#20 Loop Tool
(with the #1C for comparison)
I've included both tools to give you an idea of relative size and handle orientation. At the top is the #1 Loop Tool (revision C), below it the #20 Loopfinger.
Note that the #1C is sharpened with its bevel on the outside, in keeping with its dual purposes: digging inside the sculpture, and slicing to enlarge openings. The Loopfinger is sharpened on the inside because it's intended to dig narrow slots and I wanted minimal spreading pressure from the cut; this way the waste sand stays inside. That was the theory, and it seems to work.
Strengths and Weaknesses:
The original was simple: a strip of stainless steel bent back on itself, with a .75" square piece of wood mounted between the free ends. This worked for a couple of years, but while I was working on the second generation tools I rebuilt it with a new handle. This fan-shaped job was supposed to make it easier to grip, but it failed miserably. I quit using the tool; others would do most of its jobs.
There are, however, benefits from general-purpose design. The main one is making fewer trips to the tool tub. So, early in 2000 I rebuilt this tool again with a handle that was much better thought out. While I was at it I sharpened the edges and the whole thing was reborn.
This tool's major strength is that I've been using it for years. I know what it can do, and how to use it.
Besides that, it's a generalist's tool. It will do nearly anything: digging deep inside the pile, starting shapes on the outside, and trimming elements using the long edge. If someone took all of my tools but one I'd keep this one.
Still, it isn't a delicate tool. It's heavy and relatively hard to maneuver. For today's complex sculptures this is a problem, but I have newer tools to solve the problem. I use the #1 to start openings, and then more delicate tools such as the modified cake spatula to work the space to its final shape.
It was designed in response to problems with the #2 Steel Finger. One problem is that the tool doesn't clean up after itself. Loop-type tools drag their waste sand out with them but finger-types just drop it in the first available crevice.
It's also designed to solve a problem with the #1: blade digging angle. Held straight out, the original loop won't dig; it must be angled inward relative to the sand.
So, why not solve two problems with one tool? In reality, the tool solves neither problem, but it does solve a problem I didn't know I had. This is common in the experimental world.
What this tool does better than any other is dig. The shorter blade coupled to the angled handle produces great leverage. It's a good thing the handle is oak because I can use it to cut a four-inch deep slot in one pass.
Its angled handle also provides a convenient "tiller" for steering. This makes it a good tool for outlining new sculptural elements, and more resistant to being taken off the line by pile variations.
It still has the digging angle problem of the #1, to which it adds another. The handle runs into the ground when digging low on the pile. Unless I turn it upside down, which I figured out late in its first outing.
Its short blade makes it less generally useful than the #1 but I can't have it both ways. Power and length of blade are inversely related.