Guest post by Sarah Gerhardt
Introduction
In part 1 of this series, I wrote about the cutting tools that travel with me from garden to garden across Edinburgh, and in part 2, about the tools I rely on for digging and groundwork.
As a professional gardener working in private urban gardens, I depend on tools that are efficient, durable, and practical to transport. I rarely use power tools and carry almost everything I need on my bike. Limited parking in a city like Edinburgh makes this a necessity, but it’s also a conscious choice. Gardening by bike sharpens your judgment: every tool has to justify the space it takes up and the weight it adds.
The third part focuses on interchangeable systems: tools built around a single handle that can accept multiple attachments. This approach reduces duplication and makes a compact toolkit possible.
As before, this isn’t a list of the “best” tools. What works depends on your body, your working conditions and how you move through your work. I am fairly strong but relatively short, with small hands, so weight, balance, and adaptability matter more to me than top-end quality.
A Modular Approach to Tools
One of the most useful systems in my toolkit is the Gardena combisystem . It allows a single handle to be paired with a wide range of tool heads, so that one pole can serve as a broom, rake, edging tool, hoe or pruning aid, depending on what is needed in the moment.
This kind of modularity is particularly valuable when working by bike. Instead of carrying multiple long-handled tools, I can carry several heads and one handle, significantly reducing both weight and bulk. Whether Gardena had cycling gardeners in mind when they developed this system is another question entirely, but it happens to suit that way of working remarkably well.
The Attachments I Use
There are many attachments av ailable in the Gardena combisystem, but I only carry the ones I use regularly: a broom, a leaf rake, a metal soil rake, an edging tool, a hand hoe, and a tree pruning saw.
In day-to-day work, I most often switch between the broom and the leaf rake, especially during general maintenance, which 90% of the time involves a lawn that needs to be raked and a patio or path and steps that need to be swept. The edging tool is also in regular use, particularly in gardens where clean lawn edges make a visible difference.
The hoe is an interesting case. Although it can be used with the long handle, I rarely do so. I find it far more effective as a short-handled tool. It has a double-ended design, with a hoe end on one side and a fork end on the other. This makes it excellent for loosening soil, especially heavy clay soil and for extracting persistent weeds such as couch grass or ground elder.
Modular Short Handles
Gardena also offers short interchangeable handles for small tools for work close to the ground, such as trowels, patio knives and small forks. My hand hoe uses such a short interchangeable handle, but I’ve not invested in any other small tools that are compatible with the short handle. So it always stays on the hand hoe, unless I take it off to put the hand hoe on the long handle. So far, I’ve not found the interchangeability particularly useful for small tools that are used when working close to the ground. As a result, my trowel, small fork, and patio knife remain fixed-handle non-Gardena products.
When working at ground level, I tend to swap between hand tools very quickly, and the time spent swapping heads interrupts that flow. Apart from that, I often apply quite a lot of force when working with them, which makes a fixed handle appear more reliable. These tools are all digging tools that can get extremely dirty, and I don’t want dirt to get into the locking mechanism. The space saving is also minimal, so the trade-offs don’t feel worthwhile. For me, small hand tools need to be immediately accessible, not assembled mid-task.
Handles: Fixed Vs Telescopic
I currently have two Gardena combisystem handles: a 130 cm wooden one and an extendable aluminium version that ranges from 90 to 145 cm. Since acquiring the aluminium handle, the wooden one spends much of its time at home.
The ability to retract the aluminium handle down to 90 cm makes a significant difference when transporting tools by bike. It fits far more easily into a pannier and is generally less awkward to handle in tight urban spaces.
The trade-off is that telescopic mechanisms require a bit more care. The handle needs to be clean and dry before retracting; otherwise, it can become difficult to extend again. Aside from that, I have found the system reliable, with only normal wear and tear over around three
years of regular use.
Where the System Works and Where it Doesn’t Work
Interchangeable systems work best for lighter tools: rakes, brooms, edging tools, and similar attachments. These benefit from shared handles without compromising performance. They are less suited to heavier-duty tools such as spades and shovels, where strength, rigidity, and direct connection between handle and blade are critical. It is telling that Gardena does not offer interchangeable versions of these tools. At a certain point, modularity gives way to structural limits.
Gardena Vs Wolf
Gardena (Combisystem) and Wolf (Multi-Change) are the two most commonly used interchangeable garden tool systems in the UK. Fiskars also offers an interchangeable system (QuickFit), but its range is limited compared to the extensive selections available from Gardena and Wolf.
Wolf uses a click system that allows you to attach a tool by inserting it into the handle until it locks, and removing it by pressing a release button. Gardena uses a set screw, which tightens the tool securely onto the handle and is loosened again for removal.
Gardena tools come painted in their characteristic blue, while Wolf tools are typically unpainted. In theory, paint offers some protection from corrosion, but in practice, it wears away quickly at impact points. Both brands use high-quality steel that, with
proper care, holds up well over time.
Both brands offer long warranties, 25 years for Gardena and 35 years for Wolf, which reflects the expectation that these systems are long-term investments rather than disposable tools. Wolf tools are often slightly more expensive and are sometimes perceived as more heavy-duty. They have also historically been easier to find in UK garden centres and trade outlets, although Gardena has become increasingly available, especially online.
Gardena is often positioned towards the serious home gardener rather than the professional. Whether that distinction holds in practice is debatable; many of their tools perform perfectly well under heavy use.
The Wolf click system allows for faster tool changes than Gardena’s set screw, although it can occasionally feel stiff. Gardena’s system involves tightening and loosening the set screw, which takes marginally more time.
One potential drawback of both systems is brand lock-in. Once you commit to a handle, you are tied to that manufacturer’s attachments. In my case, this has not been an issue, as I am very happy with my Gardena tools, but it is something to consider when choosing a system.
Which system is better is difficult to answer definitively. Wolf may have the edge over Gardena because of the length of warranty and overall availability; Gardena beats them on price. I can’t really compare them fully, as I have never tried Wolf, and I’m relying on other people’s reports to judge their products. I have used Gardena for years and know the system well, so naturally my choice is Gardena, even though objectively Wolf may be marginally better.
Extending Reach: Long-Pole Pruning
For pruning work at height, I recently added a dedicated long pole for my pruning saw. It extends from 210 to 390 cm, giving a reach of up to around 6 metres. This makes it the longest handle in the Gardena combisystem range to date.
The long pole is extremely useful for working at height without a ladder. I mainly use it with a saw head for pruning branches. The pole is also very effective for tasks like removing ivy or other climbers from walls.
Despite its length, the aluminium construction of the pole keeps the weight manageable. I use it mainly with a tree pruning saw, but have also experimentally attached my leaf rake and broom when there was a risk of damaging something with the saw.
The main limitation of the pole is transport. At a minimum length of 210 cm, it is not practical to carry by bike, so this is one of the few situations where I will use a car.
Conclusion
Interchangeable systems suit my way of working very well: I move through the city mostly by bike, and I work in confined spaces. So I’m constantly making decisions about what is necessary and what is not. A good system does not replace skill or judgement, but it supports me both by reducing friction and making it easier to respond to the task at hand.
Across all three parts of this series, a consistent principle emerges: While a certain level of quality is important, the best tools are always the ones that fit your body and the way you work. These are the tools that feel balanced in your hand and that you reach for without thinking. Which tools these are depends highly on the individual.
About the author: Sarah Gerhardt is a gardener, linguist and punk musician based in Edinburgh. She was head gardener at the Dean Gardens, Edinburgh for 9 years and runs her own gardening business Gerhardt’s Garden Service. Find out more via her Linktree: https://linktr.ee/gerhardtsgardenservice
