# Paul Sellers a bit controversial



## mark w (12 Dec 2011)

I copied this from Paul Sellers blog what do you think, is he right or completely wrong?

Myth busting #2
Forget flattening water stones – hollow stones give perfect convex bevels

No sharpening stone needs to be flat. For three decades woodworkers have been duped into believing that stones must be flat, but if you sharpen on an elongated convex camber the stone can hollow all it wants because you want the convex and the hollowed stone creates exactly what you want. Did you never stop to ask yourself why craftsmen’s stones of old were hollow? I mean all of them? They weren’t stupid for 200 years and then we came along with our better ways and threw out what was working perfectly because someone wrote an article. They only needed to sharpen and hone a convex bevel. I never understood why their seemed such an intent to keep flattening stones. All those gurus of woodworking (little more than salesmen really) out their selling honing water stones and then came the flattening stones and the whole ritual of sharpening and then the whole ritual of method.

You can use hollowed stones and flat stones to create a convex bevel easily in seconds. I use diamond plates and have done for nearly two decades and did so because they also stay dead flat. The main advantage is no water baths and mess.



Think about it.


----------



## Racers (12 Dec 2011)

Hi,

He says no sharpening stone needs to be flat then he says he uses dimond stones because they stay flat, make your mind up.

No matter what he says I have found a system that works for me and I will stick with it.

Pete


----------



## bugbear (12 Dec 2011)

Racers":1qvlsm5g said:


> Hi,
> 
> He says no sharpening stone needs to be flat then he says he uses dimond stones because they stay flat, make your mind up.
> 
> ...



He appears to be tilting at a straw man - the hollow he's talking about (on a careful reading) is a longitudinal one. Many people (myself included) have pointed out that these are not a problem.

BugBear


----------



## Alf (12 Dec 2011)

mark w":3opn2bm4 said:


> I copied this from Paul Sellers blog what do you think, is he right or completely wrong?
> 
> Myth busting #2
> (snippage)
> All those gurus of woodworking (little more than salesmen really) out their selling honing water stones and then came the flattening stones and the whole ritual of sharpening and then the whole ritual of method.


Um, is this the same Paul Sellers currently with books and DVDs for sale, covering amongst other things, sharpening? :-s (I bet it's a lovely glass house with wonderful joinery though. :wink: )


----------



## Jacob (12 Dec 2011)

mark w":vohjzkip said:


> I copied this from Paul Sellers blog what do you think, is he right or completely wrong?
> 
> Myth busting #2
> Forget flattening water stones – hollow stones give perfect convex bevels......



Not sure of all the details but I expect he is right. I've been saying much the same for a number of years. There's a lot of us about!


Racers":vohjzkip said:


> He says no sharpening stone needs to be flat then he says he uses dimond stones because they stay flat, make your mind up.
> .....


He probably uses both! Shock, horror! :shock: How can that be!


----------



## Harbo (12 Dec 2011)

Ah but we know who said if first?


----------



## studders (12 Dec 2011)

Harbo":1hfl62qv said:


> Ah but we know who said if first?


And ever since, daily it seems.


----------



## Jacob (12 Dec 2011)

link: http://paulsellers.com/2011/12/going-ag ... h-busting/


----------



## Jacob (14 Dec 2011)

Paul has added a note about hollow stones and rounded bevels here: http://paulsellers.com/2011/12/sharpeni ... ow-stones/
I'm impressed by his rounded bevel system - it's the same as I have been describing (including "the dip") but carried forwards to involve just three diamond plates. It's better put so simply and it's only a matter of time before everybody is at it.
He's also a bit dubious about the plane flattening obsession. :shock:


----------



## Digit (14 Dec 2011)

> He's also a bit dubious about the plane flattening obsession.



So am I, I make my own in wood and movement seems not to be important.

Roy.


----------



## jorgoz (14 Dec 2011)

Digit":1eey4tk1 said:


> > He's also a bit dubious about the plane flattening obsession.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So do i, but if i don't flatten the soles of my woodies i can't get proper shavings or loose a lot of control over them. I do create a couple of hollows along their length, japanese style, which makes slide even better due to less contact surface, but even then the remaing flats are inline with each other.

And if he says sharpening on a hollow stone is the way to go, then he should ditch his diamond plates and stick to his hollowed stones. End of.


----------



## No skills (14 Dec 2011)

Had to look at Pauls drawing to realise what was being talked about (yes I am that dim), my slow witted self postulates that a well worn in stone could be better for someone than a new stone but one mans worn in stone possably woudnt suit somebody else (due physical differences between us all).

I'll climb back in my cave now.


----------



## Digit (14 Dec 2011)

> I do created a couple of hollows along their length, japanese style,



Same here, obviously there is a limit to any out of flat, but the idea of lapping a cast iron sole makes me sweat!

Roy.


----------



## bugbear (15 Dec 2011)

Digit":140oryf2 said:


> > I do created a couple of hollows along their length, japanese style,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lapping (as normally done) can be made to work on smaller planes, say up to #5 at a max. For larger planes, several factors conspire to make it ineffective.

* For larger planes, you need a truly huge reference surface, which may be difficult or expensive to get 
* you need lots of abrasive
* the working pressure between the metal and abrasive goes down, reducing the cutting rate
* there's more metal to remove

A reference-and-remove-the-high-spots method is the way forward, IMHO for flattening any plane, but certainly for larger ones.

BugBear


----------



## Sawyer (15 Dec 2011)

I didn't think Paul Sellers was very clear about the relationship between hollow stones and convex bevels. Does he sharpen crossways perhaps?  Hollow stones are fine of course for cambered plane blades.

I've been woodworking for 25+ years, only ever sharpened freehand and have never needed to flatten a stone.

Never really tried the convex bevel, so can't comment. P'raps I'll give it a go..


----------



## Jacob (15 Dec 2011)

Sawyer":ps9jekdd said:


> I didn't think Paul Sellers was very clear about the relationship between hollow stones and convex bevels. Does he sharpen crossways perhaps? Hollow stones are fine of course for cambered plane blades.
> 
> I've been woodworking for 25+ years, only ever sharpened freehand and have never needed to flatten a stone.
> 
> Never really tried the convex bevel, so can't comment. P'raps I'll give it a go..


I think he's saying that hollow stones are fine (except for flattening faces) though they will inevitably produce a convex bevel (exaggerated in the drawing), but that's OK too. But he uses flat diamond plates anyway!

Bloody expensive those 3 plates £50 ish each! I was considering them as an option - ebaying all my stones would pay for it, but I may not get around to it.


----------



## jorgoz (15 Dec 2011)

When creating a convex bevel i would presume it would be much trickier to actually sharpen the cutting edge as you have no idea when you hit the edge compared to using flat stones. There's more variables involved.

Am i correct in assuming this technique doesn't/can't use side sharpening ? If not, it would be quite easy to dig into waterstones given there a lot softer than oilstones and mess up your cutting edge. I think side sharpening is also easier than, oh how does one call sharpening with the bevel in line with the lenght of the stone.


----------



## Jacob (15 Dec 2011)

jorgoz":31j7ftbb said:


> When creating a convex bevel i would presume it would be much trickier to actually sharpen the cutting edge as you have no idea when you hit the edge compared to using flat stones. There's more variables involved.


You don't set out to "create" a convex bevel - it's just the by-product of a relaxed freehand style where you aim to start the pass at 30º (judged by eye) but dip the handle (or blade end) as you go, and so reduce the angle


> Am i correct in assuming this technique doesn't/can't use side sharpening ? If not, it would be quite easy to dig into waterstones given there a lot softer than oilstones and mess up your cutting edge. I think side sharpening is also easier than, oh how does one call sharpening with the bevel in line with the lenght of the stone.


You can sharpen in any direction you like, backwards, forwards, sideways, round and round in circles. Obviously if what you do doesn't work with a particular stone, for whatever reason, then you do it differently.
.


----------



## Alf (15 Dec 2011)

I can't stand this any more. I just can't.

Can someone please correct the spelling of "controversial" in the thread title? [-o<


----------



## Digit (15 Dec 2011)

Bugbear, it is the effort that makes me sweat! :lol: 
A woody has only to be planed or sanded.

Roy.


----------



## jorgoz (15 Dec 2011)

Alf":1tkxtwrn said:


> I can't stand this any more. I just can't.
> 
> Can someone please correct the spelling of "controversial" in the thread title? [-o<



:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## bugbear (15 Dec 2011)

Digit":122ztl0b said:


> Bugbear, it is the effort that makes me sweat! :lol:
> A woody has only to be planed or sanded.
> 
> Roy.



I took a rather knackered #4 1/2 from "awful" to 4 tenths of a thou accuracy in 149 minutes, including taking 
54 "WIP" photos (it was the date stamps from the photos that told me how long I took for the whole job)

I didn't perspire at any stage. 

BugBear


----------



## Digit (15 Dec 2011)

At which point I'll hazard a guess that you have to oil the sole to stop it sticking to the wood?
My reason for changing to woodies was two fold, the weight of large metal planes, I don't buy the view that their weight is a help I might add, and the rigidity with the wedge on a woody hold the iron.
Yes, setting the iron can be tricky, but like riding a bike, it's easy when you know how, and it stays set!
A further point which puzzles me is why long planes have the iron set so far back.

Roy.


----------



## Pvt_Ryan (15 Dec 2011)

Sawyer":2szrzgea said:


> I didn't think Paul Sellers was very clear about the relationship between hollow stones and convex bevels. Does he sharpen crossways perhaps? Hollow stones are fine of course for cambered plane blades.
> 
> I've been woodworking for 25+ years, only ever sharpened freehand and have never needed to flatten a stone.
> 
> Never really tried the convex bevel, so can't comment. P'raps I'll give it a go..



http://paulsellers.com/2011/12/sharpeni ... ow-stones/


----------



## bugbear (15 Dec 2011)

Jacob":si63jrzw said:


> I'm impressed by his rounded bevel system - it's the same as I have been describing (including "the dip")



_ADMIRATION, n. Our polite recognition of another's resemblance to ourselves. 
_
- *THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY by AMBROSE BIERCE*

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (15 Dec 2011)

Missed the point as usual BB :roll: 
I was impressed because he "carried (it) forwards to involve just three diamond plates. It's better put so simply and it's only a matter of time before everybody is at it."
I've been messing about with various stones, in a developmental kind of way. I might go for the 3 diamond plates however.
First thread about convex bevels which hasn't been accompanied by hoots of derision! Do I hear the sound of pennies dropping. Little lights coming on?
Mind you there are magical devices which "include three gross bevel-angle range configurations: a high-angle range (25° to 54° in seven increments), a standard-angle range (15° to 40° in six increments), and a third range for back bevels. Blade stop has discrete positions for preset angles" whatever that all means. :lol:


----------



## Harbo (15 Dec 2011)

No it's because most of us are completely bored with the subject just like your similar thread attacking James Krenov!


----------



## mark w (17 Dec 2011)

Alf, according to my Collins Concise Dictionary it is spelt correctly.

Mark


----------



## Digit (17 Dec 2011)

Oh?

Roy.


----------



## Alf (17 Dec 2011)

It is now, yes. But look at the post subject line on each post further up the thread, and it reveals the hideous truth.


----------



## mark w (17 Dec 2011)

How did that happen then?

Mark


----------



## Jacob (17 Dec 2011)

This thead is slipping off topic. We can't have that, there will be complaints. :shock: 
Can we get back to the rounded bevill contraversey please?


----------



## Mr T (17 Dec 2011)

I must admit I still don't understand the nature of the argument. I hollow along the length of the stone is no problem. With a hollow across the width you will always produce a camber across the blade. With a flat stone you can choose to sharpen either with a camber or without. So stones should be flat IMHO.

Chris


----------



## Jacob (17 Dec 2011)

That's more like it! :lol:


----------



## mark w (18 Dec 2011)

yes I agree back to topic, but how did that happen!

Mark


----------



## Sgian Dubh (18 Dec 2011)

I've never come across an old and well used bench stone that is concave only in the length. Every stone I've ever come across out of an old woodworker's toolbox, and everywhere else for that matter, shows that if it's concave along the length, then it will also be concave across the width. For my sharpening techniques, which are very low rent compared to the complex and involved processes many people seem to employ and describe on forums and the like, I find concavity of any sort in sharpening stones anything from slightly annoying to a real pain in the backside. 

I can generally adapt my technique to suit whatever stone I come across, as long as the stone is not too badly dished, but I prefer to use stones that are flat, because I can do whatever I want to a cutting edge on a flat stone. This explains why I only use my own flat stones to sharpen my own tools, and why I never lend my stones (or any other tools really) to anybody, ha, ha. Slainte.


----------



## bugbear (19 Dec 2011)

Jacob":350pcm9f said:


> First thread about convex bevels which hasn't been accompanied by hoots of derision!



They're in the archive for your convenience.

BugBear


----------



## yetloh (20 Dec 2011)

Alf":2qhguzrz said:


> I can't stand this any more. I just can't.
> 
> Can someone please correct the spelling of "controversial" in the thread title? [-o<



When I first read this I thought Alf's post was making two points - the spelling mistake, but firstly, being driven to distraction by the endless navel gazing over stone flatness. Amen to both as far as I am concerned.

Jim


----------



## matthewwh (21 Dec 2011)

If we could only measure the results of various techniques there would be no more arguments. We can measure just about anything else, but sharpness has been with us since flint and we have yet to establish a means of measuring it and a unit of measurement.

A percentage won't work as there is always some prannock who comes up with 101% just to try and prove a point. I therefore propose thousandths of a Grim as an inverse reading scale so the number can get infinitesimally small as sharpness increases. Indeed we could also go the other way and express the bluntness of very blunt things, footballs, instruments etc, in Kilogrims.

There you go, I've done half the job for you! 

Now, any volunteers to make the actual gadget itself?


----------



## Jacob (21 Dec 2011)

matthewwh":1axj6kju said:


> .....
> 
> Now, any volunteers to make the actual gadget itself?


Some sort of guillotine? Standardised cutting actions on standardised samples to emulate real life materials; oak, ash, finger etc?

Kilogrim! Fame at last! :shock: Could be the degree of sharpness in a standard test sufficient to cut off the end of a standard finger?


----------



## Fromey (21 Dec 2011)

There's always the Reynolds number which could possibly be adapted to sharpness.


----------



## bugbear (21 Dec 2011)

matthewwh":39sdccaa said:


> I therefore propose thousandths of a Grim as an inverse reading scale so the number can get infinitesimally small as sharpness increases. Indeed we could also go the other way and express the bluntness of very blunt things, footballs, instruments etc, in Kilogrims.



The test could only be done in Jacob Butler's workshop. He won't accept evidence from anywhere else, and in any case, the workshop has unique properties.

Perfect edges can be got using only 240 grit abrasives, and metal tools don't rust. Must be ley lines or something.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (21 Dec 2011)

bugbear":3262kbmo said:


> ......
> Perfect edges can be got using only 240 grit abrasives,


Er - adequate edges I guess, but I go finer. I don't recall saying anything about 240 grit anyway, but I guess you'd know, as you hang on my every word! :lol: 
I'm flattered that you haven't got anything more interesting to do. :lol:


> and metal tools don't rust. Must be ley lines or something.
> 
> BugBear


I keep them in cupboards and drawers. Is this some sort of secret which only I have discovered? I'd be very surprised.
Actually come to think they don't go particularly rusty when left out. Magic! Or is it ventilation?


----------



## Alf (21 Dec 2011)

Ah, the Kilogrim. How many Kilogrims to the Annoyance?


----------



## Paul Chapman (21 Dec 2011)

Not many.....


----------



## Doug B (21 Dec 2011)

Jacob":vdvm1uvw said:


> Magic! Or is it ventilation?



Divine intervention perchance :?:


----------



## Jacob (21 Dec 2011)

Doug B":123ugm07 said:


> Jacob":123ugm07 said:
> 
> 
> > Magic! Or is it ventilation?
> ...


Must be. Old beardy is looking after my tools! Praise the lord!







Window making in Derbyshire:






That's me bottom left. I don't know who the other ferklers are, they just keep wandering in uninvited.


----------



## No skills (21 Dec 2011)

As per the board standard someone should be complaining about this thread going off on a tangent by now.

Praise be the tangent! the last part of this thread has provided me some much needed humor this evening.

:ho2 :ho2 :ho2


----------



## jorgoz (22 Dec 2011)

No skills":wruyj7v9 said:


> As per the board standard someone should be complaining about this thread going off on a tangent by now.
> 
> Praise be the tangent! the last part of this thread has provided me some much needed humor this evening.
> 
> :ho2 :ho2 :ho2



Nowt new being said for 2 full pages now. I propose volontary euthanasia.


----------



## No skills (22 Dec 2011)

Why let them have the choice?


----------

