a slightly angled stand. The top plate was supported in the mold with cut nails, and a few did not come out parallel to the base. (I have several with this condition). At some point in its life, someone had the anvil "corrected", but as arftist said, did it in the wrong order. I cannot imagine that this is from use. It would take a lot of pounding to wear away that much material. All being said, if your anvil is working for you, I would not concern yourself about this. Keep using it until you wear completely through the top, if that ever happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HWooldridge Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Is the spot on the face you believe to be cast iron, as hard as the rest of the face or does it mark as easily as the body? You can test this with a center punch. It could be that the top plate has chipped to yield a coarse, grainy surface but is still hard. I believe Fisher would have rejected the anvil in-house if the plate had been that far out of parallel - because it would have looked really odd coming out of the mold. In addition, I assume the mold cores for the pritchel and hardy would also be affected - are they crooked or straight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njanvilman Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Is the spot on the face you believe to be cast iron, as hard as the rest of the face or does it mark as easily as the body? You can test this with a center punch. It could be that the top plate has chipped to yield a coarse, grainy surface but is still hard. I believe Fisher would have rejected the anvil in-house if the plate had been that far out of parallel - because it would have looked really odd coming out of the mold. In addition, I assume the mold cores for the pritchel and hardy would also be affected - are they crooked or straight? I always have tried to present facts. HW, you are wrong on all points. You can clearly see where the top plate ends in photo 4 and see the iron body. This will be hard, but not as hard as the steel. Secondly, slight misalignment in the mold of the top plate would not affect the holes. The core for the hardy was supported by the mold, and barely went past the top plate. The pritchel holes were drilled after casting and could be drilled perpendicular to the face. These anvils with top and base not parallel were not rejected. Visit my museum to see many with that characteristic. I present facts, not beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HWooldridge Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Uhhh, NJ - you haven't presented any "facts" with regard to the OP's anvil and you cannot with any certainty know that I am wrong unless you personally inspect and test it. A photograph of a rust line showing on the side of the anvil is no indicator of where the plate begins or ends. I simply suggested that he check whether the two surfaces are similar in hardness. A center punch is a low-tech way to do that. It is perfectly conceivable the plate was cocked in the mold but this would have been really obvious. Was Fisher's Quality Control so accepting of any product that they would pass an anvil this far out of square? Apparently, your collection of anvils confirms this - if so, I will concede that point. It is certainly without question that the base and face of an anvil don't need to be square to each other. And BTW, I'm an engineer and have worked in the manufacturing and metal trades for over 30 years so I also always attempt to present facts, not beliefs. It's easier to test and know for sure than speculate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njanvilman Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Furnace1 I hope I have answered your inquiry. I will not respond to the "above". If any of you New England boys are going to the ABANA conference, you might want to make some time on your way home on Sunday or Monday and stop in here at the Fisher Museum. No one who has been here has ever been disappointed. It is only abut 30 minutes off of the NJ Turnpike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
humphreymachine Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I’m sure the anvil is a great user but were I putting my name on it I would have been tempted to throw it back in the furnace and try again. Is it common for Fishers to have that many exposed gas bubbles in the iron? The layer just under the steel plate looks kind of odd as well – like scrambled eggs or conglomerate stone. I guess there’s yellowish surface rust on it but the crystalline structure appears off. How were the cut nails used to support the steel plates in the mold? I’d think the steel would sit in the bottom of the mold and naturally lay parallel to the anvil’s upturned base but apparently it was not so simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njanvilman Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Without getting into all of the minute details of the Fisher process, I will try to explain. Fisher anvils were cast "up-side down". There was a cavity under the steel top plates for molten iron to be poured to preheat the steel top plate and horn. The size of this cavity was based on the size of the anvil, and iron was poured from the side of the flask and allowed to flow through, being collected in a ladle on the other side. The steel was allowed to preheat for a pre-determined amount of time. The rest of the iron was then poured in through a complicated gating system. The cut nails were used to "lock" the plates in place, and to keep them from being pushed up from the preheat iron. They mostly melted into the iron. Sometimes, the faint traces of the nails can be seen on some anvils. The top plate and horn did not sit on the mold clay directly. It was supported solely by the nails till the anvil was cast. Sometimes the iron did push up a bit and displace the top plate, hence some Fisher anvils tops are not completely parallel to the base. I also have a 100 lb Fisher that has the horn slightly shifted, but the top plate perfect. As to the bubbling and poor quality castings: Fisher did remelt defective anvils and any anvils returned to them in their warranty period(the reason for the dating). For a time, they also sold some anvils as #2s. I have one where the Eagle was ground off. Its face is soft and swayed, and looks like a well worn forged anvil. That anvil was sold as a second, without the Eagle and warrantee. I also have a large sawmakers anvil that had a big gas bubble, causing a bunch of iron not to be there, but it did not affect its performance and was sold and used for many years. All of the details will eventually be in my book. Just takes a lot of time to write, photograph, and collect all of the details and research. Ping for a visit. There is a lot of stuff to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
humphreymachine Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Thanks – that explains it. The preheat reservoir could displace/jostle/float the steel plate from time to time. It sounds like there were a lot of sprues – vents – etc to break away after the casting cooled. Very interesting. Books are a lot of work – I understand. We all look forward to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.