hand sewing thick leather

[Birdman]

Yes, that is a fair point. No, I have never used them. But I have had their use and effect demonstrated to me when I was training.

Conclusion of all was that they were unsuitable for saddlery use. If used lightly as a pricking iron, the marks were unsatisfactory---poor shape and spacing, if used as a stitching chisel, they still had the poor shape and spacing and left the leather butchered. The Master had made his point. (pun intended)

I wouldn't use stitching chisels, I know how to do the job better,  and I would fear the ghosts of ancient saddlers visiting me in the night with burning awls and flocking irons!

I still think it is better to first learn to do stitching well using the correct methods and tools and then adapt as suitable for an individual project. Because once you can do it properly, its easier and faster than other methods that may only be suitable for some projects. For instance, a saddler is not going to abandon the use of pricking irons, awls, clams and double handed stitching and use a stitching chisel and poke the awl down through the leather to a piece of softwood on the bench just because he is now making a slip case for spectacles ---a job that doesn't need the same level of skill and security as a bridle !

But be my guest, you make something 'your way' where the stitching counts, like a bridle/standing martingale/stirrup leathers/girths/girth straps and then use them yourself..........And if the proverbial hits the fan, you will have the answers as to how significant the differences are. 

 

 

[jcuk]

Hi Birdman i trained in the traditional method using pricking irons so needle and awl for me.

So we know the need for the the stitch to be strong and what could go wrong if it is not I work 

in Horse Racing you need to be able to trust your tack and the person who has repaired it or made it

in the first place.

Having said that this for a lot of people who do leather work its just a hobby there work my not involve work 

where a lot of strength in the stitch may not be needed, but do agree with start off the right way first bad habits

should not come into play.

By the way where did you train i made a belt a lot like yours when i did my training.

 

hope this helps JCUK

[Pabs]

interesting debate my post has generated 

I truly enjoy reading the different points of view.

I do some wood working as a hobby and I can appreciate the "do it the old fashion way " style of learning.. but at the same time in certain cases you will opt for a quick fix just to get something done...depends on what you are making I guess.

in my case there will not be any heavy forces applied...however, I do want to make some swings for my kids... I want to set up some ropes,swings, etc in the basement for them to play on when it's too crappy out...in that situation I would want to have the strongest possible result

and I must say the level of decency you guys have shown in your "disagreement" is to be commended. it's refreshing, much too often these days people just trash each other online and discourse turns to muck and serves no purpose.  in this case  I'm actually learning...so thanks!  

[Martyn]

37 minutes ago, Pabs said:

in my case there will not be any heavy forces applied...however, I do want to make some swings for my kids... I want to set up some ropes,swings, etc in the basement for them to play on when it's too crappy out...in that situation I would want to have the strongest possible result

I'd trust my kids on a swing stitched using pricking irons to make the holes, without a second thought. I'm utterly unconvinced that it makes a blind bit of difference. While I'm not that great at traditional awl method, I can do it and as others have said, I can not discern any difference whatsoever. The stitching chisels shown are made from heat treated and hardened tool steel (unlike traditional irons) and are designed and made to be used exactly as described. I'm not convinced even under mission critical applications, that it makes a jot of difference. For example, many western saddles and tack are made up on a machine with a lock stitch. The lock stitch is mechanically a weaker stitch than a saddle stitch, but you don't hear of cowboys having issues with their saddles falling off because of it.

Sorry to those who disagree, no offence intended, but I think the suggestion that chisels somehow weaken the stitch, is absolute nonsense. Anecdotal opinion isn't enough, I'm afraid I'd need some evidence to convince me otherwise.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Martyn

[Tugadude]

I suppose we've all made our points.  Now it is up to the original poster to decide.  Either way, the videos Martyn attached are a must watch.  Even if you choose one method over the other, you will learn about both.  Good luck and feel free to post examples of your work as you progress.  We'll look forward to helping if we can.

[Birdman]

13 hours ago, Martyn said:

 

Sorry to those who disagree, no offence intended, but I think the suggestion that chisels somehow weaken the stitch, is absolute nonsense. Anecdotal opinion isn't enough, I'm afraid I'd need some evidence to convince me otherwise.

 

[jcuk]

Hi all I will have to agree with you Pabs about the decency of the debate.

Good to see there is still hope insight.

 

All the best jcuk 

[Birdman]

7 hours ago, Birdman said:

 

Sorry about the missing post above. I do not know what happened----and it took me ages of 2 finger typing as well!

Not only that, the software does not let me use the "quote" facility either! 

I will try and cobble it together again.

"Sorry to those who disagree, no offence intended, but I think the suggestion that chisels somehow weaken the stitch, is absolute nonsense. Anecdotal opinion isn't enough, I'm afraid I'd need some evidence to convince me otherwise. "

OK. So lets try some circumstantial evidence.

Man working with leather has been going on since the stone age. (OK I was NOT there)

Particularly post the Industrial Revolution, I do not believe that the use of a  Stitching Chisel would not have been tried. It is after all a very small step from giving a pricking iron a gentle tap with a rawhide mallet to whacking it through the hide with a hammer! I would suggest that it was tried for reasons of economy (time costs money in a competitive industry), and found to be lacking with long term use, and subsequently  lost customers. 

Reference was made to machine stitching. I will continue with the analogy, it is another cost cutter and the actions of the machine needle have a similar result on the leather ie it punches a hole as opposed the the awls slicing action.

As a saddler I have had many machine made items brought to me for repair. Common problems are stitching failure with head-collars and saddles.

When machine stitching fails, it runs like a ladder in a ladies stocking. As a result, far more replacement (hand) stitching is required to make good than if the item was hand stitched. Worn hand stitching does not 'run', and the area of insult remains relatively small to the insult. It is also impossible to use a machine to match the new stitches with the old stitch holes.....and holes they are.

I suggest that holes made by a machine needle are following a similar path to the use of a stitching chisel? The machine cannot detect the finer differences in a piece of leather like the experienced hand and eye can. It ploughs on regardless. Similar to punching holes and then using an awl in a vertical stance on to a piece of softwood on a bench to open the hole to allow  'lazy way' double hand stitching?

This brings me on to replacing rubber grips on reins.

If the rubbers have been machine stitched, you can generally only replace the rubber using machine stitching once. The punching needle does so much damage that the rein becomes unsafe---the holes join up! And they are holes! Years after the original work, on replacement of the rubbers, you can hold the naked rein up to the light and see stars! Rubber grip reins that have been hand stitched can be recovered about three or four times, Machine stitched reins can be recovering by hand stitching once, and if you are lucky maybe twice before it becomes unsafe to do so.

I suggest that there is little difference between the effect of a machine needle and a stitching chisel?

Western tack has been mentioned. Something that I have little experience of except for basic repairs. Western tack evolved because the cowboy needed equipment that could be repaired and made good miles away from the town. So it was made as simple as possible. It has subsequently evolved into a wonderful art form---far away from its original purpose. 

I had a Western saddle brought to me for repair.. It was just a basic working saddle with some embossing on the cantle. The flaps had been from two layers of thin leather, machine stitched around the edge, to produce a flap of the correct substance.  ---  Cheaper than a single piece of the appropriate thickness?

The stitching had failed where the riders leg rubbed the flap edge, and then run. As a result, I had to re stitch most of the edge of the flap. And yes the stitch holes were evident and the leather somewhat pappy around the edge----but in fairness, this may have been due to the leather quality.

But the point is....initial money saving  resulted in higher later costs.

So Martyn, in summary, nothing is new in a craft that has been around for centuries. Economics  and competition will always drive cost cutting. Proven methods will always out last the the new fangled methods if those methods are shown to be inferior in the long term. So if you are making a quality product by hand, and especially if you adding value by some cracking arty stuff, its a shame to spoil the job for the sake of a ha'p'orth of tar. Because your customer will not be back if the stitching fails on his £80  ornate belt or guitar strap after a couple of years.

Inbuilt design obsolescence should not be part of the quality built in to hand made leatherwork. 

 

[Martyn]

Thanks for the detailed response. I want to respond to a few points, but cant work out how to split quotes on this sdoftware, so I'm going to borrow your trick of highlighting your comments in red.

OK. So lets try some circumstantial evidence.

I would agree with the circumstantial part, but whether it constitutes evidence is debatable I think. I'm going to try and respond to some of your points with actual evidence, that I hope you will take under consideration.

Particularly post the Industrial Revolution, I do not believe that the use of a  Stitching Chisel would not have been tried. It is after all a very small step from giving a pricking iron a gentle tap with a rawhide mallet to whacking it through the hide with a hammer! I would suggest that it was tried for reasons of economy (time costs money in a competitive industry), and found to be lacking with long term use, and subsequently  lost customers. 

Pricking irons are not stitching chisels. Lacing chisels have been around for a while, but stitching chisels are fairly recent. I doubt your master would have ever seen or heard of them, certainly not the industrial revolution. I agree that whacking a pricking iron produces unacceptable results - I think this is what you thought I was advising initially - but I agree, not good as you'll see below.

I really do think that your lack of hands on experience with stitching chisels is colouring your opinion, because what I read in your assumptions of them, is a million miles from my experience and I'll try and show that below too.

I suggest that there is little difference between the effect of a machine needle and a stitching chisel?

I disagree. There are two issues here, firstly a chisel does not produce a lock stitch like a machine. This is a major part of your criticism of machine stitch failure. Chisels make holes for saddle stitching, exactly the same stitch you make when using an awl. Using a chisel doesn't turn a saddle (double running) stitch into a lock stitch. There is no debate on this point.

The next issue was one of the nuances of tensioning by hand, versus by machine. Even if you could empirically prove that hand tensioning provides stronger stitching than machine stitching, you'd still be a million miles away from showing that holes made by a chisel over an awl, affect the tensioning of a hand stitch in any meaningful way.

it is another cost cutter and the actions of the machine needle have a similar result on the leather ie it punches a hole as opposed the the awls slicing action.

Again, you are drawing a similarity between the hole made by a chisel and a machine that doesn't exist and refusing to accept the similarities which are many. I think if you actually had hands on time with a chisel, you may not change a lifelong held opinion, but the strength of it might be moderated a little.

I did a little experiment just to illustrate the point. Close up pictures of the holes made by iron and awl, versus chisel and I think they are quite illustrative.

In the left corner, we have a George Barnsley #5 pricking iron, it's been around the block but it's still serviceable. next to it, a CS Osborne awl haft loaded with an Osborne #43 awl blade. Now the blade is brand new, it's not as sharp as I'd like and that does cause issues. I've just given it a quick strop, but it does need a proper work over on a stone. That does affect the results, no question.

In the right corner, is a Seiwa Japanese 5mm/5SPI stitching chisel. It's relatively new and comes sharp out of the box.

The victim is 2 layers of 7/8 oz veg tan, glued flesh to flesh.

The top row of holes have been made with the iron & awl, the bottom row with the chisel...

Front...

 

Back...

 

 

As you can see, the holes made by the iron & awl are pretty bad. I promise you, I havent butchered it just for effect, it's a combination of my poor awl skill, an awl that is less than ideally sharp, stabbing through 16 oz of veg and inherent difficulty with using a hand awl.

But rather than looking at the poor holes made by the awl, look at the very clean and absolutely awesome holes made by the chisel! :D

It's hardly butchered is it? They are slits, just like an awl, they close up, just like an awl (you'll have to take my word for that until such a time that you get to try one yourself) and look at the exit wounds? The chisel does less damage to the leather because you are punching through into a surface, rather than into thin air as you do with an awl. Chisels are precision tools. They are designed to be used like this, they are profiled to mimick an awl and are made from heat treated and hardened too steel, as appropriate for a tool designed to be driven though something and into a hard surface. You dont have to bludgeon them through the leather, a couple of light taps with a 13 oz maul will suffice. Now I'm not suggesting the chisel is superior (though at my skill level, it clearly is), what I am saying is they are nothing like the abhorrent nightmare that the strength of your opinion would suggest.

Here is a picture of what happens when you try and drive an iron through by whacking it - this is what I think you thought I was advocating on the previous page...

Now that IS butchered. There is no 'back' picture, because the prongs of the iron were not long enough to go all the way through. This is bad, no argument from me. This is what they would have objected to in the industrial revolution, this is what your master would have objected to and therefore by proxy, this is what you are objecting to. But this is NOT a chisel and it's NOT what a chisel does.

That is evidence.

I rest my case.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Martyn

[Birdman]

Thanks for the comprehensive reply, and taking the time to produce the pictures.

Regarding my reference ( and your reply) to machine stitching and its comparison with stitching chisels, you have missed my point.

I was comparing the effect of a machine needle punching a hole through the leather as being similar to a stitching chisel in cause and effect. It leaves big holes, and big holes cause weakness and fail to grip thread. Other threads on this forum make a point of advising not stitching across a strap holding a buckle because it weakens the leather......I wonder why?

With regard to hand stitching/machine stitching and tensioning, you have missed the point.

The next issue was one of the nuances of tensioning by hand, versus by machine. Even if you could empirically prove that hand tensioning provides stronger stitching than machine stitching, you'd still be a million miles away from showing that holes made by a chisel over an awl, affect the tensioning of a hand stitch in any meaningful way.

If the holes are butchered and to big, when stitching, the leather does not close over the thread and grip it, so to achieve a tight stitch the worker pulls tighter, and runs the risk of a 'dead man' or a does not pull tight enough and gives a loose stitch.

A machine  is set to a tension, it does not adjust that tension as it progresses along the run, it does not feel the changes in the leather. ( As I pointed out earlier.) A pair of skilled hands do.This is part of the skill acquired by learning to stitch properly in the first place--and is pertinent to my first post to the OP.

With reference to the my part regarding the possible  invention of stitching chisels in history, again you have missed the point. No a stitching chisel is not a pricking iron. The idea would almost certainly have been born as a result of a pricking iron being whacked, and then the iron modified in the manner you suggest.

It is a crude tool to short cut work. 

The pictures you have shown, in my opinion, show butchered leather in all cases. Starting with the first pic, first row...the pricking iron. 

The marks would indicate that the iron is not fit for purpose and/or your use of the awl leaves a lot to be desired. The row of marks are not level, and each individual mark is different from the others and the spacing is uneven---although the later may be the effect of camera positioning? The picture of the back of the iron and awl reinforces the argument.

I suggest the there is indentation around each mark either from the iron or from the awl. You do not need to push the awl  for the full length to take the thread. If the leather is  very thick, you may have to use more of the awl. But that is where the correct training kicks in. Here ya go, a trick I learnt when training, ---- for free! (it cost me!) Punch a small piece of panel hide and thread it on the awl up to the handle---it will stop that indenting/ bruising. 

The work done by the chisel. 

The pictures of the chisel work show indentations of the leather--a good pricking iron will just leave a prick to guide the worker---and it will be evenly spaced, of uniform size and shape. The chisel marks are an improvement on your pricking iron! But they are still lacking slightly in uniformity and very slightly in spacing (see marks 1,2,3 compared to rest). They are also VERY long marks for 5 spi. You would need rope to fill them!

Just a thought, I wonder why good  pricking irons are several times more expensive than stitching chisels..........? It couldn't be the craftsmanship could it? I know if when I have bought them, I was unhappy with the mark, it would be re ground for free... Try that  one with a cheaper imported tool! 

My tutor (former Giddens senior saddler) objected to the general quality of the mark and overall effect on the leather and its effect on the resulting stitching. He had a similar view of pricking wheels! I did find one in a boot sale that he did approve of, and he let me use it on some fancy stitching on the panel of a race exercise saddle..... it really did make a good evenly spaced mark---he even offered to buy the tool!

Show me a stitching chisel that can produce holes for stitches using 3/40 or 3/25 at 10/12/15 spi and the leather is not full of 'dead men' or even torn off......

I accept that a chisel may have its uses with thinner leathers where stitch security is not  important, but looking at the pictures you have submitted, nothing like that would leave my workshop.

My original post still stands, it is better for a beginner to learn to stitch properly from the outset, using the correct tools to enable him to learn properly. 

They can then make their own decisions as to whether a pricking iron or a stitching chisel is suitable.