# First attempt at freehand sharpening!



## stubtoe (18 Sep 2011)

Hi,

I was going to buy one of the eclipse type sharpening jigs from Axminster yesterday as I thought it was what I 'needed', but after seeing all the multitude of sharpening implements in the nice shiny Axminster store I got the feeling that I was being sucked down a (expensive!) road I didn't want to go with all the diamond, scary sharp, waterstone options on display...

So, I decided to give the freehand sharpening route a go and armed with an oil stone, some honing oil and a blunt plane blade here are the results of my first attempt at hand sharpening (using the grimesdale/Jacob method?):

https://picasaweb.google.com/110507...authkey=Gv1sRgCIvb5tL03LbjaA&feat=directlinkk

All in all took me about 20 minutes to dissasemble, sharpen, hone, reassemble and do some test shavings, so I figure I can only get quicker and better at it.

As a first attempt I was pretty pleased with the results (albeit just some softwood), but I'd appreciate any pointers about where I could improve further on the freehand sharpening front.

Cheers,

Jonny


----------



## xy mosian (18 Sep 2011)

Sorry I can't see your pictures. But good on you for trying this out, if your blade cuts well you've won. =D> =D> =D> =D> 
As for improving I wouldn't presume to be able to say. Your doing well already. Judge for yourself and practice, practice. Which bits of your technique are you not happy with? No don't tell me, just alter it slightly in any way which you think will give better results. 

xy


----------



## stubtoe (18 Sep 2011)

Sorry, photos should be working now!!


----------



## xy mosian (18 Sep 2011)

Just checked again. Hey! I can see your pictures, nowt to add.

xy


----------



## Karl (18 Sep 2011)

Looks good Jonny. I'm not sure that you would get a very sharp edge off one stone though - normally you have to pass through various grits to get super sharp.

I have both the Veritas and Eclipse style jigs - you can have a go next week. 

Bring your oil stone. I've got Norton oilstones, a diamond stone and some honing paste.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Fat ferret (18 Sep 2011)

Good for you mate. I use the same method but strop afterwards, just on an old belt. This improves results I find. It's easily possible to get a good useable edge with just an oilstone, oil and a strop.

You can go on forever with sharpening but what people forget is it's just a means to an end. After all you want to make things not just spend all day sharpening :wink: .


----------



## barkwindjammer (18 Sep 2011)

Hey, you've got it, and first time too
If you want to produce 'nano-shavings' that you can see through-follow some (there's plenty out there) advice
See through shavings look great in pictures, impress your peers no end, wow your fellow man, dominate the 'wannabe's', but STOP !, whats this ? bucketfulls of the finest gossamer wood slides-great if your a botanist or arbouriculturist-pineapple tiring and completely useless if your a woodworker who wants to get a job done :wink: 

Welcome to hand honing-
WARNING ! "it's not for idiots/exibitionists


----------



## stubtoe (18 Sep 2011)

Cheers for the encouragement and tips chaps.

Karl - will try to remember to bring my stone along!

Thanks,

Jonny

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk


----------



## Jacob (18 Sep 2011)

stubtoe":2rz4cm1f said:


> .....
> As a first attempt I was pretty pleased with the results (albeit just some softwood), but I'd appreciate any pointers about where I could improve further on the freehand sharpening front.
> 
> Cheers,
> ...


Main thing is to keep doing it. And remind yourself that this is how everybody used to do it and it wasn't reckoned to be difficult - even kids and beginners picked it up with no problem.
It's important to get a burr _right across the middle_ as it's the middle which gets most wear and it's easy to think you are there when really you need just a little more honing to make sure.
And it's essential to spread the wear evenly over the stone, though a length-ways hollow doesn't matter, and across the width slight hollow is OK within reason. If you feel you need to flatten you stones you are doing it wrong. You still don't need to flatten them however, you just need to work the high points a bit more.


----------



## bugbear (19 Sep 2011)

Jacob":zchsgrba said:


> and it wasn't reckoned to be difficult - even kids and beginners picked it up with no problem.



Actually, many people found it difficult, hence the extensive conversations in the earliest available magazines with readers letters, articles, early invention of jigs, etc.

BugBear


----------



## Alf (19 Sep 2011)

Looks pretty good for a first go, Jonny. Keep going and, as you say, you'll only get better at it.


----------



## woodbloke (19 Sep 2011)

bugbear":nj7jrmzf said:


> Jacob":nj7jrmzf said:
> 
> 
> > and it wasn't reckoned to be difficult - even kids and beginners picked it up with no problem.
> ...


I agree with BB, it is difficult till you get the hang of it, but if you decided to go down the freehand route (and there's nothing wrong with that) then the more practice you get, the easier it will become. Using a jig of any denomination just makes the whole thing easier with an almost guaranteed outcome, provided it's been set up right. As always though, each to their own :wink: - Rob


----------



## Jacob (19 Sep 2011)

woodbloke":24dc73zm said:


> ....it is difficult till you get the hang of it, ....


Very many things are - luckily freehand sharpening is towards the easy end of the spectrum. 
I'd say playing a fair game of darts is much more difficult and requires much greater precision. What is the angle subtended by the outer bull, at the oche?


----------



## Paul Chapman (19 Sep 2011)

Jacob":2to4ojiu said:


> freehand sharpening is towards the easy end of the spectrum.



I don't know why you think that, Jacob. Lots of people seem to have great difficulty with simple skills involving use of the hands. Drawing a straight line with a pencil but without a ruler; applying paint with a brush without getting it up their arm and on their clothes; writing legibly; and many other things which others find straight forward. Why would they find freehand sharpening easy :? 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (19 Sep 2011)

Paul Chapman":225i07gj said:


> Jacob":225i07gj said:
> 
> 
> > freehand sharpening is towards the easy end of the spectrum.
> ...


Lots of people find these things easy too, especially after a bit of practice. 
Do you get paint all over yourself then? My hand writing is pretty poor I must admit - but I'm sure I could do better if I tried a bit!


----------



## Paul Chapman (19 Sep 2011)

Jacob":32hkrli5 said:


> Do you get paint all over yourself then?



No, but I know lots of people who do.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (19 Sep 2011)

Paul Chapman":29nemk6p said:


> Jacob":29nemk6p said:
> 
> 
> > Do you get paint all over yourself then?
> ...


Well done!
TBH I think that on the skill spectrum freehand honing is pretty low compared to most woodworking processes. These demand much higher levels of hand and eye skill. If you can't do the first, you'll certainly be struggling with everything else!


----------



## nanowire (19 Sep 2011)

Jacob":1mme7cpr said:


> My hand writing is pretty poor I must admit - but I'm sure I could do better if I tried a bit!



That the general handwriting skills are getting worse all the time must surely be attributed to the widespread use of jigs for writing  

Freehand sharpening really gets much easier with time. I've been using Jacobs method for about a year now and the time needed still decreases.


----------



## markturner (19 Sep 2011)

Uh Oh, Paul, Rob and Jacob all in the same thread.....does not bode well........


----------



## Jacob (19 Sep 2011)

markturner":2jakfe2n said:


> Uh Oh, Paul, Rob and Jacob all in the same thread.....does not bode well........


And BB. :roll: 
I'm starting to feel paranoid! :lol: :lol: 
I'll just keep my back to the wall and keep moving. :shock: 

Anyway - on the spectrum of difficulty: I reckon standing on one foot is easier, but standing on your head is more difficult. Compared to freehand honing that is.


----------



## pedder (20 Sep 2011)

I can't sharpen a chisel or a plane iron freehand. Because I don't get enough practise. But I don't use jigs for saw sharpening, because I get enough practise there. 

It is probably not fair to tell a beginner, freehand sharpening a saw is easy. (I did that on woodnet) 

In future I will tell them, they have to decide: using a jig will never let you learn how to sharpen freehand. But if you're sharpen only every few weeks, you probably will never learn how to do it freehand, either. In this case better use all the jigs wich help you. 

If a beginner plans to do so much work, that he will have to sharpen every day, than he can take a chance in freehand sharpening (wether a saw or a plane blade). If his time is limited, he might use it to learn freehand woodworking instead of freehand sharpening.

Cheers
Pedder


----------



## Jacob (20 Sep 2011)

pedder":2cu6ybe1 said:


> I can't sharpen a chisel or a plane iron freehand. Because I don't get enough practise. But I don't use jigs for saw sharpening, because I get enough practise there.


Doesn't take long. If you want to do it you just start now and it improves as you go. Put your jigs in a box and never use them again! TBH I do occasionally use one especially on an old tool as it is useful as a "tell tale" to show up the condition.


> It is probably not fair to tell a beginner, freehand sharpening a saw is easy. (I did that on woodnet)


Agree saw sharpening not so easy


> ..... If his time is limited, he might use it to learn freehand woodworking instead of freehand sharpening.
> 
> Cheers
> Pedder


Freehand sharpening (chisels & planes, and saws too eventually) is quicker and saves a lot of time - that's the whole point, otherwise I wouldn't bother.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (20 Sep 2011)

Getting to super-sharp freehand does take practice, be it chisels or saws. But getting close to working-sharp really doesn't take long. For chisels and plane irons, I'd say the sharpening associated with a long weekend working wood is enough to get there.
I'm sure if I looked at the edges I produced a couple of days after being shown how, I'd think they were overdue for a good going over. But they worked.

Same with saws. My first attempt wasn't great, but it still cut a lot better than before I had a bash. (Redefining teeth is different - I'm still rubbish at that.)

The "secret" is, if you have a guide, post it to yourself. Then spend the couple of days it'll take to come back home gnawing away at wood. You might not even bother answering the door for the postman.


----------



## pedder (20 Sep 2011)

I stand to my point: it is a question of how much time you can or want to invest to learn a peculiar skill.
One may need less time than other, but up to a certain level nearly everyone can learn every skill. 
Just a matter of training.

Now I want to see a tango, a self made cake and a painting by Jacob. You can do that. It is easy. 

Cheers 
Pedder


----------



## Jacob (20 Sep 2011)

pedder":3evmyfjy said:


> I stand to my point: it is a question of how much time you can or want to invest to learn a peculiar skill.


To "learn" freehand sharpening takes about half a second. Read this - " Don't use a jig". There, you've learned it, that's all you need to know. Thereafter it's just practice.


> ...
> 
> Now I want to see a tango, a self made cake and a painting by Jacob. You can do that. It is easy.
> 
> ...


Funny you should say that, I've just been tangoing around the kitchen waiting for my cake to be done before I start another painting. Compared to these freehand sharpening a plane blade is a piece of ***s!


----------



## Corneel (20 Sep 2011)

Jacob":3d8htzcb said:


> Freehand sharpening (chisels & planes, and saws too eventually) is quicker and saves a lot of time - that's the whole point, otherwise I wouldn't bother.



Hmm, I wonder about that timesaving thing. It takes me 15-20 seconds to put the plane iron or chisel in the Eclipse jig, using a stopblock to set the projection. But as soon as the iron is in the jig, it actually saves a bit of time, because there is no searching for the edge, no carefull balancing on the stone and no slipping of fingers on a greasy chisel. In the end I think it doesn't really matter a lot, maybe half an hour in a life time?

At the other hand, i'm starting to get interested in curved blades, gouges and the like. So I'd better hone up my freehand sharpening skills.


----------



## Racers (20 Sep 2011)

Hi, Jacob

Yet again you are confusing us amateurs with you professionals, you do woodwork 5 days a week we do a couple at most, so we don’t get to practice sharpening as much as you, And we are on our own, no time served professional to show us how to sharpen.
Where you self taught? Lots of us are or attempting to be, so try to understand where we are coming from and why we ask such (to your mind) stupid questions.


Pete


----------



## Jacob (20 Sep 2011)

Racers":32db8uf5 said:


> Hi, Jacob
> 
> Yet again you are confusing us amateurs with you professionals, you do woodwork 5 days a week we do a couple at most, so we don’t get to practice sharpening as much as you, And we are on our own, no time served professional to show us how to sharpen.


Question. 
Where did everybody pick up these complicated and detailed crazy sharpening procedures? 
Answer. 
Time served professional merchants of one sort or another, selling gadgets, systems, dvds, courses, magazine articles. All with a vested interest in telling you that it's really difficult and they can sell you the solutions.


> Where you self taught? ...


A bit at school, doing it a lot, then a course or two, and a lot of books. They all said the same - double sided oil stone, plus wheel (if available but not essential) ideally large and with water. All the old books say the same (with little variations) and that's how everybody did it.
All this other stuff is quite new - flattening, scary sharp, new jigs, waterstones, snake oil etc. 
I fiddled about with jigs (Stanley, then Eclipse) for a long time (seemed a good idea), until I realised it was easier and quicker without - just as I had been told from the beginning.
I've been around the houses in the meantime but basically am back to two double sided oil stones giving me 4 grits, though I don't use the coarser ones much but belt sander instead, recently upgraded to Sorby proedge. Not essential, you can do it all on the stones alone, as have millions of long gone woodworkers from the beginning of woodwork.


----------



## pedder (20 Sep 2011)

Jacob":2o7cmqhy said:


> To "learn" freehand sharpening takes about half a second. Read this - " Don't use a jig". There, you've learned it, that's all you need to know. Thereafter it's just practice.


...

and practice doesn't need time?
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## Jacob (20 Sep 2011)

pedder":2u6ayezr said:


> Jacob":2u6ayezr said:
> 
> 
> > To "learn" freehand sharpening takes about half a second. Read this - " Don't use a jig". There, you've learned it, that's all you need to know. Thereafter it's just practice.
> ...


Practice in the sense of _doing it_ rather than _preparing to do it_.


----------



## LuptonM (20 Sep 2011)

Its about time Jacob that you produced a video so we can all gasp in awe at how little time it takes for you to produce a razor sharp blade. Then maybe you might silence your critics and end this rounded bevel debate.

So Jacob which stones do you exactly use? You can't get a razor sharp blade with just india stones so do you strop?


----------



## pedder (20 Sep 2011)

Jacob":1rdqqazd said:


> pedder":1rdqqazd said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":1rdqqazd said:
> ...




For many of us "doing it" is woodworking and not sharpening. So everything else (esp. sharpening) is preparing to do "it". 

And now I stop posting in this thread.

Cheers
Pedder - understanding Paul a little better


----------



## Jacob (20 Sep 2011)

LuptonM":3afrh7cl said:


> Its about time Jacob that you produced a video so we can all gasp in awe at how little time it takes for you to produce a razor sharp blade. Then maybe you might silence your critics and end this rounded bevel debate.
> 
> So Jacob which stones do you exactly use? You can't get a razor sharp blade with just india stones so do you strop?


See earlier post.
To put the ball in your court - how do you think people managed before crazy sharpening kicked in? 
Look at all the work they did. 
Look at those Jap planing demos with freehand honed blades. 
Look at all those Jap chisels with rounded bevels. 
Read any of the old books and see what they say.
Just wake up - you are in a trance!


----------



## matthewwh (21 Sep 2011)

For me it's all about control, the less force required to push the blade the more control you have. I can get a workable edge freehand but if I want one that will pare almost effortlessly I use a guide, neither of them take very long and in both cases I quite enjoy the procedure. 

I've never understood the rants of freehand purists and tales of enraged foremen throwing apprentices guides out of the window etc. I'm sure that Jacob's intentions are entirely wholesome but they don't square with my experience that you get a sharper edge with a guide. 

Why do we not have the same debate about fences or stops or rods or squares or any of the other guesswork eliminating workshop aides?

I was thinking about magnetic dovetail guides this morning and came to the conclusion that they get you to a result quickly and easily, but you miss the flexibility of learning to saw properly freehand - understanding how to use reflections to multiply errors and the importance of setting up so that the cut is plumb for example. With honing guides the opposite is true, you get much more precise control over the situation by using one than not.

At the end of the day it's personal choice - I'm happy to encourage people to try both methods and choose which they prefer. At the end of the day it's your workshop and if you can't please yourself in there you can't do it anywhere.


----------



## woodbloke (21 Sep 2011)

Here we go again, the eternal old chestnut :roll: has re-surfaced. I'm with Matt here in that a jig gives more precision and is only slightly slower to use that freehand honing, but the margin isn't great.
As I've said before, as one of the last of the old woodwork teachers (do they exist any more?) I HAD to learn to freehand sharpen very quickly. I reckon I could hone 80 bench chisels or take apart, hone and reset 20 Record No5's in around the time I got in to school and morning prayers...around 45mins. However, the edges were a bit 'Rufus Ruffcut' but were serviceable for school use, but they were not suitable for fine cabinetwork. For that I use (and still do) a jig.

In point of fact, the very best way to freehand sharpen is to get one's technician to do it for you, while you have a brew in the staff room :lol: - Rob


----------



## Jacob (21 Sep 2011)

But how did the do it in the old days before jigs, plate glass, flattening, emery paper, Pedder's jig + paving slabs +3 brick system :roll: , ruler tricks, polishing, granite slabs. We all know the crazy sharpening ever expanding lists of goodies!
They've only been deemed necessary in recent years. What has changed? 
Mainly the answer is that we have more spare time to fiddle about in. 
If under pressure to do woodwork you wouldn't have time for all that nonsense.

Another key thing is the flattening obsession. This follows from the use of jigs - they don't work too well if things aren't perfectly flat. This is where the problems begin IMHO.


----------



## bugbear (21 Sep 2011)

Jacob":3iuk71p3 said:


> Look at those Jap planing demos with freehand honed blades.
> Look at all those Jap chisels with rounded bevels.



Normal Japanese practise is a large (due to the thick blade) *single* bevel. The technique is to use the large flat bevel as a reference when sharpening, so "judging" the angle becomes a non issue.

I am prepared to be convinced otherwise if you provide evidence.



> Read any of the old books and see what they say.



They say to avoid round bevels, and use a grinder to remove them if they happen. Extensive quotes available on this.

Sorry to mess up a good internet discussion with evidence.

BugBear


----------



## woodbloke (21 Sep 2011)

bugbear":1i2t3pdd said:


> Normal Japanese practise is a large (due to the thick blade) *single* bevel. The technique is to use the large flat bevel as a reference when sharpening, so "judging" the angle becomes a non issue.
> 
> 
> BugBear



BB is correct here, all (or most that I know of) are honed with a very wide *single* bevel which is easy to reference when it's flat, but it's also then very easy to round the damn thing if the point of ref is lost. Using a jig makes it relatively easy to maintain a wide single bevel, as on all my Jap chisels (25 deg for parers and 30 for them wot's hit) - Rob


----------



## studders (21 Sep 2011)

Jacob":3p1x0xos said:


> But how did the do it in the old days before jigs.....


They probably travelled by Horse and Cart too but, these days most people would probably opt for something a little more modern.


----------



## Jacob (21 Sep 2011)

bugbear":nzmcfxl5 said:


> .....
> They say to avoid round bevels, and use a grinder to remove them if they happen. Extensive quotes available on this......


Not correct. 
They say to avoid _rounding over_ for the obvious and well known reason that this increases the edge angle. 
No mention is made of rounding _under_ i.e. retaining a desired edge angle but having the bevel not necessarily flat. Nor in general is there any particular suggestion that a bevel should be flat.
But in any case, whatever they say, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why a bevel shouldn't be rounded _under _the edge angle, and if this helps with sharpening so much the better.
As many old tools are found with this feature inc jap chisels it seems that many tool users were aware of this simple bit of common sense and took it for granted without having to have it explained over and over again, as I seem to have to do!


----------



## Jacob (21 Sep 2011)

studders":1v8yd9zl said:


> Jacob":1v8yd9zl said:
> 
> 
> > But how did the do it in the old days before jigs.....
> ...


What's so modern about flattening a stone on a paving slab flattened in turn by a brick flattened in turn by two more bricks? Ask Pedder for an explanation! Back to the stone age!


----------



## studders (21 Sep 2011)

What? :?


----------



## Harbo (21 Sep 2011)

Where do you get all these Rounded Under chisels Jacob (Japanese ones included) - do they all migrate your way?

Rod


----------



## bugbear (21 Sep 2011)

Jacob":3aprgxu9 said:


> As many old tools are found with this feature inc jap chisels



Evidence for this repeated (and doubtful, to my knowledge) claim still awaited.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (21 Sep 2011)

Jacob":2c4q18tq said:


> Nor in general is there any particular suggestion that a bevel should be flat.



I thing the recommendations to avoid a "rounded bevel" might reasonably be taken to strongly imply "the other kind of bevel", if we're using words in their normal English meaning.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (21 Sep 2011)

Harbo":232467to said:


> Where do you get all these Rounded Under chisels Jacob (Japanese ones included) - do they all migrate your way?
> 
> Rod


Was reported to me that at a recent show the Japanese woodworker had rounded bevels on all his chisels. Also pictures posted by someone of ditto.
Many (not all) old tools are found with this feature in my experience, and I've made a point of asking others if they find this in old collections, and yes it is.
But why should it not be so? No one answers this question.


----------



## Jacob (21 Sep 2011)

bugbear":2ixyqazu said:


> Jacob":2ixyqazu said:
> 
> 
> > Nor in general is there any particular suggestion that a bevel should be flat.
> ...


Why? It doesn't do to be too literal or you could throw a baby out with the bath water. 
Rounded over obviously bad, rounded under obviously another thing altogether. Just keep thinking about it - you'll get there sooner or later. 
PS Actually you have put your finger on it - it's this simple misinterpretation of "rounded" which seems to have confused a lot of people. An odd detail is that "rounding under" seems to be accepted for mortice chisels but not for anything else, even though it can be shown to work perfectly well.


----------



## andy king (21 Sep 2011)

Jacob":1tlxjjzo said:


> Harbo":1tlxjjzo said:
> 
> 
> > Where do you get all these Rounded Under chisels Jacob (Japanese ones included) - do they all migrate your way?
> ...



I have commented on this in one of the many threads on this subject.
In my opinion, having been 'on the tools' since 1977, and seeing many examples of rounded bevels on chisels and planes, the examples I saw were pretty well all rounded over.
It's more to do with the lack of access to a bench grinder in those days rather than a technique that established itself as a way forward.
If I needed regrinds on my chisels I either had to send them off via a local tool shop, or hopefully find a friend who worked in a metalworking shop or maybe a joinery shop where they had a grinder. 
The majority of out and about woodworkers didn't have access to them, or own a grinder (any powertool was prohibitivly expensive right up until the influx of chinese machines) and the upshot tended to be the lifting of the tool slightly to gain a wire edge as the honing bevel surface increased and took longer to raise the wire if that bevel was maintained.
I've seen plenty of trademen doing exactly that to try and get a bit more from the chisel before they had to bite the bullet.
I would doubt if a sliding bevel was placed against many (or any) of the rounded over chisels that are found at boot sales or elsewhere that they would be 'rounded under' to retain a honing angle of 30 degrees or so.
On mortice chisels, its often a rounded bevel that is seen on the pigsticker style, I've rarely seen it on a lighter weight style and having a rounded bevel here helps when levering out waste on deep mortices allowing the chisel to roll. Again, commented on before in other threads somewhere...
Just IMHO of course.

cheers,
Andy


----------



## bugbear (21 Sep 2011)

Jacob":3vzqaf9a said:


> bugbear":3vzqaf9a said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":3vzqaf9a said:
> ...



What shape bevel do you think you get if you keep your hands at a constant height when sharpening, as the classic books advise?

_"Just keep thinking about it - you'll get there sooner or later."_ right back atcha'

You may well have come up with a "novel" approach to sharpening, but it ain't time honoured.

The old books recommend flat bevels as a goal to aim at, and the old tools we find are rounded ("over", in your coinage)

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (21 Sep 2011)

andy king":3m5vkojq said:


> ...
> I would doubt if a sliding bevel was placed against many (or any) of the rounded over chisels that are found at boot sales or elsewhere that they would be 'rounded under' to retain a honing angle of 30 degrees or so....


Unless you check you don't know this, so you could be wrong. I think you probably would be in many cases.
What is lacking from this discussion is any explanation of why a rounded _under_ bevel would not be acceptable. There is no doubt that it can have a sharp edge at whatever angle you chose and also cut just as well as any other. And it's easier to freehand. So what is the problem?
You could even hone a micro bevel with a jig and still have a rounded (now "primary") bevel. It's all the same if the edge is OK.


----------



## Jacob (21 Sep 2011)

bugbear":1dogq2ax said:


> .....
> What shape bevel do you think you get if you keep your hands at a constant height when sharpening, as the classic books advise?.......
> The old books recommend flat bevels as a goal to aim at, ....


Flat of course. And a good target to aim for, in order to avoid the dreaded rounding over. But once you have the upper hand you can cheat a bit by dipping etc. You don't have to if you don't want to but it makes the job a bit easier. 
Of course it isn't a novel approach - we have been sharpening edges for millions of years. The insistence on a _flat_ bevel is the novelty and has no particular logic behind it, except in certain circumstances where it's preferred (carving probably, I don't know) or unavoidable - with jigs or machine sharpening.


----------



## andy king (21 Sep 2011)

Jacob":10kf6yy3 said:


> andy king":10kf6yy3 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I would think this would be a simple enough thing to check for anyone who buys old tools - there are plenty of threads on here regarding car boot finds.
I can only speak from what I see with my own eyes as a tradesman alongside other tradesmen who did exactly as I described, lifting the tool to gain a wire edge and extend the time between regrinds and I offered my opinion on that as stated.
I have a few old chisels of my own that I've bought over the years, and some have been rounded excessively, definitely not 'under' - you tend to be able to spot angles and suchlike after a while...
A couple of things I have found, relating to hollow stones and sometimes regrinds, is the backs of these older irons and chisels have taken on the profile of the hollow stone, so putting them on a flatter one (I use a diamond one now) ends up in a lot of work to remove a hump formed from a hollow stone before they can be honed properly.
I've also found the edge won't hold on a couple, probably from a poor regrind in the past where the blued edge has been simply polished out on a stone leaving softer steel.
'You pays yer money' as they say.

Andy


----------



## bugbear (21 Sep 2011)

Jacob":nzfmlkj0 said:


> And it's easier to freehand. So what is the problem?



I have no "problem" with your recently discovered approach to sharpening. I just don't think it's especially good. You're welcome to do what you want in the privacy of your own workshop, of course.

Personally, I use an Eclipse jig and a trivial projection gauge. Once the blade is in the jig, I can work the tiny secondary bevel of my edge tools across the 4 successive abrasives I normally use at around 10 5-10 strokes on the first, and 3-5 strokes on the rest.

This is effortless, easy and quick,since the secondary is, and remains, small due to the jig.

When the secondary gets a little bigger, I simply "hack off" some metal from the primary, using coarse abarsives, lots of pressure, and not much care.

BugBear


----------



## Allylearm (21 Sep 2011)

I go along with Andy King in relation to trademen we are off the same era having started my time in 1976. I was more in the shop than out for 5 years on the bench making purpose made and my tools were the better for it, I would hate to say the condition of some fellow Joiners tools after being on site and when I was out they always came along to borrow a chisel. A grinder was the key and the Bench hand tools were the better kept for it as you had time and were not getting chips on your edges.

I never used a jig as I learnt to hone by practice and get the edge I required. I had the india combination and later a Arkansas was added. I never stropped but used my hand which I was taught by my journeyman. No other reason, I did what I was shown ande have never had reason to change.

I never got anal about edge just differed from Bevel to Firm due to needing differing results. It served me well and if jigs fits your purpose go full steam ahead in my book, if things make work simpler and get the result you want what is wrong with it.

As for College I read someone remarked about school tools. Well my experience was that my lecturer waited for me to go in and provided me with different sets of tools each time, cause I always seemed to spend time getting edges/grinding on chisels and planes, not a tech in sight. It even went for my fellow apprentices, some were Shuttering Joiners and good edge was not required for there work along with working on woodwork machinery even then different strokes for different blokes. And some just had poor journeyman who never showed them. It was the luck of the draw who learnt you and if they were interested or skilled to pass on their knowledge. Of late I see this trend more than more on sites visited, bonus and self employment has killed this. As I get often stated if we get an apprentice what is in it for us in lost time showing them. So we started paying to take on lads, some old ways were effective and training the skills was one of them. I would not agree all old ways were right and I could mention more that have vanished for the good. I hope there is some still taking on apprentices for the correct reasons not political humbug targets or susidised labour or general muling timber around. But in my case I have not seen it for years in my local area, the trade in general must be the poorer for it. But this opens up another subject on what is being taught in colleges/work places and quality. We live in a consumer led culture that wants it quick and cheap. Skills or old ways are first to go in components coming preprepared from all over the world and all you do is screw it on.

Ally

My point regarding honing and edges is there more than one way to skin a cat.


----------



## Alf (21 Sep 2011)

As a freehand sharpener myself, I absolute hate to see it swamped by one extreme view vs. everyone else. It is perfectly doable, honestly it is; and it doesn't mean rounded bevels either. And trying it also doesn't mean you have to turn in your honing guides and never touch them again. But the bottom line is whatever gets you a useable edge for the job is the "right way". Everything else is a by-product of male cattle.


----------



## andy king (21 Sep 2011)

Alf":2vpdrfzc said:


> As a freehand sharpener myself, I absolute hate to see it swamped by one extreme view vs. everyone else. It is perfectly doable, honestly it is; and it doesn't mean rounded bevels either. And trying it also doesn't mean you have to turn in your honing guides and never touch them again. But the bottom line is whatever gets you a useable edge for the job is the "right way". Everything else is a by-product of male cattle.



Yes, definitely. The ultimate goal is consistent honed edges and how you get there is really pretty irrelevant. 
Being able to freehand hone is a great thing to have, but its not shameful or wrong to reach for something that offers the same consistency and repeatability that a good freehand honer can get.
As someone pointed out earlier, the tradesmen tend to have the upperhand in the freehand method as its a case of 'do it often, do it quickly, get back to work' mentality as they have to earn money and it becomes second nature, but others who woodwork for a hobby don't get the chance, or simply want to woodwork rather than get bogged down in a technique or method that can be achieved in another way.
Even so, 'at the coal face' of woodworking - out on site, there are still plenty of examples of the rounded bevel out there in an effort to get over the need to regrind or try and remove a chip or two from an edge. 
cheers,
Andy


----------



## Jacob (21 Sep 2011)

Well yes do it how you like. But some of the old methods do work. Obvious really, you only have to look at the work they did. 
Is that "being swamped by an extreme view"? 
"shameful or wrong" doesn't come into it, though I keep being told I'm wrong. In the end people make their own minds up.
Anyway our OP stubtoe is boldly going against the grain. He's probably wondering what all the fuss is about. It's a mystery to me too!* And a source of entertainment, I have to admit.
*not really a mystery. :roll:


----------



## Rob Platt (22 Sep 2011)

I`ve tried not to get involved in right or wrong ways of doing things but to add as I haven`t seen it mentioned. (sorry if I`ve missed it) to avoid getting a rounded edge I always lift the stone at the far end onto a block of wood maybe an inch thick this reduces the probability of the blade rising as I push forward away from my body. I wonder also if thats the reason for back saws being tapered towards the handle?
all the best
rob


----------



## bugbear (22 Sep 2011)

Just to nail Jacob's repeated claim that his idea is time honoured, I've trawled through the more well known of my pile of tutorial and reference texts.

I can find none that speak of rounding in positive terms, and many that either decry it, or explicitly describe techniques that generate flat bevels.

Perhaps the clearest language is Planecraft, 1934:



1934":2bg0cmfq said:


> Whatever you do, do not allow the iron to "rock", as this must inevitably result in a curved edge that cannot cut well, and will necessitate re-grinding straoght away. Keep the wrists rigid, and the angle of iron to stone constant.



We can have a *lovely* discussion on wether the Grim technique has merit, but it certainly didn't form part of any curriculum.

BugBear


----------



## dunbarhamlin (22 Sep 2011)

1934":1mw4w1ze said:


> ...as this must inevitably result in a curved edge that cannot cut well...


To my eye, this looks like the author had rounding over in mind, since the only (sharp) edge which cannot cut well would be one which was too obtuse for the application.


----------



## Jacob (22 Sep 2011)

dunbarhamlin":2lwwo2m6 said:


> 1934":2lwwo2m6 said:
> 
> 
> > ...as this must inevitably result in a curved edge that cannot cut well...
> ...


Yes , since a rounded _under_ sharp edge will cut perfectly well. 
BB & co seem to think that I am the first person in the universe to discover this, which is flattering  but very unlikely to be true!


----------



## Paul Chapman (22 Sep 2011)

Jacob":1qhyyr3n said:


> a rounded _under_ sharp edge will cut perfectly well.



Using your method, Jacob, you might manage to get the edge sharp but a rounded bevel (particularly in the case of chisels) is not a very efficient shape. If you draw out on a piece of paper a blade with a straight bevel and one with a rounded bevel, it becomes self-evident that the rounded bevel idea is flawed in that there is a greater mass of metal behind the edge which has to be forced through the wood.

When we were discussing this over on the other side many moons ago, I compared a pig sticker chisel which I had bought second-hand and which had a rounded bevel with one which I had honed with a straight bevel. The one with the straight bevel cut far more effectively.

But, as you say, use whatever method you wish.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (22 Sep 2011)

Paul Chapman":2uyv4aij said:


> ... If you draw out on a piece of paper a blade with a straight bevel and one with a rounded bevel, it becomes self-evident that the rounded bevel idea is flawed in that there is a greater mass of metal behind the edge which has to be forced through the wood.


Not self evident at all. Quite the opposite. If you round _under_ a flat bevel (i.e. take metal off the heel to round it , but without touching the edge) there will be less metal behind the edge, not more.


> ... I compared a pig sticker chisel which I had bought second-hand and which had a rounded bevel with one which I had honed with a straight bevel. The one with the straight bevel cut far more effectively....


Probably was sharper. Did you hone them both to give them exactly the same edge angle with the same degree of sharpness? If not then try it. I doubt you will notice any difference except that the straight bevel will be less use for cleaning out corners in stopped mortices and will perhaps be less easy to loosen by levering.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (22 Sep 2011)

The other consideration is that it is perhaps easier to grasp the notion of maintaining an angle throughout the stroke (though it took me some time to grok what that really entails - which absolutely isn't locked elbows and wrists) than the arced motion returning to the same angle at the start of the stroke. This would particularly be the case in the absence of a demonstration. When I was taught, no great emphasis was placed on the flatness of the bezel, though flatish was the product of the method shown.


----------



## Paul Chapman (22 Sep 2011)

Jacob":2itqlhlk said:


> try it. I doubt you will notice any difference



Blimey, Jacob, read what I said. I did try it and there was a difference - the chisel with the straight bevel cut more effectively.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (22 Sep 2011)

Paul Chapman":1w0lcw36 said:


> Jacob":1w0lcw36 said:
> 
> 
> > try it. I doubt you will notice any difference
> ...


OK but whatever it was it wouldn't have been the shape of the bevel. You will just have to take my word for it.
nb I've cut 100s of mortices by hand - mostly in the early days before I had any machines not even a router.


----------



## bugbear (22 Sep 2011)

dunbarhamlin":1voxurxd said:


> 1934":1voxurxd said:
> 
> 
> > ...as this must inevitably result in a curved edge that cannot cut well...
> ...



Indeed - I'm far from sure I agree with what is said here. 

That wasn't the point I was trying to address - I find sticking to one point at a time more conducive to conclusions when discussing something.

Assuming the books reflect the working practice of the authors and/or what they were teaching in the technical colleges, the deliberately rounded bevel was NOT conventional practice.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (22 Sep 2011)

bugbear":1kgwe61e said:


> ....
> Assuming the books reflect the working practice of the authors


You can't assume that.


> and/or what they were teaching in the technical colleges,


May well have been just their interpretation of a "proper"method "do as I say not as I do"


> ..the deliberately rounded bevel ...


Nobody is suggesting that you should _deliberately _round a bevel. I could explain (yet again :roll: ) what I am on about but if you don't pay attention then it's a waste of time.


> was NOT conventional practice.
> 
> BugBear


As the slightly rounded bevel (arrived at incidentally, not deliberately, by dipping)* avoids rounding over AND makes sharpening easier,** it is absolutely certain that it was (and is) commonplace.
*see earlier extensive explanations BB and try to concentrate!
** non of that locking the elbow/wrist/hip/knee/nose, steady rocking on balls of feet nonsense.


----------



## bugbear (22 Sep 2011)

Jacob":omrgyra3 said:


> bugbear":omrgyra3 said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Your argument now degenerates into assuming respected authors were just making stuff up?!

Ah - I have it - perhaps "Jacob" is also describing some idea that isn't his actual practice.

BugBear


----------



## andy king (22 Sep 2011)

Jacob":10rg8sp9 said:


> As the slightly rounded bevel (arrived at incidentally, not deliberately, by dipping)* avoids rounding over AND makes sharpening easier,** it is absolutely certain that it was (and is) commonplace.
> *see earlier extensive explanations BB and try to concentrate!
> ** non of that locking the elbow/wrist/hip/knee/nose, steady rocking on balls of feet nonsense.


Where is the 'commonplace' evidence of this Jacob? All the text books for generations have given 'Trad' methods (to quote yourself) and you constantly refer to 'trad' as the only way, but now you don't want us to follow that route?
The evidence i've seen is for the reasons I gave, not because it's quicker or easier, its a workaround for a situation.
You always call for evidence when you disagree with anything yet never furnish any of your own to back up, to use your own words 'nonsense'.
Instead of making snippy putdown comments all the time, (such as 'try to concentrate' which offer nothing to this thread other than to antagonise) a rational reasoning and evidence would put the argument/discussion to bed once and for all.
Incidentally, when you were doing your woodworking course, what was the desired edge profile taught as being 'correct practice' to you at that time?


----------



## Jacob (22 Sep 2011)

Well prove that nobody else in the world does it my way. (Not really _my_ way - just a way)
I think I'll rest my case or this could run and run!

Best of luck stubtoe, don't let them put you off!


----------



## andy king (22 Sep 2011)

Jacob":2mvs3cft said:


> Well prove that nobody else in the world does it my way. (Not really _my_ way - just a way)
> I think I'll rest my case or this could run and run!


It's not about proving this Jacob, it's your quote that 'it is absolutely certain that it was (and is) commonplace.'
As I said, you should furnish your evidence of this as you always call others to do so.
I doubt you are unique in how you hone, but i would hazard a pretty good guess that you are in a very small minority compared to 'trad' methodology and percived correct working methods that are still taught to this very day. 
I doubt your 'round under' evidence is likely to emerge in its droves, although you'll see plenty of 'round over' stuff out there IMHO.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (22 Sep 2011)

Jacob":pd8qztu6 said:


> ... Yes , since a rounded _under_ sharp edge will cut perfectly well.


Jacob, I must admit I'm still struggling to get a visual grip on the difference between a 'rounded' bevel (presumably a convex profile) and a 'rounded under bevel', or whatever you are calling it. Isn't one of these 'rounded under bevels' a convex profile too?

Perhaps drawings or photographs of the difference between these profiles might help.

On the other hand I'm a dedicated freehand sharpener, and I don't incorporate rounded (convex) grinding angles on the bevel-- the grinding angle is concave of course, and I generally only sharpen the tip of the tool until it needs a bit of regrinding (for whatever reason). It doesn't matter to me if another worker uses a jig so long as the job is done quickly in a working environment (different to hobby use where time is perhaps less important). Slainte.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (22 Sep 2011)

At the cutting edge, the tangent of the arc of the rounded under bezel is maintained at the same angle as would be maintained using a flat bezel.

Not the effect of the bevel creep (rounding over) caused by repeatedly raising the angle on the stone to get "just a little more" life out of an edge, which progressively increases the bevel (angle.)


----------



## Jacob (22 Sep 2011)

As Steve says.
Quick sketch here:







1 Flat bevel and edge at 30º
2 Rounded *over* bevel hence edge angle higher
3 Rounded *under* bevel edge stays at 30º. 
The shape of this bevel is irrelevant except that it makes sharpening easier as compared to aiming for a perfect flat one.

The last time I posted this Jason got his crayons out and coloured it in.


----------



## Racers (22 Sep 2011)

Hi, Jacob

The rounded bevel has a longer face, won't this lead to longer sharpening time as you have to remove more metal?


Pete


----------



## Jacob (22 Sep 2011)

Racers":3668owk9 said:


> Hi, Jacob
> 
> The rounded bevel has a longer face, won't this lead to longer sharpening time as you have to remove more metal?
> 
> ...


Strewth I've been here before so many times!
The answer is no. AOTBE you would remove a longer but thinner layer than with a flat bevel i.e. the same amount of metal.
It's quite difficult to explain this but nevertheless it is true.
Area of parallelogram is base x height or volume of this prism of metal removed would be base x height x width i.e. same whatever the edge angle.


----------



## bugbear (22 Sep 2011)

Jacob":2rqzy84c said:


> As Steve says.
> Quick sketch here:
> 
> 
> ...



So if the wobble/dip/whatever is (say) 5 degrees a rounded *over* bevel starting at 25 degrees is identical with a rounded *under* bevel ending at 30 degrees.

They're both convex, 25 degrees at the arris, 30 degrees at the edge.

BugBear


----------



## Racers (22 Sep 2011)

Hi, Jacob

But with a seconary bevel you will be removing a lot less metal, untill you need to redo the primary bevel.

Pete


----------



## andy king (22 Sep 2011)

Racers":xt3otte0 said:


> Hi, Jacob
> 
> But with a seconary bevel you will be removing a lot less metal, untill you need to redo the primary bevel.
> 
> Pete


Yep, I agree. 
Jacob's method is based on the theory that everyone will be maintaining a single flat bevel profile, not introducing a secondary honing bevel as is the norm, and traditionally taught.
Traditional secondary bevel honing will remove less metal as there is less in contact, even as the wearing surface increases, and in theory, if a secondary 30 degree bevel is maintained, rather than reground as is normal, it will eventually replace the primary 25 degree one, but we've been down this route many times before...
End of the day, if it works whatever the method, all is well, but it is each to their own.

cheers,
Andy


----------



## Racers (22 Sep 2011)

Hi, Andy

I agree with you, I was just trying to wind up Jacob. :wink: 


Pete


----------



## Corneel (22 Sep 2011)

I still fail to see where the time savings of free hand sharpening are. Of course it takes time to put the iron in the jig (a matter of seconds, when using an Eclipse and a stopblock). But as soon as the iron is in the jig you start to save time, because it's just easier and more comfortable to hold. And I guess, because it's easier to maintane a given angle, you won't loose as much material on each honing, so you have to grind less often.


----------



## Karl (22 Sep 2011)

This thread has turned into a real wrist-slitter :lol:


----------



## Racers (22 Sep 2011)

Hi, Karl

They always do.

Pete


----------



## Jacob (22 Sep 2011)

Basically chaps you will never get it so I'd stop worrying about it if I were you.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (22 Sep 2011)

Corneel":33o9lxa4 said:


> ...But as soon as the iron is in the jig you start to save time, because it's just easier and more comfortable to hold. And I guess, because it's easier to maintane a given angle, you won't loose as much material on each honing, so you have to grind less often.


The difference in time taken is trivial, however I don't believe your conclusions are sound.

The reduced faff of freehanding encourges more frequent touch up (for me, at least,) which can eliminate the need to ever redefine the bezel on a grinder except for damage repair if a single bezel configuration is adopted.

Except when using an extension such as the Veritas small blade holder, the length between fulcrum and the edge being sharpened is far less when using a jig, and so far less pressure can be applied, which slows jigged sharpening on most media.

I find my chisel handles far more comfortable to hold than any jig I have tried (if you don't perhaps you might leave the jig permanently attached.  ) I find the cramped finger position necessary with a jig far less comfortable when sharpening irons too. I feel this also lends to a more relaxed and thus controlled action when sharpening freehand.

The length of iron which needs removing to achieve a fresh edge is the same whatever the method. Some save up the pain/grind for later (microbezels - either 2ary/3ary or single with a hollow grind) others keep abreast of it during touch up (single bevel - flat or Jacob-ite - jigged or freehand.) Which is appropriate depends on individual working practice (and access to power  )
This isn't a jigged/unjigged issue.


----------



## Jacob (22 Sep 2011)

dunbarhamlin":3b4338u8 said:


> ........
> I find my chisel handles far more comfortable to hold than any jig I have tried (if you don't perhaps you might leave the jig permanently attached.  ) I find the cramped finger position necessary with a jig far less comfortable when sharpening irons too. .......


Well yes that's one of the weird things about jigs - they are designed to hold tools and/or blades but non have handles and all make things more difficult to hold instead of less. :shock: A glaring omission IMHO. :lol: 
A little opportunity here for an improved MK 4 series? 
They haven't been around for that long so I guess the design will improve, if everybody hasn't given up on them in the meantime


----------



## bugbear (22 Sep 2011)

Jacob":2xcbiec9 said:


> Basically chaps you will never get it so I'd stop worrying about it if I were you.



Does that mean you'll stop going on (and on) about it?

BugBear (more in hope than expectation)


----------



## Jacob (22 Sep 2011)

Sgian Dubh":3dw07vua said:


> ... the grinding angle is concave of course,...


Mine is flat (belt sander) or non existent - not needed on thin plane blades or smaller chisels which I hone only.


----------



## Jacob (22 Sep 2011)

bugbear":20y4vtve said:


> Jacob":20y4vtve said:
> 
> 
> > Basically chaps you will never get it so I'd stop worrying about it if I were you.
> ...


Not my thread. It's you lot going on and on about it! I'll reply if called upon. I do my best to explain but it's obviously not for everybody.


----------



## Alf (22 Sep 2011)

Karl":olumcr47 said:


> This thread has turned into a real wrist-slitter :lol:


There's no evidence that anyone has ever slit their wrists over a sharpening thread, but that's probably only because they couldn't decide how best to sharpen the edge with which to slit them... 

And for Jacob, a honing guide with handles. They think of everything!


----------



## Jacob (22 Sep 2011)

Alf":1q8rnjlq said:


> ....
> And for Jacob, a honing guide with handles. They think of everything!


Interesting. Still looks crude, cumbersome and totally redundant but they've got the idea!



Corneel":1q8rnjlq said:


> I still fail to see where the time savings of free hand sharpening are. ...


1 You don't have to buy a jig
2 You don't have to fit your thing into a jig and set it (assuming you have one as you may need several - and 2million little wedges with the Kell Mk wotsit)
3 You don't have to remove it afterwards
4 You don't have to flatten your stones EVER
5 Perhaps most importantly - you can easily do a little and often and keep your edge sharper for more of the time, as steps 1 -4 above are significant deterrents in this respect. 
Hence the modern emphasis on steel which retains sharpness for longer - having gone through all that faff you don't want to have to repeat it too often. Takes longer to sharpen though. :lol: :lol:

PS I forgot to add item 4 (b) - freehand enables you to put a lot more welly into it - fast and furious if required, hence inherently faster.


----------



## bugbear (22 Sep 2011)

Jacob":kaw7sfup said:


> I'll reply if called upon.



AKA always wanting the last word.

BugBear (laying a cunning trap)


----------



## Jacob (22 Sep 2011)

bugbear":3vckfn8a said:


> Jacob":3vckfn8a said:
> 
> 
> > I'll reply if called upon.
> ...


Not wishing to have the last word - but BB if you do have a eureka moment and the fog lifts a bit then please let us know. It's only a matter of time and practice so don't give up!


----------



## Sgian Dubh (22 Sep 2011)

Jacob":354izinm said:


> 1 Flat bevel and edge at 30º
> 2 Rounded *over* bevel hence edge angle higher
> 3 Rounded *under* bevel edge stays at 30º.
> The shape of this bevel is irrelevant except that it makes sharpening easier as compared to aiming for a perfect flat one.


I see what you're saying now Jacob. You just create a curved end, convex in profile, but one with a longish radius. It's not really curved _under_.



Jacob":354izinm said:


> Sgian Dubh":354izinm said:
> 
> 
> > ... the grinding angle is concave of course,...
> ...


Of course. It depends what tool you use to form the grinding angle. After starting a small fire in the extraction system one time using the belt on the linisher I decided to stop using that tool for the job, and went back to the grindstone, ha, ha. And I guess I trained too long ago because we didn't talk about primary and secondary bevels back then: we used the terms grinding angle and honing angle.

I think I'll stick to honing a flat on the tip of the blade rather going for this curved deal you're describing. Slainte.


----------



## Corneel (22 Sep 2011)

dunbarhamlinI find my chisel handles far more comfortable to hold than any jig I have tried (if you don't perhaps you might leave the jig permanently attached. :o ) I find the cramped finger position necessary with a jig far less comfortable when sharpening irons too. I feel this also lends to a more relaxed and thus controlled action when sharpening freehand.
[/quote said:


> Well you're probably right on every point Dunbar :lol: , but I wonder about this. Do you hold the handle of the chisel when freehand honing? To me that feels like every little tremble in my hands creates big variations in the angle. So I hold the chisel lower on the iron part and that feels slippery and unsecure, but it is easier to hold the angle.
> 
> With chisels I can see the time savings of freehand honing. With planes, most time is lost on getting the iron out of the plane, removing the chipbreaker, and after honing assembling everything again and readjusting the plane. Putting the blade in a simple jig like the Eclipse is neglectable. And plane irons don't come with a handle...


----------



## Jacob (22 Sep 2011)

Sgian Dubh":17kh7pvc said:


> ...It's not really curved _under_.


It's rounded but lies _under_ the edge angle. Just a term to distinguish it from the dreaded rounding_ over_


----------



## Jacob (22 Sep 2011)

Corneel":2ej1bpvi said:


> ..... Do you hold the handle of the chisel when freehand honing? To me that feels like every little tremble in my hands creates big variations in the angle. So I hold the chisel lower on the iron part and that feels slippery and unsecure, but it is easier to hold the angle.


The further up the handle the better the grip, the steadier the angle and the better the control. That's what handles are for.


> With chisels I can see the time savings of freehand honing. With planes, most time is lost on getting the iron out of the plane, removing the chipbreaker, and after honing assembling everything again and readjusting the plane. Putting the blade in a simple jig like the Eclipse is neglectable. And plane irons don't come with a handle...


But they are big and easier to hold. And freehand makes cambering dead easy.

See the Grimtech Laboratories MKII jig for a plane blade handle idea.


----------



## Corneel (22 Sep 2011)

Jacob":1b3gryjh said:


> 1 You don't have to buy a jig
> 2 You don't have to fit your thing into a jig and set it (assuming you have one as you may need several - and 2million little wedges with the Kell Mk wotsit)
> 3 You don't have to remove it afterwards
> 4 You don't have to flatten your stones EVER
> ...



1. Eclipse is about 10 euro. I can handle that.
2. Eclipse is a brilliant piece of kit, no need for wotsit's. Doing it leasurally it takes about 30 seconds. I can handle that.
3. Seconds, again, no need to worry about.
4. Waterstones need to be flattened from time to time, no way around that when you are not a Zen master who spends a full year (!) on learning to sharpen. But flattening is no trouble either and saves a lot of time when you go from a coarser to a finer grit.
4b. Welly? What's that? But with the Eclipse again, I can put the same amount of pressure on the iron, because I can also hold on to the handle of the chisel, no need to hold the jig, so the jig doesn't need handles either. 
5. Because 1-4 take so little time, there is no reason not to hone as often as a freehander.
6. Because by the time the iron is in the jig everything becomes effortless, so you (or me at least) save time on the actual honing procedure. Especially when I want to remove a nick, the jig saves a lot of time.
7. Because you don't need to learn a new technique, you really save a huge amount of time and a lot of frustration to try woodworking with clumsily sharpened edges. That's 10 euro well spend.

I love this thread :twisted: . In a wicked kind of way. I see the benefits of freehand sharpening, but really it is NOT easy. Especially touching up an edge or removing a nick or trying to keep a shoulderplane blade straight.


----------



## Corneel (22 Sep 2011)

Jacob":4er5lk6l said:


> Corneel":4er5lk6l said:
> 
> 
> > ..... Do you hold the handle of the chisel when freehand honing? To me that feels like every little tremble in my hands creates big variations in the angle. So I hold the chisel lower on the iron part and that feels slippery and unsecure, but it is easier to hold the angle.


The further up the handle the better the grip, the steadier the angle and the better the control. That's what handles are for.


> Hmm, I´ll give it a try. I just didn´t feel secure last time I tried.


----------



## Jacob (22 Sep 2011)

Corneel":8uprpydm said:


> .....I see the benefits of freehand sharpening, but really it is NOT easy. .....


It used to be easy. Everybody did it. 
I wonder what brought about the change? A conjunction of the stars? A virus? Al qaeda? Maybe we will never know. :shock:



> Welly? What's that?


Colloquial expression meaning putting more pressure on the accelerator. Yo a furriner or zummat?


----------



## Corneel (22 Sep 2011)

Yep, me dutch.


----------



## Jacob (22 Sep 2011)

There's Steve Branam's video here if that'd help.


----------



## Sawyer (22 Sep 2011)

xy mosian":23ubckqb said:


> if your blade cuts well you've won. =D> =D> =D> =D>
> xy


So you see, it's all quite simple really! 
Provided the tool is working efficiently _for the job in hand_, it's sharp enough. As soon as I'm not happy with a tool's performance, I do something about it. Super accuracy and shaving hairs off my forearm doesn't interest me though, because I'm a woodworker, not a barber! I can't abide dull tools either, simply because they don't work properly. It's all about earning a living.
Freehand sharpening was one of the first things I learned, and works just fine. Never had the curiosity even to try out any form of jig. Each to their own though and I don't criticise anybody for using jigs if they choose to.


----------



## Fat ferret (22 Sep 2011)

Sawyer":oxgnh2lc said:


> xy mosian":oxgnh2lc said:
> 
> 
> > if your blade cuts well you've won. =D> =D> =D> =D>
> ...



Couldn't agree more (hammer) .


----------



## andy king (23 Sep 2011)

Jacob":10oukqdg said:


> There's Steve Branam's video here if that'd help.


Where, as i've pointed out before, the edge he gains is certainly not what i would call sharp, especially when he pares the cherry.
I think we need to step back and assess the need for sharp tools.
What is more important is gaining that edge with repeatable accuracy. If you are lucky enough, or trained in that respect, to be able to freehand hone to such heights, fantastic, but others may need or find a better option with a jig, but we all strive for the same result, a consistent sharp edge that allows us to woodwork to our full potential. 
Anything else is somewhat irrelevant and based on opinion, surely?


----------



## Jacob (23 Sep 2011)

andy king":1t01es6w said:


> Jacob":1t01es6w said:
> 
> 
> > There's Steve Branam's video here if that'd help.
> ...


Yet another post saying that freehand honing doesn't work very well, isn't repeatable, requires training, if achieved at all you are lucky, it's "fantastic" etc. 
Completely ignoring that a lot of competent woodworkers have been doing it for ages and a lot of beginners don't find it particularly difficult.
It's beginning to look like a dogmatic minority view from a diminishing band of hardliners!

By all means do what you like with whatever technique you chose, but don't knock it if you haven't tried it. 
If you simply can't do it , then don't assume that nobody else can either. You'd be wrong.


----------



## andy king (23 Sep 2011)

Jacob":39vqigri said:


> andy king":39vqigri said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":39vqigri said:
> ...


Errr... Nonsense!
You seem to be under the assumption that I am dismissing freehand honing and freehand honers.
Anything but. I was taught this at 16 years old and I demonstrate the technique at shows to try and HELP people gain a good edge, and by instilling in them technique is paramount, not having 15 different stones to do so.
You are making sweeping statements without evidence or fact as usual!
The fact remains that by video evidence, the guy has failed to gain a true keen edge - at least, by what I would classify as keen. I posted on that fact, not dismissing freehand honing or your own brand of it.


----------



## Corneel (23 Sep 2011)

Maybe Jacob is looking back at his youth with the typical rose tinted spectacles of older man and completely forgot how he struggled as a lad. It's not sharpening an edge straight from the grinder that's difficult. It's repeatability, like Andy sais, or keeping an edge straight, or keeping a smoother's camber really small or to get a real keen edge like you need to avoid tearout on cranky grain, that's where stuff gets difficult. In the mean time I'm just a hobbyist with limited shop time and can get repeatable results really quick using a simple jig and am quite happy with that. At the other hand, I have some gouges waiting for my attention, so now I am hitting the limits of my jig and will have to start training freehand technique again.


----------



## bugbear (23 Sep 2011)

Jacob":3q4n34tq said:


> Corneel":3q4n34tq said:
> 
> 
> > .....I see the benefits of freehand sharpening, but really it is NOT easy. .....
> ...



Everybody used to use wooden planes. I wonder what changed?

Bugbear


----------



## Corneel (23 Sep 2011)

I love woodies. Even made one myself.

http://seekelot.blogspot.com/2011_04_01_archive.html
http://seekelot.blogspot.com/2011_05_01_archive.html


----------



## bugbear (23 Sep 2011)

Jacob":12nx37ad said:


> If you simply can't do it , then don't assume that nobody else can either. You'd be wrong.



Are you going for some kind of irony prize this week. Grim? :lol: :lol: :lol: 

BugBear


----------



## Fat ferret (23 Sep 2011)

Corneel":7x8syes0 said:


> I love woodies. Even made one myself.
> 
> http://seekelot.blogspot.com/2011_04_01_archive.html
> http://seekelot.blogspot.com/2011_05_01_archive.html



Well done that man. What sort of plane did you make? And how?

I picked up a woodie jack plane last week, my first. All it says on the body is British made and the iron has, made in sheffield but it is a good thickness. So I sharpened it up and gave the body a coat of linseed. Once I had set it right it took thick even shavings with ease. It's easily as good as my metal planes  . I have used it quite a bit now planing rough wood on tenons for making gates and it shows no signs of needing sharpening, although I think I will avoid mentioning that word from now :roll: .


----------



## Corneel (23 Sep 2011)

It's a very small 55 degree smoother. The first plane I ever made in my life, did feel good :lol: I used a small piece of beech I had laying around and an iron from the "plane iron shop" in your nice country. Now I have another much bigger piece of beech and plan to build a jack plane, like yours, sometime this winter. The little plane has been used a lot in my kitchen building project. It does tend to clog, but apart from that it is a great help with the rather rowy grain of the maple I am using. I really like to use wooden planes, they're nice and light and glide so much smoother then an iron plane.


----------



## Fat ferret (23 Sep 2011)

I would love to make a plane but don't have the time or the wood. At least there are plenty of old ones going spare even if you just re-use the iron and copy the body if thats too far gone.


----------



## Corneel (23 Sep 2011)

You could also try a Krenov type plane. Lots of info on the web about these. I've made one like that later in the year and it is good fun too and a lot easier. Old planes are usually only available in the standard 45 degree pitch. So if you want something else, it's a good idea to try making it yourself.


----------

