# Flattening a Hard Silicon Carbide Honing Stone



## swagman (7 Jul 2016)

A few weeks ago I ordered some 280grt Silicon Carbide Powder to flatten my hard Silicon Carbide Stones; the powder arrived a week ago. I also upgraded my old sheet of float glass to a 12mm (2x laminated); 1250mmL x 300mmD. http://www.glassforeurope.com/en/pro...s-of-glass.php

The stone chosen had a noticeable hollow down its full length; the surface of the glass was 1st sprayed with water, before applying 5 grams of powder within a localized area; its important to bear in mind that these Silicon Carbide Powder's itself break down in size the longer you work it; as a general rule of thumb- when you can no longer hear the sound of the grit working the surface of the stone its an indicator you need to add some additional fresh powder; over a 30 min period; 2 grams of additional powder was added every 10 min. To achieve a totally flat surface over the Silicon Carbide Stone took me 30 min of work; longer than I initially anticipated; most likely that's an indicator that the commensurate grit of 280 is not coarse enough. I have ordered 400g of the 150grt for the next trial. 

Random spraying of water over the surface of the Silicon Carbide slurry is a requirement to prevent the effects of air drying. Not difficult to identify, as the drying slurry will start to impede the free movement of the stone across the glass surface. 

I should make mention that I previously trialled a Course DMT Diamond Stone to flatten these hard Silicon Carbide Stone's; the diamond grit was non existent after about 10 min of work. imo ; its the bonding agent that adheres the diamond grit to the top surface of the plate that cannot withstand the hardness of these Silicon Carbide Stone's. 

Stewie;


----------



## Phil Pascoe (7 Jul 2016)

Use water stones - far easier to flatten.







He ducks below the parapet :lol: :lol:


----------



## ED65 (7 Jul 2016)

swagman":2l1x5e42 said:


> To achieve a totally flat surface over the Silicon Carbide Stone took me 30 min of work; longer than I initially anticipated; most likely that's an indicator that the commensurate grit of 280 is not coarse enough. I have ordered 400g of the 150grt for the next trial.


I'd say so, I just had to take about 3-4mm off what I think is a hornfels and I did most of it on 80 grit (alox paper) and it still took longer than I'd have liked.



swagman":2l1x5e42 said:


> I should make mention that I previously trialled a Course DMT Diamond Stone to flatten these hard Silicon Carbide Stone's; the diamond grit was non existent after about 10 min of work. imo ; its the bonding agent that adheres the diamond grit to the top surface of the plate that cannot withstand the hardness of these Silicon Carbide Stone's.


I suspect it's the hard matrix of the stones you're working that's the culprit here. I've flattened both sides of a generic Chinese double-sided silicon carbide stone plus recently a small Washita using a diamond plate (a much cheaper one than a DMT) and it wasn't killed by the process. It's definitely smoother than it was, but is still usable as an abrasive in its own right.


----------



## bugbear (7 Jul 2016)

swagman":2lz48i10 said:


> I should make mention that I previously trialled a Course DMT Diamond Stone to flatten these hard Silicon Carbide Stone's; the diamond grit was non existent after about 10 min of work. imo ; its the bonding agent that adheres the diamond grit to the top surface of the plate that cannot withstand the hardness of these Silicon Carbide Stone's.



It's possible you were applying too much pressure, which is notorious for stripping the diamonds out of plates.

BugBear


----------



## swagman (7 Jul 2016)

Crystolon" is a trademark of Norton Abrasives for man-made stones of Silicon Carbide that are vitreously bonded. In other words, they are heated to such a high temperature that the grains fuse together. Other companies can make similar stones but cannot call them "Crystolon". Silicon Carbide has a mohs hardness of 9.5.

http://keepingfloorsclean.com/wp-conten ... -Scale.jpg


----------



## swagman (8 Jul 2016)

The 12mm rubber seals serve the role of containing the flow of the slurry.


----------



## essexalan (9 Jul 2016)

Pretty much how I flatten my SiC water stones and what Stu recommends. I usually use a grit twice as coarse as the stone so for a Sigma 120 I use 60 grit which is just about the coarsest grit I can find anyway. I do use 10mm float glass having found that toughened glass is definitely not flat, as in Mk I eyeball not flat. DMT diamond plates are definitely not suitable for flattening SiC stones you will end up with a shiny piece of expensive metal very quickly regardless of how you use them. I use Eze-Lap diamond plates for touching up the edges etc and they do stand up to the abuse. Have heard of folks using plain sand to do this but I have never tried it.


----------



## Jacob (9 Jul 2016)

Flattening stones is completely unnecessary. 
I've never done it (except once as an experiment). 
A waste of time and waste of expensive materials. 
It will also dramatically shorten the life of the stone.


----------



## CStanford (10 Jul 2016)

$300+ worth of kit to flatten a $20 honing stone is just sheer stupidity, not to mention the time involved. Even if you already own this stuff why put the wear and tear on it? Diamond plates and glass and expensive loose diamond grits. What a bunch of hooey.

https://www.sharpeningsupplies.com/Nort ... 179C5.aspx -- standard 8x2x1 Norton SiC combo stone $20.99. Want a single-grit SiC stone? Dollar cheaper, same website.

Don't flatten them. If you learn how to use the whole surface they'll never need it -- 'mind the ends and the corners and the middle will take care of itself' some famous craftsman once said.

And if you can't manage that buy a flippin' new one for, you guessed it, $20.

Please don't tell me that there is anybody on the face of the Earth that would go through all of this angst and effort to save twenty dollars. You'll easily spend more in time and materials than a brand new stone costs.


----------



## swagman (10 Jul 2016)

Charles; the word stupid; is derived from a Latin adjective that means “amazed or stunned,” and stupid people are stunned by everything because their minds are numb. 

Stewie;


----------



## CStanford (10 Jul 2016)

Well, yes, I'm stunned at the notion of flattening a $20 SiC honing stone. It's the essence of absurd. It'll cost more than that in loose grits and/or paper to do the job, and of course, time. And beyond that the results stand a decent chance of not being all that great.

This is reminiscent of the stories one occasionally hears of EBay buyers bidding a used Lie-Nielsen plane up over the price they could have paid for a brand new one bought directly from the company. Makes no sense in the real world.

"I should make mention that I previously trialled a Course DMT Diamond Stone to flatten these hard Silicon Carbide Stone's; the diamond grit was non existent after about 10 min of work. imo ; its the bonding agent that adheres the diamond grit to the top surface of the plate that cannot withstand the hardness of these Silicon Carbide Stone's. "

Unfortunately, it sounds like you ruined or severely shortened the life of a DMT diamond stone trying to flatten a $20 SiC stone. I'm pretty sure that DMT diamond stones don't go for twenty bucks.


----------



## swagman (10 Jul 2016)

Makes no sense in the real world.

You got that right Charles. Absolute stupidity. http://qz.com/726802/in-much-of-america ... a-protest/


----------



## NazNomad (10 Jul 2016)

Jacob":287pb80l said:


> 1. Flattening stones is completely unnecessary.
> 2. I've never done it (except once as an experiment).



1. Can you explain why?

2. So you have done it?


----------



## CStanford (10 Jul 2016)

swagman":iwosuvra said:


> Makes no sense in the real world.
> 
> You got that right Charles. Absolute stupidity. http://qz.com/726802/in-much-of-america ... a-protest/



Stewie, this isn't relevant. There are other forums to discuss politics. 

What's happening in this thread at this point is keeping another woodworker from ruining a $100+ honing stone by trying to flatten one that costs $20. I think this was just a matter of not understanding where the market is for SiC honing stones. They're obviously cheap and frankly not even worth fooling with if they become a little clogged or slow much less out of flat, if you've determined that flatness is a requirement. You just get a new one and move on. It's like worn out underwear, nobody has it repaired (who'd want that job anyway?) you just buy new.


----------



## CStanford (10 Jul 2016)

NazNomad":25kq2bws said:


> Jacob":25kq2bws said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Flattening stones is completely unnecessary.
> ...



People make the mistake of thinking they need the entire surface of a honing stone when backing off the burr on the face of the tool. You don't. You just need a relatively small area. I back off on the ends of the stone most of the time in order to even out the wear. And if your stone hasn't been cemented into the box you can use one face for backing off the burr and keep it flat if you just can't stand doing it any other way. The other face sees all the other action. I think backing off the burr in very tight circles results in a better edge anyway (anecdotal, don't get excited). You don't need the whole stone for this -- you can move spots from time to time.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Jul 2016)

There's someone who agrees with Jacob in my area - I found a boxed stone this morning at the market that was over 1/2" hollow. :shock: 
Charles, I don't use oilstones only waterstones but as my mother used to say when getting me to hoover or do the ironing as a child - pay attention to the edges and the corners and the middle will get done. It's years since I flattened one.


----------



## CStanford (10 Jul 2016)

Yep!

I'll say this for emphasis about hollowed stones -- flip it over and look at the other side. One side is usually allowed to go hollow and the other kept flat or at least as flat as it arrived from the manufacturer. Some stones will be found to have grooves that fit certain carving or turning tools perfectly revealing the previous owner's intent, if not his profession.

With just a touch of ingenuity all six sides (count 'em) of a stone can be used for something. And why not? You paid for the whole thing.


----------



## bugbear (10 Jul 2016)

phil.p":ojkyt27w said:


> There's someone who agrees with Jacob in my area - I found a boxed stone this morning at the market that was over 1/2" hollow. :shock:



I often find coarse stones are hollow - as long as the hollow is full width, it causes no trouble when working the bevel, but is useless for backing off the burr.

Presumably the owners of the stone either didn't remove the burr (yuck!) or removed it using another (flat) abrasive, either stone, or strop.

s/h fine stones tend to be flatter, I find.

BugBear


----------



## woodbrains (10 Jul 2016)

bugbear":cztru4q2 said:


> phil.p":cztru4q2 said:
> 
> 
> > There's someone who agrees with Jacob in my area - I found a boxed stone this morning at the market that was over 1/2" hollow. :shock:
> ...



Hello,

I always remove the burr with the final stone I intend using. Once the blade back has been polished on a fine stone, it only ever sees the fine one for burr removal. That said, I hate hollowed stones at any stage.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (10 Jul 2016)

Norton makes SiC stones in fine grit and these might be just the ticket for some of the relatively exotic alloys that have found their way into woodworking. They even make SiC slip stones for those who might be interested -- also round or axe stones in coarse/fine. I believe it was Robt. Wearing who mentioned using a round stone on scrapers. Could have been somebody else -- I know it was a Brit though. Lovely price points all...


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Jul 2016)

http://www.axminster.co.uk/india-oilstone-ax822726

Ours are a little more expensive than yours.  I don't know I'd ruin a diamond on one though.


----------



## CStanford (10 Jul 2016)

I guess these have to be imported then. Nobody in the UK making stones? I never imagined that. Sounds like a business opportunity.


----------



## bugbear (10 Jul 2016)

CStanford":1eyibb01 said:


> I guess these have to be imported then. Nobody in the UK making stones? I never imagined that. Sounds like a business opportunity.



There are many differences between the UK and the USA Charlie Boy. It's one of the reasons we bother having a UK forum. :lol: 

BugBear


----------



## memzey (10 Jul 2016)

Norton used to have a factory in Welwyn Garden City (not far from where I live). Not sure if they still do though. Doubt it. Also I thought the SiC ones were grey/black? Aren't indias something else?


----------



## woodbrains (10 Jul 2016)

Hello,

Yes, India stones are aluminium oxide.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (10 Jul 2016)

bugbear":31s8gcbg said:


> CStanford":31s8gcbg said:
> 
> 
> > I guess these have to be imported then. Nobody in the UK making stones? I never imagined that. Sounds like a business opportunity.
> ...



Well of course...

On a pricing note -- I guess unless DMTs are made in the UK then they are proportionally more expensive as well?


----------



## CStanford (10 Jul 2016)

Norton India stones slightly less than $20 each over here for the big, but thinner stones:

https://www.sharpeningsupplies.com/Nort ... 23C25.aspx

India Combo stones in the traditional 8x2x1 size -- $22

https://www.sharpeningsupplies.com/Nort ... 69C25.aspx

Strops and strop dressings and abrasives:

https://www.sharpeningsupplies.com/Strops-C11.aspx


----------



## Jacob (10 Jul 2016)

phil.p":3vhj04ek said:


> There's someone who agrees with Jacob in my area - I found a boxed stone this morning at the market that was over 1/2" hollow. :shock:
> Charles, I don't use oilstones only waterstones but as my mother used to say when getting me to hoover or do the ironing as a child - pay attention to the edges and the corners and the middle will get done. It's years since I flattened one.


Old used stones are always hollow (or at least, not perfectly flat), just as old chisels/plane irons always have rounded bevels. That's how it was done, with no problems. 

Nobody bothered with flattening until the new sharpening came along to make things difficult - the main motivation being the opportunity to sell loads of kit, DVDs , courses, articles.
As you say; "pay attention to the edges and the corners and the middle will get done".


----------



## essexalan (11 Jul 2016)

Never bought an old chisel or plane iron that had either a flat back or bevel in fact a lot of them looked like a train wreck. Rather than try to imitate the original owners methodology I flatten the backs and set the bevel how I like it. Nothing better than an SiC brick for this job and I like my stones flat so the OPs method of flattening SiC stones is what I personally use. It is quick, inexpensive and flattening stones takes one more variable out of my sharpening process. Naniwa sell a large range of SiC stones and they are far cheaper than what Norton offer.


----------



## woodbrains (11 Jul 2016)

Jacob":2un2ao4l said:


> Old used stones are always hollow (or at least, not perfectly flat), just as old chisels/plane irons always have rounded bevels. That's how it was done, with no problems.
> 
> Nobody bothered with flattening until the new sharpening came along to make things difficult - the main motivation being the opportunity to sell loads of kit, DVDs , courses, articles.
> As you say; "pay attention to the edges and the corners and the middle will get done".



Hello,

How does anyone know if they had problems or not? We find lots of tools with rounded backs, rounded bevels, skewed edges and drawn temper. Strangely, blades all near full length, having done little work. Perhaps there were lots of problems and the owners just gave up. There can be no link made between the virtually unused second hand tools we find and any woodwork we see from the same era. The tools that did fine antique work would have been worn to death and then thrown away.

If 'paying attention to the edges and the centre will look after itself' was a widely used tequnique, or was one that actually worked, why are all second hand stones dished? 

If craftsmen of yesterday year were often illiterate, bathed once a week and died of consumption before their children were adults, why would we emulate anything from the past. Thank the Lord things have improved. 

Mike.


----------



## ED65 (11 Jul 2016)

Well this is going to cause the vein in someone's forehead to start throbbing but I've gone to the trouble of flattening an SiC stone that cost me nothing at all. It was heavily dished on both sides when it came to me and required substantial effort to sort out. Why bother? Well I was brought up not to waste perfectly good stuff if some elbow grease and a bit of time would sort it out. 

If your priorities are different that's fine, but please don't pontificate to us who have a different set. 

I would however be in favour of spreading the notion that you don't need to spend much to do this kind of thing. The first few times I flattened stones I used a concrete block and I've read numerous posts from guys who use the pavement outside their house.


----------



## CStanford (11 Jul 2016)

I think I'll darn some old socks today. Now, where's that darn darning needle.... :wink:

Hopefully I'll get it done before I stroke out...


----------



## CStanford (11 Jul 2016)

ED65":115jx0cf said:


> Well this is going to cause the vein in someone's forehead to start throbbing but I've gone to the trouble of flattening an SiC stone that cost me nothing at all. It was heavily dished on both sides when it came to me and required substantial effort to sort out. Why bother? Well I was brought up not to waste perfectly good stuff if some elbow grease and a bit of time would sort it out.
> 
> If your priorities are different that's fine, but please don't pontificate to us who have a different set.
> 
> I would however be in favour of spreading the notion that you don't need to spend much to do this kind of thing. The first few times I flattened stones I used a concrete block and I've read numerous posts from guys who use the pavement outside their house.



The point of course is not to ruin a $150 stone repairing a $40 stone (pick/apply an exchange rate as it suits). Obviously a concrete block, assuming it works, is vastly preferable. Synthetic oilstones here are very cheap and if fault is found with one it really is easier just to get a new one. That said, they'll easily last an entire career with a minimum amount of care in use.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (11 Jul 2016)

I heard this tip about using concrete blocks, paving etc to flatten a stone. I tried it out on a Norton India oilstone I have which was dished in both directions, by rubbing it on a hard concrete paving slab. No discernable impact on the stone within the sort of timescale I'm willing to spend. Instead I made some improvement with judicious use of a carborundum wheel dressing stick, like this one. But only after a soak in paraffin, to avoid the stick getting gummed up with the oil.


----------



## swagman (11 Jul 2016)

I will get straight to the point and not skirt around the perimeters of nicety; I think both Jacob and Charles need to re evaluate the reasons they joined this forum. 

ED65 couldn't have stated it any better; *If your priorities are different that's fine, but please don't pontificate to us who have a different set. *

Stewie;


----------



## CStanford (11 Jul 2016)

Sheffield Tony":1f5xyizj said:


> I heard this tip about using concrete blocks, paving etc to flatten a stone. I tried it out on a Norton India oilstone I have which was dished in both directions, by rubbing it on a hard concrete paving slab. No discernable impact on the stone within the sort of timescale I'm willing to spend. Instead I made some improvement with judicious use of a carborundum wheel dressing stick, like this one. But only after a soak in paraffin, to avoid the stick getting gummed up with the oil.



I've certainly never done it and using a concrete building block, paver, etc. almost seems an urban legend at this point. It does come across as a bit improbable as the stones could be of a material harder than the block resulting in the block wearing down faster than the stone, the result of which would be a very large investment in time and possibly concrete blocks as the process interrupts their flatness which is supposedly serving as a reference surface. I'm guessing it would be a day-long lollipop but don't intend to find out.

When I used sandpaper on glass I could easily walk out of an auto parts store having spent more to replenish an inventory of paper than a stone would have cost, maybe even two if somebody were running a special. The point being is that it is not outside the bounds of reason to view stones as practically disposable with the caveat of course is that they can last years and years. I've never understood the appeal behind buying a used man-made stone given the prices of new ones, at least in the US.

Participants have objected to it having been pointed out that ruining an expensive stone to flatten a much cheaper stone makes little sense. I don't really know how to react to this other than by saying what I've already said and I stand by it: I'm comfortable that the vast majority of people, assuming they understand the price of stones, would not ruin an expensive diamond stone trying to flatten an inexpensive silicon carbide stone. In theory, the diamond would work great since it's harder than SiC. but the problem is that the binders and other materials to which the diamonds are affixed are much less robust than the SiC, hence the diamonds just fall off. Perhaps they can be recovered, and used loose, to finish the project. All in all it still seems ridiculous on its face. If this is 'pontificating' then so be it.


----------



## woodbrains (11 Jul 2016)

Hello,

Advocating the continuance of the disposable society, given the state of the planet, seems a bit odd, to say the least. Perhaps we should darn our socks, too. In fact if socks weren't made in the Far East by slave labour and seen as disposable, we would all be darning our socks, patching or knees etc, but then I suspect the American textile industry is as none existant and the British one, as no one wanted to pay the higher price for home manufactured goods and mend them.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (11 Jul 2016)

I still have the first oilstones I ever bought, they're quite old at this point. I'm not advocating anything other than common sense. If one wanted to live an almost totally self-sufficient existence it's probably still possible to a large extent. Hat's off to anybody who wants to try such a thing.


----------



## JohnPW (11 Jul 2016)

I prefer a flat stone.

Oil stones like a Norton might be cheap enough in the US for them be viewed as a disposable item but In the UK they are £30 (about $ 36 US) as mentioned already. Plus the fact that people in the UK are on average less well off than Americans in buying power, a new Norton oilstone is definitely not cheap in the UK.

I've read about rubbing on concrete or tarmac etc to flatten but isn't silicon carbide or alu oxide much harder, so I had my doubts. But how about rubbing two dished stones together? Or using a bench grinder to flatten?


----------



## memzey (11 Jul 2016)

I have picked up a number of old oilstones at boot fairs for between 50p and £1 a pop over the past few years. They were all dished in the same way which never really caused me a problem if I'm honest but being the gullible newb I am I thought they needed to be flat anyway. I just rubbed them against each other until one was flat and went with that. Turns out they both ended up flattish which may have been a happy fluke. It made no difference to their use although I will say they cut more aggressively for a while which I assume was down to crud infested bits falling off during the flattening. Would I waste my time doing it again? Nah, but if another woodworker feels that's the right thing for them to do then I'm ok with that


----------



## Steve Voigt (11 Jul 2016)

Jacob":30jg8oiu said:


> Nobody bothered with flattening until the new sharpening came along to make things difficult - the main motivation being the opportunity to sell loads of kit, DVDs , courses, articles.
> As you say; "pay attention to the edges and the corners and the middle will get done".



This is simply not correct. The original text of "The Joiner and Cabinetmaker" (1839) refers to workmen being fined for not flattening their stones. Charles Hayward, who learned his craft 100 years ago, warns strenuously about the dangers of not flattening stones, and gives a method (builders sand on a flagstone) that is not that different from what Stewie is doing. 

Flatness is not the only consideration: dressed stones cut much more rapidly. I'd rather not be at the sharpening station all day.

Regarding your earlier comment that flattening "severely shortens the life of a stone," I must say that I flatten my stones every week or two, but I expect I will be dead before my stones are too thin to use.

A couple other comments on this thread. Charlie referred to spending $300 to flatten a $20 stone. No doubt using the DMT on a Crystolon was pretty boneheaded, but it doesn't have to be that way. I bought 2 pounds (probably a lifetime supply) of 60-80 grit SiC for about $15, shipping included. I went to the local glass place to buy a remnant and they gave me one for free. So, you can spend less than $20. Amortized over hundreds or even thousands of flattenings, that works out to pennies per session.

Also, I have to agree with Ed's "If your priorities are different that's fine, but please don't pontificate to us who have a different set." For example, part of my living involves preparing irons and shipping them to others. I need to be able to tell someone honestly that I flattened the back on a flat stone. If they want to use a hollowed stone, that's fine, but I need to have some kind of consistent reference or starting point.

Last, while I obviously believe in flattening stones, I think I wouldn't have done so here. I don't have personal experience with Crystolon stones, but I know they are very hard and consequently difficult to flatten. At $20 per pop, I'd treat the stone as disposable, and just get a new one every few years. On the other hand, India and Arkansas stones are very easy to flatten.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Jul 2016)

Welcome Steve, fair comment. "Pay attention to the edges and the corners and the middle will get done" was my comment originally - I did not suggest it as a universal panacea, just a help in postponing the inevitable. Whether or not anyone thinks the inevitable worth a nanosecond's thought is secondary.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Jul 2016)

:lol: ... Actually, flattening the stone isn't going to shorten its life by a second - wearing it hollow in the first place is. You are not going to flatten it beyond the point up to which you wore it hollow. :lol:


----------



## Jacob (11 Jul 2016)

Steve Voigt":14pwbo00 said:


> .....
> Flatness is not the only consideration: dressed stones cut much more rapidly. I'd rather not be at the sharpening station all day.
> ......


Yes they do need refreshing. I use a 3m Diapad. Slightly bendy so it follows the dips. Just a quick pass (with white spirit or thin oil) and a wipe, every now and then.


----------



## woodbrains (12 Jul 2016)

Steve Voigt":1hk4javj said:


> Jacob":1hk4javj said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody bothered with flattening until the new sharpening came along to make things difficult - the main motivation being the opportunity to sell loads of kit, DVDs , courses, articles.
> ...



Hello,

Sensible fellow, I like this chap from his first post, I hope it continues!

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (12 Jul 2016)

"Last, while I obviously believe in flattening stones, I think I wouldn't have done so here. I don't have personal experience with Crystolon stones, but I know they are very hard and consequently difficult to flatten. At $20 per pop, I'd treat the stone as disposable, and just get a new one every few years. On the other hand, India and Arkansas stones are very easy to flatten."

Yep. Not really even worth fooling with should they become glazed and/or slower than one might prefer, much less out of flat. India stones, maybe, but they're just as inexpensive ($19) -- which is good news, not bad.


----------



## swagman (12 Jul 2016)

Charles; you have acquired an inept ability _to cherry pick comments that fall within your own agenda_; the following is the full version of what Steve Voigt stated; 

_Jacob wrote:

Nobody bothered with flattening until the new sharpening came along to make things difficult - the main motivation being the opportunity to sell loads of kit, DVDs , courses, articles.
As you say; "pay attention to the edges and the corners and the middle will get done"._

Steve Voigt:

This is simply not correct. The original text of "The Joiner and Cabinetmaker" (1839) refers to workmen being fined for not flattening their stones. Charles Hayward, who learned his craft 100 years ago, warns strenuously about the dangers of not flattening stones, and gives a method (builders sand on a flagstone) that is not that different from what Stewie is doing. 

Flatness is not the only consideration: dressed stones cut much more rapidly. I'd rather not be at the sharpening station all day.

Regarding your earlier comment that flattening "severely shortens the life of a stone," I must say that I flatten my stones every week or two, but I expect I will be dead before my stones are too thin to use.

A couple other comments on this thread. Charlie referred to spending $300 to flatten a $20 stone. No doubt using the DMT on a Crystolon was pretty boneheaded, but it doesn't have to be that way. I bought 2 pounds (probably a lifetime supply) of 60-80 grit SiC for about $15, shipping included. I went to the local glass place to buy a remnant and they gave me one for free. So, you can spend less than $20. Amortized over hundreds or even thousands of flattenings, that works out to pennies per session.

Also, I have to agree with Ed's "If your priorities are different that's fine, but please don't pontificate to us who have a different set." For example, part of my living involves preparing irons and shipping them to others. I need to be able to tell someone honestly that I flattened the back on a flat stone. If they want to use a hollowed stone, that's fine, but I need to have some kind of consistent reference or starting point.

Last, while I obviously believe in flattening stones, I think I wouldn't have done so here. I don't have personal experience with Crystolon stones, but I know they are very hard and consequently difficult to flatten. At $20 per pop, I'd treat the stone as disposable, and just get a new one every few years. On the other hand, India and Arkansas stones are very easy to flatten.


----------



## Biliphuster (12 Jul 2016)

phil.p":cd2w2w3y said:


> Welcome Steve, fair comment. "Pay attention to the edges and the corners and the middle will get done" was my comment originally - I did not suggest it as a universal panacea, just a help in postponing the inevitable. Whether or not anyone thinks the inevitable worth a nanosecond's thought is secondary.



I have a couple of oil stones which I have managed to _crown_ by using the edges and ends to sharpen chisel and plane bevels and using the whole stone for removing the burr. So far I have noticed no ill effects, in fact I am convinced there are a couple of advantages to using a stone which is higher in the middle.


----------



## Jacob (12 Jul 2016)

swagman":3ks4zzhy said:


> ......
> _Jacob wrote:
> 
> Nobody bothered with flattening until the new sharpening came along to make things difficult - the main motivation being the opportunity to sell loads of kit, DVDs , courses, articles.
> ...


You shouldn't take as gospel everything you read in books. This is just an isolated anecdote. No doubt some were strict about all sorts of things.


> Charles Hayward, who learned his craft 100 years ago, warns strenuously about the dangers of not flattening stones, and gives a method (builders sand on a flagstone) that is not that different from what Stewie is doing.


Hayward does not "warn strenuously" - again it's just another anecdote. Anybody who tries "builders sand on a flagstone" is going to be at it for a very long time, not least looking for flat flagstones and replacing them as they get hollowed out! The advice is usually for silver sand which is a lot sharper than builder's. It'd work as a means of cleaning up an old stone and refreshing the surface, but be no good for the modern obsessive flatteners.

The main evidence for not needing to flatten is:
1 that most old stones are not flat. I don't really believe that nobody knew how to sharpen properly until the modern sharpening fashions kicked in!
2 If you "flatten" your stones in use, by spreading the work carefully, you will never need to do it as a separate operation. NB they don't need to be perfectly flat, but phil.p's advice "pay attention to the edges and the corners and the middle will get done" is well worth remembering.

PS and nobody used to flatten the whole surface of plane blades or chisels, like the modern obsessives. Just the usual taking off the burr results in a slight flattening of the edge half inch or so, and this is all that's needed.
Buying expensive diamond plates for flattening stones is crazy - you'd be much better using them to sharpen tools.


----------



## bugbear (12 Jul 2016)

Jacob":2vkkioxq said:


> 1 that most old stones are not flat.
> 2 If you "flatten" your stones in use, by spreading the work carefully, you will never need to do it as a separate operation.



We can therefore conclude from (1) that the anonymous craftsman of old were ignorant of (2).

BugBear


----------



## swagman (12 Jul 2016)

_The main evidence for not needing to flatten is:
1 that most old stones are not flat. I don't really believe that nobody knew how to sharpen properly until the modern sharpening fashions kicked in!
2 If you "flatten" your stones in use, by spreading the work carefully, you will never need to do it as a separate operation. NB they don't need to be perfectly flat, but phil.p's advice "pay attention to the edges and the corners and the middle will get done" is well worth remembering._

Jacob; by your own reasoning; no.2 has to be a fairly modern practice. (hammer) 

Stewie;


----------



## bugbear (12 Jul 2016)

swagman":e68bp0qr said:


> _The main evidence for not needing to flatten is:
> 1 that most old stones are not flat. I don't really believe that nobody knew how to sharpen properly until the modern sharpening fashions kicked in!
> 2 If you "flatten" your stones in use, by spreading the work carefully, you will never need to do it as a separate operation. NB they don't need to be perfectly flat, but phil.p's advice "pay attention to the edges and the corners and the middle will get done" is well worth remembering._
> 
> ...



Actually, from a photo Jacob once posted, we know the stones he actually uses are flat. He's just arguing for the sake of it.

We also know that Jacob isn't a tool collector, and doesn't bother going to auctions or car boots sales, or tool dealers, he's too busy getting on with woodwork.

So his claims about what old kit he's seen, and how representative it might be, should be viewed accordingly.

Symmetrically, were I to make any statements about making sash windows with power tools, they should be treated with extreme caution. 

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (12 Jul 2016)

The whole debate is ridiculous, as was ruining an expensive diamond stone to rescue a dirt cheap stone and then leaving the impression that one would do it all over again without batting an eyelash. Lop the nose off to spite the face. Rinse, then repeat.

Man-made oilstones are an extraordinary value in a hobby or profession where most things are very expensive. If one finds fault for whatever reason, they are easily replaced at a very low absolute cost and certainly when compared to other stones and paper abrasives.

Dished stones can still be used. Rarely are both sides dished in the first place should one desire a full, flat side. Or, buy a new one for the cost of a beer and cigarette run to the grocery store. The old stone can be cleaved and ground to shape(s) to make little files and mini-hones if you need a project for a rainy afternoon.


----------



## D_W (12 Jul 2016)

Of all of the stones out there, a crystolon type stone is one to keep flat in use by overlapping corners and edges.

A new one is nice to have once in a while, anyway, because they get hard as they get old.

Some of the finer grit older bench stones are available on ebay for a couple of dollars. Some unused and still factory flat.


----------



## Jacob (12 Jul 2016)

bugbear":18a1lgjd said:


> Jacob":18a1lgjd said:
> 
> 
> > 1 that most old stones are not flat.
> ...


Confused BB, as ever! :lol: 
I'll explain carefully - read this slowly: you don't need to flatten stones as a separate process if you keep them _flat enough_ by careful use, as was always the way before the modern sharpening craze kicked in.



bugbear":18a1lgjd said:


> ...
> Actually, from a photo Jacob once posted, we know the stones he actually uses are flat. ....


I once posted a photo of a newish stone in use. This confused BB (as usual :lol: :lol: ) into thinking I had flattened all my other stones too. No logical connection but there you are. :roll:


----------



## swagman (12 Jul 2016)

_The whole debate is ridiculous, as was ruining an expensive diamond stone to rescue a dirt cheap stone and then leaving the impression that one would do it all over again without batting an eyelash. Lop the nose off to spite the face. Rinse, then repeat._

Charles; that is a load of malarkey; go back and read my opening post; its premised on the best method to flatten a hard Crystolon stone; a diamond stone wont do it; but loose sic powder over a glass plate will.


----------



## D_W (12 Jul 2016)

swagman":xlkn8ars said:


> _The whole debate is ridiculous, as was ruining an expensive diamond stone to rescue a dirt cheap stone and then leaving the impression that one would do it all over again without batting an eyelash. Lop the nose off to spite the face. Rinse, then repeat._
> 
> Charles; that is a load of malarkey; go back and read my opening post; its premised on the best method to flatten a hard Crystolon stone; a diamond stone wont do it; but loose sic powder over a glass plate will.



Loose SIC larger than the stone particles. Smaller SIC will grade the surface of the stone, and if it's an older stone that has gotten hard, it'll be hard to recover the cutting power of the stone.


----------



## Steve Voigt (12 Jul 2016)

Jacob":rtlckhci said:


> You shouldn't take as gospel everything you read in books. This is just an isolated anecdote. No doubt some were strict about all sorts of things.



It's not an isolated anecdote. Holtzapffel, vol.3 (1850), p.1142, agrees that "even distribution of wear" is important, but then says that stones occasionally need to be flattened. David Denning (1891), p.102, prescribes emery or sand on a level board. There's another reference from the same period that I unfortunately can't put my hands on at the moment. 

And I don't believe everything I read in books, but I'll believe a reputable old book before I'll believe some guy on the Internet, any day.



Jacob":rtlckhci said:


> Hayward does not "warn strenuously" - again it's just another anecdote. Anybody who tries "builders sand on a flagstone" is going to be at it for a very long time, not least looking for flat flagstones and replacing them as they get hollowed out!



Seriously, you want to argue about whether my use of "strenuously" was correct, and whether Hayward's method was effective? Let's stay on track, shall we? I was responding to your claim that "nobody flattened stones until the new sharpening came along" (whatever that means). Clearly Hayward is refuting your claim; whether you think it was strenuous enough is beside the point.



Jacob":rtlckhci said:


> The main evidence for not needing to flatten is:
> 1 that most old stones are not flat. I don't really believe that nobody knew how to sharpen properly until the modern sharpening fashions kicked in!



Most old saws that I find are completely dull and have random geometry, unequal tooth height, and too much set. Should we therefore maintain our saws this way, because that's what "users in the past" did? (It's a rhetorical question)

If we're going to look to the past to decide how best to use our tools, we should look to an era when people used hand tools for most or all things, and when hand tool skills were strong. But when you find an old oilstone at garage (or "boot") sale, on Ebay, or wherever, It's unlikely that Duncan Phyfe was the last guy to use it; it was probably used by some guy in the 20th century who didn't have much or any expertise. So you really can't draw any conclusions about what competent 18th/19th c. users did by basing your observations on tools that were abused by hacks in the 20th century. If you can find a bunch of stones that were owned by skilled workers before the 20th c., and if you can prove that they haven't been used since, then you might have some useful data. Right now, you don't. You be a lot better off looking at those old books that you so disdain.


----------



## D_W (12 Jul 2016)

I just went out to ebay out of curiosity to look at the sharpening stone "lots". They're always littered with carborundum and india stones because machinists bought those and cast them aside when they loaded (probably put in a purchase order for a new one). It didn't take long to find a lot of 8 stones for $8 (shipping brought the total up to $19), four of them were 2x8 and 2x7 carborundum stones, the other four were small stones and scythe stones.

There are gobs of those lots on ebay. 6 or 7 years ago, I got a sale lot of stones because I wanted slips and triangles from it. When I got the lot in the mail, there were so many different bench stones in it (some of them interesting tries at an india type stone with a stinky mud binder) that it must've been less than a dollar a pound for them when all was said and done. I slipped the india stones in boxes of stuff I've sold over the years, and kept the interesting stones. 

Flip side of that, I think it's useful to keep a pound or two of 60 grit SiC around, sooner or later you'll find a user for it and it doesn't matter if it's in two decades when you do.

(but like i mentioned above, keeping a silicon carbide stone flat is sort of a lost cause other than functionally flat - they are friable, or if they are no longer friable, they load quickly, and they're not good for backs. They are the best stone anywhere for coarse bevel work and cleaning up a knife that's got some damage. FAR better than diamond hones, far cheaper, and the result on the edge is far cleaner without deep scratches...and they're faster on knives and most chisels).


----------



## CStanford (12 Jul 2016)

One can easily back off a cutter on a stone with a profound swale. You just use the areas at the end that are still flat, which is precisely what the previous user would have done (you actually can do it in the swale from side to side if you're careful). There is no need to run the flat face, lengthwise, on the stone practically from end to end. They were likely never flat enough for this sort of technique to begin with. If you started out with a cutter with a pretty flat back and now it's not so flat, this very thing is likely the cause or at least one of the top three suspects.

The old saws mentioned in a previous post were likely ruined by users from the 1940s onward, and have little to do with honing stones. You can ruin a saw in a couple of sharpenings (It usually only takes me one time to ruin one :wink: ). It takes years to put a decent swale into a stone, even a man-made stone. The chance that some amateur working in a garage a weekend or so out of the month could do it is pretty remote. That leaves stones with a pronounced swale coming out of some sort of professional shop, or a busy but capable amateur's. And a lot of stones on EBay, natural and man-made, have this very "flaw."

All this said, it's pretty easy to keep one flat (to the naked eye kind of flat, not to a machine room grade spec). You just use the whole surface, and of course, both sides.


----------



## Jacob (12 Jul 2016)

Steve Voigt":1tnw3xsa said:


> .... Holtzapffel, vol.3 (1850), p.1142, agrees that "even distribution of wear" is important,


Yep. That's all you need to do


> but then says that stones occasionally need to be flattened. .......


OK yes, in extremis, if somebody hasn't been doing as above, or using a stone in a very clumsy way.
Obviously there will be a point beyond which a badly misused stone might need remedial work but there is no need to let them get into that condition. Can't say I've ever needed to myself and I have no problem sharpening.

You seem to be unlucky with your saw purchases! I've had some brilliant old saws - corrosion blunts them but often they can be got going again in minutes, rust and all.


----------



## Jacob (12 Jul 2016)

CStanford":ltl6vf15 said:


> .....
> The old saws mentioned in a previous post were likely ruined by users from the 1940s onward, and have little to do with honing stones. You can ruin a saw in a couple of sharpenings (It usually only takes me one time to ruin one :wink: ). It takes years to put a decent swale into a stone, even a man-made stone. The chance that some amateur working in a garage a weekend or so out of the month could do it is pretty remote. That leaves stones with a pronounced swale coming out of some sort of professional shop, or a busy but capable amateur's. And a lot of stones on EBay, natural and man-made, have this very "flaw."


Yes it's taken me many years to hollow some new stones!


> All this said, it's pretty easy to keep one flat (to the naked eye kind of flat, not to a machine room grade spec). You just use the whole surface, and of course, both sides.


Yep.

PS "swale" is N American apparently, but survives here in Swaledale, so we know what it means immediately!

PPS - for any newbies reading this - sharpening is much easier, quicker, cheaper, sharper, if you avoid all the modern fads and fashions. Sharpening used to cost absolutely F.A. but now is a major cost, both in time and money


----------



## swagman (13 Jul 2016)

*The Grimsdale Method* goes by the moniker Mr. Grimsdale. His real name is Jacob Butler.

http://www.closegrain.com/2010/04/grimsdale-method.html


----------



## swagman (13 Jul 2016)

*Jacob Butler's Joinery Workshop: Woodwork Tips*

http://www.owdman.co.uk/howto/howto.htm

The following is a link that Jacob recommends you read; http://www.finewoodworking.com/how-to/a ... ening.aspx

_After hollow-grinding the bevel on a chisel or plane iron (a crucial step, see sidebar below), it’s time to hone. I use aggressive Norton waterstones, but oilstones or sandpaper on glass or granite also works. I start with a 1,000-grit stone, followed by 4,000 and 8,000 grits. Make sure the stones are flat before you start. I flatten stones by rubbing them against a 220-grit waterstone that I flatten on glass with silicon carbide powder._

_In my experience, a hollow grind on a blade’s bevel is critical for honing freehand. A flat bevel rocks too easily, forming a convex shape that is nearly impossible to hold consistently against the stone. In contrast, a concave bevel has two contact points, so it is easy to maintain the correct angle._

_When your tool’s edge gets dull, you’ll begin to see small nicks or a tip that reflects light at its very edge (meaning it is slightly rounded). To get a fresh edge, repeat the above steps without the hollow grinding. At some point, though, you’ll need to return to the grinder. This is because each time you hone a tool, you expand the polished, flattened surfaces at both the tip and the heel, filling in the hollow between them and leaving too much metal for your finest stones to handle._

And this was the latest recommendation by Jacob on this thread; 

_PPS - for any newbies reading this - sharpening is much easier, quicker, cheaper, sharper, if you avoid all the modern fads and fashions. Sharpening used to cost absolutely F.A. but now is a major cost, both in time and money_


----------



## Jacob (13 Jul 2016)

swagman":2s4pt15s said:


> *Jacob Butler's Joinery Workshop: Woodwork Tips*
> 
> http://www.owdman.co.uk/howto/howto.htm
> 
> ...


Flattered that you take such an interest in my site. If you read a little more closely you would see that I don't necessarily commend all the content of the various links I quoted - they were there to expand the discussion. 
In fact that link is to an article full of nonsense, thanks for the tip off! I'll get around to editing the site sooner or later and let people know that the instructions on that site are total b****cks, to avoid misunderstanding!
A bit out of date my site. New one along sooner or later!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Jul 2016)

Hmmm ...


----------



## CStanford (13 Jul 2016)

swagman":1rh29run said:


> *The Grimsdale Method* goes by the moniker Mr. Grimsdale. His real name is Jacob Butler.
> 
> http://www.closegrain.com/2010/04/grimsdale-method.html



And an excerpt of the bloggist's conclusion on Jacob's method:

My conclusion: this is a simple, fast, effective technique. Good enough that it's encouraged me to give old-fashioned India stones another try (since the old fellers didn't have these high-tech diamonds; would Roy allow DMT's in his classroom?).

The end result is that I'm extremely happy with this method. It's fast and effective for various sharpening media; I have no doubt it would work just as well with waterstones. It's completely portable with fast setup. The India and Arkansas stones should last me 30 years, which is one reason I chose them over waterstones. While waterstones may cut faster, they also wear faster. These stones get the job done just fine with only a few minutes of effort. So no fussing around, back to working wood quickly.


----------



## D_W (13 Jul 2016)

That blogger refers to steve branham, who had made a blog post a couple of years ago touting Paul Sellers' method. In the comments below that post, if I recall the dates correctly, someone had asked Steve about his use of the Sellers method about a year after the original post, and already by then (after spending money on equipment), he said "it works, but I no longer use that method". Something of that sort. 

Sharpening involves very little - removing wear and establishing a new edge, and being able to reach the wire edge and remove it. when someone has to adopt someone else's method paint by number lock stock and barrel, it's a problem. 

Out of curiosity last night, I went down to my bench because I know I had a carborundum 108 at one point and for novelty, I'm going to make the next kitchen cabinet in my menu of cabinets with just that stone and a strop.....except I threw it away, because they're only worth about $2 or $3 on the open market and it wasn't worth selling. Since I have a fetish with such a thing, I'll just order another one. 

I'm sure they could be sharpened with 15 different ways, with or without the sway left in the stone, and the result would still be tools good enough to use as long as some dope didn't forget to sharpen to the edge itself, or if they left a huge strong wire edge on whatever they were sharpening.


----------



## CStanford (13 Jul 2016)

Your larger point is well-taken David. It might be best not to take bloggists too literally. They're famous for doing an about-face, some of the most notable being Chris Schwarz's. My son's kit is pretty much exclusively honed this way -- I didn't want him on the grinder at the time we put it all together. The planes and chisels work just as well as those hollow ground and subsequently honed. It's the essence of simplicity and at that time, he was 11, his edges didn't leave anything to be desired.


----------



## Jacob (13 Jul 2016)

It's odd that the normal more or less universal way of sharpening only 60 years ago (when I first had a go at school) and still going in 1982 when I did a C&G course, is now seen as weird, verging on perversion!


----------



## CStanford (13 Jul 2016)

It is indeed. I'm happy to have found the technique. I don't know why so many people turn their nose up at it, other than it doesn't really feed a need to spend lots of money.


----------



## Carl P (13 Jul 2016)

Just recently bought a wheelwrights tool chest that had three stones in it, an India with little use therefore perfectly flat, a coticule well used with a slight hollow, and what I assume is an Arkansas which was well used and quite flat - they all looked like they'd been used freehand but with care as regards flatness, not perfectly flat of course, but certainly more than flat enough to sharpen with. Probably dates from the 1930's and judging by the other remaining tools they haven't been abused by other family members. I imagine these stones would be fairly typical of those of a good craftsman of the period. Must admit though, I don't really understand what all the fuss is about - I like my stones to be quite flat but I can't say that I feel anything except mild interest in how other people choose to do things. Also I feel poitively interested in how other people flatten stones, I haven't had to myself, except for some slate stones that are obviously easily flattened, but you never know when the information might be useful for something one day. 

Cheerio,

Carl


----------



## CStanford (13 Jul 2016)

Did you check both sides of these stones?


----------



## Jacob (13 Jul 2016)

Carl P":lalnajnd said:


> ... I don't really understand what all the fuss is about -....l


It's about the new sharpeners, who are convinced that the only way to sharpen is to indulge in a set of time consuming and expensive procedures recently invented (about 1985 at a guess). 
It wouldn't matter except a lot of beginners might assume that this is the only and the proper way. 
You read of buyers of sets of expensive chisels who spend hours on the ritual of "flattening the backs" - expensive and completely unnecessary. 
NB by "backs" they mean "faces". "Backs" is a sort of code to say "I am a new sharpener and everything I know is from mags, web sites, tool catalogues." :lol: :lol:


----------



## Steve Voigt (13 Jul 2016)

Jacob":2d5kv555 said:


> It's odd that the normal more or less universal way of sharpening only 60 years ago … is now seen as weird, verging on perversion!



"Perversion" is probably too strong; I'd call it a historical aberration, or degenerate technique.

It gets at an issue that is wider than just sharpening stones. Guys like you and Sellers talk about the techniques you learned in the 1950s as though they were some sort of "normal, universal" way of working. It's as if the fifties were the Golden Age of hand tools, when in reality they were more like the Dark Ages. Hand tool skills started declining in the mid-19th c. and probably bottomed out in the late 20th c.; By 1950 they were basically circling the drain.

If we look at the techniques that were commonly taught and practiced in the mid-20th c., we'd see that most (not all) woodworkers:

- rarely flattened stones and often used badly hollowed ones.
- routinely rounded or dubbed the backs of tools.
- used convex bevels or eclipse-style guides.
- had no idea how chipbreakers worked.
- used shoulder or router planes to pare tenons (after deliberately sawing them fat).
- chopped mortises undersize and then pared them to size.

I could go on, but hopefully everyone gets the point.

On the other hand, if we have even a tiny bit of intellectual curiosity and we try to figure out what woodworkers (again most, not claiming all) did in the 18th/19th centuries, we see that they:

- both flattened stones when necessary and (as Jacob rightly stresses) made an effort to keep them flat in use.
- avoided rounding or dubbing of backs.
- used a primary bevel/ secondary bevel freehand sharpening technique, and considered convex bevels to be bad form.
- sawed tenons to size and if necessary pared them with a broad chisel.
- chopped mortises right to size, without drilling, paring, or other complications.

In every case, the earlier technique is faster or more accurate or produces a better surface. Now, it's no skin off my nose if you want to use any or all of the less effective methods; why would I care? What bugs me, and the reason I posted in the first place, is that you constantly misrepresent these methods as "normal," "universal," "what everyone did," etc. And no doubt you'll keep repeating these claims forever, but people should know that they're not true. That's all.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Jul 2016)

Convex bevels!!! how very dare they! :shock: :lol: =D>


----------



## iNewbie (13 Jul 2016)

Steve Voigt":226kvw0m said:


> Jacob":226kvw0m said:
> 
> 
> > It's odd that the normal more or less universal way of sharpening only 60 years ago … is now seen as weird, verging on perversion!
> ...



What you need to understand steve is that Jacob worshipped at the alter of Mr. Sellers. He's been his Guru. Which is why he sounds like him. You'll find him on his blog pages some years back.

Here he is hatching like a butterfly into Jacob from his chrysalis of Mr. Grimsdale.


https://paulsellers.com/2011/12/sharpen ... ow-stones/


And Mr. Sellers distancing himself once he goes-off-on-one; once again, about "crazy sharpeners". :roll: 

https://paulsellers.com/2012/05/more-de ... mysteries/


----------



## CStanford (13 Jul 2016)

Steve Voigt wrote:

If we look at the techniques that were commonly taught and practiced in the mid-20th c., we'd see that most (not all) woodworkers:

- rarely flattened stones and often used badly hollowed ones.
- routinely rounded or dubbed the backs of tools.
- used convex bevels or eclipse-style guides.
- had no idea how chipbreakers worked.
- used shoulder or router planes to pare tenons (after deliberately sawing them fat).
- chopped mortises undersize and then pared them to size.

This is even more asinine than the fellow who ruined his DMT flattening his SiC stone. Unfortunately Steve, you're showing how poorly read you really are -- all of this and more is either in the nine editions of Planecraft published from the 1930s to 1980s or in one of Charles Hayward's many books, Wells & Hooper, Joyce, Joyce as revised and expanded by Alan Peters, Wearing, et al. I'm not sure how you've determined that these techniques were (or were not) 'commonly taught and practiced' and where these deficiencies actually occurred but these are not the techniques memorialized in the better 20th century woodworking handbooks, all of which should be in your library but apparently are not. 

It's as if you are asserting that all of these books were written, most in at least two, three or more editions, and they never sold a copy and nobody ever used them, and they referred to technique nobody would recognize.


----------



## Jacob (13 Jul 2016)

Steve Voigt":2vhn7imk said:


> ..
> If we look at the techniques that were commonly taught and practiced in the mid-20th c., we'd see that most (not all) woodworkers:
> 
> - rarely flattened stones and often used badly hollowed ones.
> ...


Dear me you had some dreadful teachers! I must have been lucky I claim no credit.


----------



## CStanford (13 Jul 2016)

Jacob":1p6ah6d2 said:


> Steve Voigt":1p6ah6d2 said:
> 
> 
> > ..
> ...



Most of the jokers who have a come-apart and start running around like Chicken Little over a vintage but hollowed stone lack the sense to take it out of its box and look at the other side. Grooves and hollows, places to hone a turning tool, a firmer gouge, a few carving tools, camber an iron automatically... none of this ever seems to occur to them as explanations for the non-flat side. And when you find one with two non-flat sides you are likely looking at a stone used by a turner, carver, or somebody not in a wood trade at all.

And again, all that said, even on the non-flat side there is almost always enough space at each end to back off the face.

The admonition "keep your stone flat" doesn't mean, or have to mean, both sides.


----------



## Steve Voigt (13 Jul 2016)

CStanford":1fbf9s5q said:


> This is even more asinine than the fellow who ruined his DMT flattening his SiC stone. Unfortunately Steve, you're showing how poorly read you really are -- all of this and more is either in the nine editions of Planecraft published from the 1930s to 1980s or in one of Charles Hayward's many books, Wells & Hooper, Joyce, Joyce as revised and expanded by Alan Peters, Wearing, et al. I'm not sure how you've determined that these techniques were (or were not) 'commonly taught and practiced' and where these deficiencies actually occurred but these are not the techniques memorialized in the better 20th century woodworking handbooks, all of which should be in your library but apparently are not.
> 
> It's as if you are asserting that all of these books were written, most in at least two, three or more editions, and they never sold a copy and nobody ever used them, and they referred to technique nobody would recognize.





Jacob":1fbf9s5q said:


> Dear me you had some dreadful teachers! I must have been lucky I claim no credit.



Charlie,

Note that I said "taught and practiced." In fairness, I probably should have said taught _or_ practiced. I made no mention of reputable writers like Hayward, who I've already cited in this thread. Of the 6 points I listed, the first three can be confirmed by looking at old stones and tools, and Jacob has regularly used this as evidence for his point of view, which you've repeatedly supported. Point 4 has been discussed ad nauseum on forums and I'm not going to repeat that. The last two points can be found in plenty of sources. I stand by what I wrote.

And with that, I think I'll take my leave. On every other forum I've ever been on, the moderators moderated. They were neutral and restrained; they never belittled or bullied or berated the participants, or called them "asinine" or "absurd." It's a nice tag team Jacob and you have going, sort of a good cop/ bad cop thing, but it sure poisons the whole atmosphere. I appreciate that I had a chance to make my point; now I'll leave it up to others to decide for themselves. Besides, I have planes to make.


----------



## CStanford (14 Jul 2016)

When I saw your name attached to that list I thought to myself who or what has taken possession of Steve Voigt. 

I sure am sorry. Something has gone of the rails my friend.

My responses are in blue to your list:

"If we look at the techniques that were commonly taught and practiced in the mid-20th c., we'd see that most (not all) woodworkers:"

- rarely flattened stones and often used badly hollowed ones. Stones have two sides; one is almost always flat. There is virtually no reason to keep both sides flat, nor is it necessarily desirable to do so.
- routinely rounded or dubbed the backs of tools. So what? It's a back bevel on a plane iron or a knife edge like carvers use on the majority of their chisels. They cut great. Try it sometime. If you told a carver a knife-edge chisel wouldn't work he'd laugh his fanny off.
- used convex bevels or eclipse-style guides.  All woodworkers are not bench woodworkers. They needed a technique for the field when a grinding facility was not available.
- had no idea how chipbreakers worked. The math in the the table found in all *NINE* editions of Planecraft spanning the shank of the entire 20th century clearly implies a setting of 1/64" to 1/128" if you can follow the simple mathematical progression. 1/128" is almost exactly the middle range of Kato & Kawai when you convert millimeters. Otherwise, there are too many references to 'as close as you can get it to the cutting edge to even list. Total nonstarter.
- used shoulder or router planes to pare tenons (after deliberately sawing them fat). Not as a normal routine, but as a fix. No different than Frid or Klausz showing how to fix a gappy dovetail. Stuff happens, you cut rich you cut lean and need a fix when you do. Robt. Wearing presents this technique, but again as a fix. He explicitly and unequivocally stresses the importance of tenons fitting off the saw and he does this in two of his books.
- chopped mortises undersize and then pared them to size. Not sure where you've come up with this. I've never read anything but set a gauge off the chisel and mark mortise and tenon with it. Completely precludes what you're asserting other than for perhaps when a mortise is bored then pared but in this instance you use the mortise to mark the tenon width. So, still can't imagine where this is coming from, I've never read or heard this suggested from any source.


----------



## swagman (14 Jul 2016)

_This is even more asinine than the fellow who ruined his DMT flattening his SiC stone. _

Charles; for someone who is so confident within his own abilities you sure lack a lot of spaff when it comes to exhibiting examples of your own work. If I recall; the excuse you gave last time was you had no idea how to attach photo's to a thread; advise was given; you then posted 2 photo's; one of you dressed up as a church leader; and the other was of you standing beside your work bench. No relevance to what was being asked of you.

Stewie;


----------



## CStanford (14 Jul 2016)

I'm sorry. My rhetoric was too rough. I really am sorry.


----------



## swagman (14 Jul 2016)

CStanford":1hi1vupz said:


> I'm sorry. My rhetoric was too rough. I really am sorry.



Charles; for someone who is so confident within his own abilities you sure lack a lot of spaff when it comes to exhibiting examples of your own work. If I recall; the excuse you gave last time was you had no idea how to attach photo's to a thread; advise was given; you then posted 2 photo's; one of you dressed up as a church leader; and the other was of you standing beside your work bench. No relevance to what was being asked of you.

Stewie;


----------



## Jacob (14 Jul 2016)

Steve Voigt":n7kwpz9n said:


> .....Jacob has regularly used this as evidence for his point of view, .....


The principle evidence for my point of view is that the technique works very well and is cheap, quick, etc. That's good enough for me.

I do think it's a great pity that some so simple techniques have been overthrown and turned into a techy shopping spree.


----------



## bugbear (14 Jul 2016)

Jacob":3ngu2f7p said:


> I do think it's a great pity that some so simple techniques have been overthrown and turned into a techy shopping spree.



And I take good photographs with a second hand £35 quid from eBay camera - I didn't just rush out and buy an expensive DSLR. 

How's that titanium and carbon fibre bike working out for you?

And all those musical instruments you freely admit you can't play very well?

I think you should stop commenting on other people's shopping habits.

Pot, kettle and all that.

BugBear


----------



## essexalan (14 Jul 2016)

As Jim Kingshott said " The novice should experiment with different methods, keep an open mind and be prepared to try out new ideas. One should not be influenced by what other people state as the correct and only way to obtain a sharp edge. The method that works best for you is the one to use". I made the move to water stones from oil stones about 40 years ago and have stuck with them. I did play around with Scary Sharp but it wasn't for me. I suppose if I had a grinder then I would have tried hollow grinds but hard to justify the expense just for an increase in speed. There really isn't a silver bullet for this very simple process of just removing metal using an abrasive surface. 
SiC #60 grit is indeed very handy to have around not least for flattening chisel and plane iron backs, yes I call them backs because my Dad called them backs ;0).


----------



## ED65 (14 Jul 2016)

Reluctant as I am to step foot in this thread again I want to post a correction of sorts on one point.



CStanford":3382m3fv said:


> Otherwise, there are too many references to 'as close as you can get it to the cutting edge to even list. Total nonstarter.


This was not nearly as universal as you're saying here and as a limited (cherry-picked?) sample of sources would allow one to safely infer.

As I mentioned in passing recently, after the endless back and forth in the thread on the loss (or not) of the knowledge of the correct way to use a cap iron I set myself a project: to peruse every woodworking book I have access to, in paper and electronic form, for any and all information they contained about the setting of the cap iron. Obviously I was particularly looking for any detailed guidance on close setting for "difficult woods", "cross-grained or complex-grained boards", "[where] the grain [is] the least unfavourable".

This wasn't a _I'll just have a look at a few books..._, I started in December and the last update was at the beginning of June.

So I can with some confidence state that, from the 19th century through to the mid-20th advice on how to set the cap iron as needed (if any was given at all) was extremely variable and in fact taken together is downright contradictory. But most importantly, only a handful said "as close to the edge as you can get" or any words to that effect.


----------



## Jacob (14 Jul 2016)

bugbear":2o1xzmg2 said:


> Jacob":2o1xzmg2 said:
> 
> 
> > I do think it's a great pity that some so simple techniques have been overthrown and turned into a techy shopping spree.
> ...


Nor me. Several ebay cameras over the years.


> How's that titanium and carbon fibre bike working out for you?


Just did Sea to Sea (aka C2C) Whitehaven to Tynmouth via Alston. Back via Keilder Water and Solway firth. Very enjoyable. You ought to get a bike BB I'm sure it'd do you good.


> And all those musical instruments you freely admit you can't play very well?


Practice practice - getting better every day!


> I think you should stop commenting on other people's shopping habits...


OK I realise that sharpening is a hobby in it's own right, but my remarks are generally for woodworkers who just want to get on and do woodwork.
It's not easy to get simple advice - the enthusiasts tend to dominate, and the commercial interests of course. 
There's enormous pressure to buy stupid stuff and waste a lot of time and money


----------



## iNewbie (14 Jul 2016)

Jacob":1w2tfek6 said:


> OK I realise that sharpening is a hobby in it's own right, but my remarks are generally for woodworkers who just want to get on and do woodwork.
> It's not easy to get simple advice - the enthusiasts tend to dominate, and the commercial interests of course.
> There's enormous pressure to buy stupid stuff and waste a lot of time and money



The only pressure is your biased view having been sucked into the spendy world yourself and crusading over your fatal error ever since - and now everyone and their goat has too _pay_ for it in regurgitation. We get it. Relax, flatten a carborundum or something.


----------



## woodbrains (14 Jul 2016)

Hello,

If Steve Voigt has truly gone for good, then some here ought to be ashamed of themselves, and perhaps the moderators should do something. Some of the remarks made were a bit too personal and name calling, and were not about logically putting a differing point of view across. I think Steve might have been a useful addition to the forum, being a tool maker and all, contributing to a hand tool forum, we should have done our best to keep him interested.

The gist of what he was saying, was that hand skills were at their zenith before anyone here wes trained, and doing a course in the 1980's is no recommendation as to how things were done or should be done. ironically Charlie and others in previous forums said things like 'the finest work was done by Georgian furniture makers and we should emulate their methods' which is precisely what Steve was saying, and yet somehow Charlie seems to have chased him away. I don't think anyone here, apart from Jacob, is saying that a flat portion of a stone is not necessary, or taken to its obvious conclusion, keeping a flat stone for when needed or even flattening a stone once in a while. It all amounts to the same thing; for backing off the burr, we need something flat to do it. So why did anyone have to be insulted enough to leave, when everybody, except Jacob, is saying essentially the same, with just a variation of degree. Even Stewie, the OP was trying to be helpful by pointing out that diamond stones are not the way to keep a SiC stone flat, and was completely vilified about making a mistake and ruining a diamond plate, when in fact he was trying to be helpful.

Finally, Jacob despite repeating ad nauseum about unnecessary flattening, cannot find a single person or piece of literature to back the claim. Even Paul Sellers shows pictures of his tools with flat, mirror polished backs, keeps diamond plates for flattening so that any dishing on his sharpening stones don't prevent him from flattening and advises, to avoid flattening stones, a separate fine stone is kept just for backing off. He even disagrees about Jacob's statement about modern sharpening being some crazy fad. Interesting, that! 

All we can conclude is that sharpening is all about getting the edge that will work by abrading it. It can be achieved by minor variances in technique, but that is all. If someone flattens a stone to get the edge he or she needs, as opposed to someone using the stones side, or keeping a separate stone, what of it? 

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (14 Jul 2016)

woodbrains":door0moz said:


> ......
> Finally, Jacob despite repeating ad nauseum about unnecessary flattening, cannot find a single person or piece of literature to back the claim.....


 Not true. According to Steve Voigt Holtzapffel agrees with me; vol.3 (1850), p.1142, t "even distribution of wear" is important. Which is all I'm saying. You just need to evenly distribute wear, to a greater or lesser extent according to what you do. If you need to flatten you have been doing it wrong.


----------



## D_W (14 Jul 2016)

I think there is a passage in holtzapffel that mentions cretans and suggests that craftsmen will sometimes true them several times in one day if they are using them heavily.


----------



## D_W (14 Jul 2016)

ED65":2kfdnlqh said:


> Reluctant as I am to step foot in this thread again I want to post a correction of sorts on one point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When these discussions started in 2012, Charlie posted that he was going to give the method a try (it's probably archived on woodcentral). He came up with all of these things he knew about it later.

It's apparent he's still not good at setting it because he's full of suggestions of other substitute methods that take more time and that are less effective.


----------



## CStanford (14 Jul 2016)

To say that fine hand tool skills "died" insults an awfully large number of 20th century fine furniture makers, a lot of whom are British. These kinds of statements are beyond hyperbole and ridiculous on their face. One might not have an affinity for the particular STYLES of furniture coming out of this period, but its extraordinary execution which more often than not relied on highly developed fine hand tool and other manual skills is simply not even debatable. People who think otherwise are profoundly uninformed, have oddly wild imaginations, weird internet forum agendas, or a good bit of all three. Somehow, whether or not a certain craftsman/artist every uttered using a very close cap iron to prepare a surface for a finish, to the exclusion of all other techniques, has come to be the measure of the man or woman's work. It's so laughable, and sad, and sad that people buy into this tripe and give it any credence whatsoever. We have to skin a cat THIS WAY, or not at all. This narrative seems to have had a strong affect on the toolmakers around and about. I guess that's understandable, but getting a little strained at this point in my opinion.


----------



## Beau (14 Jul 2016)

essexalan":ulyx0maj said:


> As Jim Kingshott said " The novice should experiment with different methods, keep an open mind and be prepared to try out new ideas. One should not be influenced by what other people state as the correct and only way to obtain a sharp edge. The method that works best for you is the one to use".



Great bit of advise =D>


----------



## D_W (14 Jul 2016)

CStanford":w0ukudtv said:


> To say that fine hand tool skills "died" insults an awfully large number of 20th century fine furniture makers, a lot of whom are British. These kinds of statements are beyond hyperbole and ridiculous on their face. One might not have an affinity for the particular STYLES of furniture coming out of this period, but its extraordinary execution which more often than not relied on highly developed fine hand tool and other manual skills is simply not even debatable. People who think otherwise are profoundly uninformed, have oddly wild imaginations, weird internet forum agendas, or a good bit of all three. Somehow, whether or not a certain craftsman/artist every uttered using a very close cap iron to prepare a surface for a finish, to the exclusion of all other techniques, has come to be the measure of the man or woman's work. It's so laughable, and sad, and sad that people buy into this tripe and give it any credence whatsoever. We have to skin a cat THIS WAY, or not at all. This narrative seems to have had a strong affect on the toolmakers around and about. I guess that's understandable, but getting a little strained at this point in my opinion.



I'm not sure who uses the term "died". The rest of the stuff of "the only measure" is pure fantasy. 

Do your breathing exercises, Charlie.


----------



## D_W (14 Jul 2016)

JohnPW":1ut1fbss said:


> I prefer a flat stone.
> 
> Oil stones like a Norton might be cheap enough in the US for them be viewed as a disposable item but In the UK they are £30 (about $ 36 US) as mentioned already. Plus the fact that people in the UK are on average less well off than Americans in buying power, a new Norton oilstone is definitely not cheap in the UK.
> 
> I've read about rubbing on concrete or tarmac etc to flatten but isn't silicon carbide or alu oxide much harder, so I had my doubts. But how about rubbing two dished stones together? Or using a bench grinder to flatten?



A bench grinder might be dangerous (but with a coarse hard wheel might work, especially since you can dress it as the stone grades the surface). 

I have flattened a lot of natural stones (but not carborundum stones) that are way out of flat against the hard idler on the end of a belt sander (So that the contact point is a thin line instead of a long flat platen), and a very coarse belt. A particulate mask is a must doing something like that, at least with stones that have silica in them. Something like a washita that's been hollowed 1/8th or more can have the ends worked off flat with that method in about ten minutes, including cleanup. And then you can move on with an almost flat stones (final flattening still has to be done, another 5 or 10 minutes). 

If I were going to try a silicon carbide stone, I'd use coarser silicon carbide so as to break the bond of the carborundum on the stone without grading the stone finer, or try a very coarse belt on a belt sander. Here, we can get budget coarse belts for about a dollar each, and one of those dollar belts would do about three natural stones. If you burned out two on a carborundum stone, it wouldn't be a big deal cost-wise. (this is a 4x36 stationary benchtop sander - a device that is not very useful otherwise).


----------



## swagman (14 Jul 2016)

And with that, I think I'll take my leave. On every other forum I've ever been on, the moderators moderated. They were neutral and restrained; they never belittled or bullied or berated the participants, or called them "asinine" or "absurd." It's a nice tag team Jacob and you have going, sort of a good cop/ bad cop thing, but it sure poisons the whole atmosphere. I appreciate that I had a chance to make my point; now I'll leave it up to others to decide for themselves. Besides, I have planes to make.

Steve makes a very valid point. On other forums this type of behaviour would not have been tolerated. 

Stewie;


----------



## D_W (14 Jul 2016)

Personally, I appreciate the lower level of moderation on this forum. Variety is nice, and some of the forums that are overmoderated pretty much cut off any discussion where something could actually be learned at the end - those overmoderated forums are set up to snag beginners to please advertisers. We know Charlie likes the mud, nobody learned differently here about that, but maybe some folks found the bits in the middle interesting. I always do. You don't have to roll in the mud with Charlie - we're adults and can ignore that part.


----------



## D_W (14 Jul 2016)

Steve Voigt":ic2oki50 said:


> And with that, I think I'll take my leave. On every other forum I've ever been on, the moderators moderated. They were neutral and restrained; they never belittled or bullied or berated the participants, or called them "asinine" or "absurd." It's a nice tag team Jacob and you have going, sort of a good cop/ bad cop thing, but it sure poisons the whole atmosphere. I appreciate that I had a chance to make my point; now I'll leave it up to others to decide for themselves. Besides, I have planes to make.



The Charley at the top of this forum listed as a moderator is definitely a different person than Charlie Stanford.

Stick around. CS is often dormant (and usually better behaved than you may remember from various other forums), and Jacob might come across the wrong way in this discussion, he's not a bad fellow.


----------



## swagman (14 Jul 2016)

DW; I can offer you this fact; there is no way the results from my trialling a coarser grit sic powder will be posted on this forum site. 

Stewie;


----------



## D_W (14 Jul 2016)

swagman":io33ib2b said:


> DW; I can offer you this fact; there is no way the results from my trialling a coarser grit sic powder will be posted on this forum site.
> 
> Stewie;



That's OK, Stewie. Everyone chooses their own road (and such results have been described elsewhere...coarse silicon carbide is the standard on razor forums for hard stones and if anyone is curious and has google, they will find such results elsewhere). The discussion is the same elsewhere, someone blows out a diamond plate on a coarse or aggressive stone and coarse silicon carbide is offered as the appropriate medium.


----------



## D_W (14 Jul 2016)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spsjFhtE4o8

80 grit SiC on a 150 grit stone side. This guy is doing the same thing, on glass, but to a new stone and he's sharpening knives. Why someone would go to this length of trouble to sharpen knives freehand is confusing to me (I asked him in another video, not to snark him, but just out of curiosity - he hasn't answered yet but I'd imagine he will). 

Nonetheless, the method is shown and could be useful if someone is using these stones to flatten the backs of new tools. I've never had a lot of favor for them for doing that because coarse aluminum oxide paper works so well for that, as do loose diamonds, (and SiC stones seem to allow flat surfaces to ride on the swarf if the surface gets large enough - and without an oily swarf, they load instead with their own broken grit) but in case someone would...


----------



## CStanford (14 Jul 2016)

swagman":39cahp3y said:


> _This is even more asinine than the fellow who ruined his DMT flattening his SiC stone. _
> 
> Charles; for someone who is so confident within his own abilities you sure lack a lot of spaff when it comes to exhibiting examples of your own work. If I recall; the excuse you gave last time was you had no idea how to attach photo's to a thread; advise was given; you then posted 2 photo's; one of you dressed up as a church leader; and the other was of you standing beside your work bench. No relevance to what was being asked of you.
> 
> Stewie;



Custom kitchen at the moment Stewie, you?


----------



## D_W (14 Jul 2016)

CStanford":2hs8fhez said:


> swagman":2hs8fhez said:
> 
> 
> > _This is even more asinine than the fellow who ruined his DMT flattening his SiC stone. _
> ...



Give us some details, Charlie.


----------



## CStanford (14 Jul 2016)

What you want to see?


----------



## D_W (14 Jul 2016)

CStanford":21qovowl said:


> What you want to see? How about a PDF of the signed contract for the work? Will that do?
> 
> Here's one from the other end of the room:



Why would we care about the contract?

More about the center island, why it's open on the bottom, what it's made of (pine?), etc. Work on site, or done elsewhere and brought in? Cabinets part of the job, or were they there before or manufactured elsewhere and brought in. You know, the details of actually doing the job.


----------



## woodbrains (14 Jul 2016)

swagman":1besuvml said:


> DW; I can offer you this fact; there is no way the results from my trialling a coarser grit sic powder will be posted on this forum site.
> 
> Stewie;



Hello,

And this would be a shame. It might have had some practical use for someone, somewhere, rather than just the unfounded speculation from others. I'm sorry, Stewie.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (14 Jul 2016)

The island was assembled on site. Homeowner deciding on trim/base for the feet and the countertop material, there have been several change orders, materials are eastern white pine, soft maple, hard maple (drawer runners), and poplar. The bulk of what you are seeing is the pine. The white cabs are custom as well and they're painted poplar doors, boxes are of course plywood.

Needless to say, these were not made with all hand tools.


----------



## D_W (14 Jul 2016)

CStanford":333ga9zv said:


> Needless to say, these were not made with all hand tools.



You don't say, I'd never believe anyone works with anything but them. Of course, you could probably post a lot more than two lines about a job like that, and people might find it interesting. Even if half of the job was MDF. 

I do recall when you were logged in as the "800 pound gorilla" or whatever handle you used on knots, you mentioned that you were on the forums to take shots at people and not to offer advice or talk woodwork, as you said, other people are around to do that. 

For what it's worth, I agree with your advice in this thread - I'd buy a new one of these stones before spending much time on it. I got a bag full of stones from a machine shop at one point where it was evident that they felt the same way - cheaper to get another stone than stop the production and figure out how to flatten or condition them. 

Sure would be a lot more instructive if you spent half the time talking about stuff like the kitchen details vs. what you spend entertaining yourself trying to win a game that nobody else is playing. 

I don't think most here will hold their breath.


----------



## swagman (14 Jul 2016)

_I do recall when you were logged in as the "800 pound gorilla" or whatever handle you used on knots, you mentioned that you were on the forums to take shots at people and not to offer advice or talk woodwork, as you said, other people are around to do that. _

WTF Charles. Zero respect.


----------



## CStanford (14 Jul 2016)

Well David your memory is certainly better than mine with regard to Knots. I don't remember you from Knots at all but don't take it personally. I'm sure that if I made that statement it was tongue-in-cheek at the time but turned out to be somewhat prescient I guess. I don't recall posting as the "800 pound gorilla" I went by CStanford for the longest time until the moderating got extremely heavy-handed. I do remember giving out plenty of woodworking advice, frankly advice at that time I probably had no business giving. Probably applies as much today as it did then. Pot shots for sure, when stuff just seemed silly and ran contrary to my reading and common sense. (like practically everybody in the US I'm self-taught).

There are lots of people building much more involved kitchens than the one I've posted today, and the commercial woodworking forums like WoodWeb are where one should hang out to learn about doing very high end kitchens (which mine are not), yacht cabinetry, etc. My preference, by far, would be to do nothing but standalone furniture but my ego has yet to overcome the needs of my stomach, though it's not for lack of trying. 

I have a little spec piece going in the home shop now that hopefully I'll finish in a reasonable amount of time. Nothing complicated, it'll be a painted piece, but done with all hand tools. We'll probably keep it most likely -- a piece for the kitchen or an informal dining room.


----------



## woodbrains (14 Jul 2016)

Jacob":3gk75y64 said:


> woodbrains":3gk75y64 said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



Hello,

No one is denying that evenly distributing wear is a good thing. Guess what, we all do it! But trying to keep the stone as flat as possible in use INFORMS that the stone should be flat, by inference. So what if, in several years of use, besides wide plane irons, we have sharpened firmer gouges, 1/4 in chisels and 3/16 plough plane blades etc. etc. are we really going to have distributed the wear across the entire stone, have we really not been doing it right? Of course not. So we must conclude that (at least some) stones need to be flat and sometimes they need to be flattened, or replaced with flat ones. 

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (14 Jul 2016)

Well, again, one uses both sides of the stone and refrains from doing gouges etc. on both sides. This can be a bit hard to keep track of until a stone has had many years of wear -- sides that is. Just take the tiniest nick out of one corner of the stone on one side and designate that side the gouge side or the flat side.

Look, here's the thing, this is a glass half full/glass half empty proposition. Most stones exhibit a lot of wear on one side in the form of some sort of trough or set of grooves. The other side is often pristine. Instead of saying, "wow, this guy really kept his stone flat, we're getting all exercised about the side with the swale. Might be best just to put that side out of one's mind and dwell on the flat side and let the imagination run wild with it, for a change.


----------



## D_W (14 Jul 2016)

CStanford":h4b3goid said:


> Well David your memory is certainly better than mine with regard to Knots. I don't remember you from Knots at all but don't take it personally. I'm sure that if I made that statement it was tongue-in-cheek at the time but turned out to be somewhat prescient I guess. I don't recall posting as the "800 pound gorilla" I went by CStanford for the longest time until the moderating got extremely heavy-handed. I do remember giving out plenty of woodworking advice, frankly advice at that time I probably had no business giving. Probably applies as much today as it did then. Pot shots for sure, when stuff just seemed silly and ran contrary to my reading and common sense. (like practically everybody in the US I'm self-taught).
> 
> There are lots of people building much more involved kitchens than the one I've posted today, and the commercial woodworking forums like WoodWeb are where one should hang out to learn about doing very high end kitchens (which mine are not), yacht cabinetry, etc. My preference, by far, would be to do nothing but standalone furniture but my ego has yet to overcome the needs of my stomach, though it's not for lack of trying.
> 
> I have a little spec piece going in the home shop now that hopefully I'll finish in a reasonable amount of time. Nothing complicated, it'll be a painted piece, but done with all hand tools. We'll probably keep it most likely -- a piece for the kitchen or an informal dining room.



Well, "the regular work", as you say, not high end kitchens, is probably a lot more interesting to most people. Not many of us are thinking of copying a $200,000 kitchen, but doing something that looks like a $50,000 kitchen could certainly be useful.

I don't disagree about the business aspect - build what pays. You have a wife and kids. If it can be satisfying at the same time, great. 

I've got a kitchen to finish and some floors to redo. My floors have been sanded twice already, so the methods will be a bit less heavy handed in wood removal. I thought about making a post claiming that I would redo the entire floor with a red devil scraper, but I just don't have it today.

I personally would much rather see detail about the regular jobs than the fanciful stuff. If we want to be wowed, we can go to George. If we want to see a 1000 square foot kitchen with 40 cabinets passed off is middle class fare, we can go to any number of home magazines or HGTV home makeover things.

(not sure why I remember the knots forum post ("BossCrunk"), maybe because I was surprised at how long the debate went on when they chucked your handle on there, and you were able to simply create another ID and post in the middle of the same thread! I don't know why I remember such things, they're not what I'd choose to fill my head with, but they're there, anyway).


----------



## CStanford (14 Jul 2016)

Oh yes, BossCrunk -- seemed like it was pretty much at the tail end of it all though I don't really have a sense of the timeline from beginning to end of my participation over there. I heard they're shutting Knots down formally and for good. 

I'll do some more pictures as the kitchen wraps up. We're not going out until late next week I don't think. Depends on a couple of other trades. It's raining today, otherwise I'd probably play a little golf or at least hit a few.

I need to resurrect the old BossCrunk moniker. Used to make me chuckle. It's a play on 'Boss Crump' (E.H. Crump) who was an old political boss in Memphis in the 1930s and 1940s I guess. Look him up. He was quite a character. I dated his great granddaughter in college. She was what one calls 'uninhibited.'


----------



## D_W (14 Jul 2016)

CStanford":6yae7shg said:


> Oh yes, BossCrunk -- seemed like it was pretty much at the tail end of it all though I don't really have a sense of the timeline from beginning to end of my participation over there. I heard they're shutting Knots down formally and for good.
> 
> I'll do some more pictures as the kitchen wraps up. We're not going out until late next week I don't think. Depends on a couple of other trades. It's raining today, otherwise I'd probably play a little golf or at least hit a few.



I have seen that before (I thought it had already closed). Their interpretation is that everyone is going to instagram or something. Their forum format is hard to read, other forums seem to be doing fine. This one's doing quite well, and the beginner traps elsewhere seem to have no trouble collecting new posters.

All BS aside, I'd certainly appreciate the regular jobs. Even a post about them would be fine - doesn't have to be a 40 picture spread on a blog.

Style down there is a bit different than here, but the kitchen looks nice. It doesn't look like it came out of an RTA box.


----------



## CStanford (14 Jul 2016)

I'll definitely keep you in the loop on the carpentry and kitchens as they come my way.


----------



## Jacob (14 Jul 2016)

woodbrains":1uoburr5 said:


> Jacob":1uoburr5 said:
> 
> 
> > woodbrains":1uoburr5 said:
> ...


The main point about using the whole surface is to get a nice even surface, not necessarily flat. My oldest stone (from new) dips in the middle about 10mm along the length, is fairly straight across the width, but most importantly has a regular sort of curve so you can use the whole length. So it's fine for sharpening. I've had other stones with a groove in the middle - somebody doing gouges or something, but again this is not necessarily a problem but you might have to work diagonally across and just hit the tops.


----------



## woodbrains (14 Jul 2016)

Jacob":3fi6arva said:


> woodbrains":3fi6arva said:
> 
> 
> > Hello,
> ...



Hello,

So you are being duplicitous here. Are you quoting holtzhapffel just to win and argument and don't actually believe the flatness of a stone should be maintained in use; evidenced by your dished and grooved stones? Or are you saying they should be kept flat in use but you fail at evenly distributing wear, though you keep telling everyone else they are doing it wrong. And if the stones are supposed to be maintained flat in use, are manufactured flat in fact, which is harder to do than not, what is the purpose for the flatness if not to flatten tool faces, as demonstrated by many including Paul Sellers. 

If you are saying they (stones) do not need to be made flat, kept flat, or returned to flat, then I say again, you are the only one here, who says so, and without any evidence to back up the claim. Even the above contributors whom you seem to be siding with are still saying flatness is necessary for some operations. Using a designated flat side, using the stones edges, whatever, there needs to be a flat somewhere. Well let's just say combo stones do not have backs or sides to be used and perhaps they need to be flattened. Perhaps we keep another specially for backing off, or initial tool prep. Whatever, the need for flat is necessary, found in texts everywhere and agreed upon by everyone here.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (14 Jul 2016)

woodbrains":3ir5bcr7 said:


> ...
> 
> So you are being duplicitous here.


No you are confused. I realise you see everything in black and white terms - "correct" or "not correct" especially if you read it in a book or a mag.


> Are you quoting holtzhapffel just to win and argument and don't actually believe the flatness of a stone should be maintained in use; evidenced by your dished and grooved stones? Or are you saying they should be kept flat in use but you fail at evenly distributing wear, t...


OK I'll be absolutely spot on definitive: 
they need to be *flattish*. 
Spherical not good (but you'd be able to sharpen if you had to) so you might actually want to flatten it a bit. But beyond a certain point it would not ever need doing a second time, as long as you aim at flattening as you go - to keep the stone flattish and usable.
I don't need to win an argument - I've already won it every time I sharpen something - I'm just passing on a bit of useful advice which could help someone struggling, or a beginner. i.e. avoid crazy sharpening techniques- keep it simple! A new chisel does not need flattening - it should take about 30 seconds to first sharpen it...... and so on.


----------



## woodbrains (14 Jul 2016)

Hello,

OK so now I have pinned you down to a definitive stance. The stones need to be flattish and maintained that way by distributing wear. Well no one said anything about engineering flat did we; when we say flat we mean flat relative to what we need to do. So when a stone goes out of flattish or we inherit an old one with a dished surface ( the mirror to spherical which you say would be useless) what do we do. It is not crazy restoring the flattishness, it is the way they are supposed to be, or else if cheap enough replaced. They are made that way for a purpose, the textbooks say it is something to be maintained, during sensible use but eventually deliberately restored to such. There is miriad text telling us so, from them days when things were simple and all. But nowhere is there any text telling us it is OK to let them dish and just not bother doing anything about it. There are no modern crazy sharpening methods, it is just something you say, but cannot really pinpoint anything specifically crazy, that you do not yourself do.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (14 Jul 2016)

woodbrains":11q0kggu said:


> Hello,
> 
> OK so now I have pinned you down to a definitive stance. The stones need to be flattish and maintained that way by distributing wear. Well no one said anything about engineering flat did we; when we say flat we mean flat relative to what we need to do. So when a stone goes out of flattish or we inherit an old one with a dished surface ( the mirror to spherical which you say would be useless) what do we do. It is not crazy restoring the flattishness, it is the way they are supposed to be, or else if cheap enough replaced. They are made that way for a purpose, the textbooks say it is something to be maintained, during sensible use but eventually deliberately restored to such. There is miriad text telling us so, from them days when things were simple and all. But nowhere is there any text telling us it is OK to let them dish and just not bother doing anything about it. There are no modern crazy sharpening methods, it is just something you say, but cannot really pinpoint anything specifically crazy, that you do not yourself do.
> 
> Mike.


Yes you are getting there. Basically you don't need to flatten stones unless they are doughnut shaped or whatever. There isn't that much in the texts - but you shouldn't believe everything you read in books anyway.


----------



## CStanford (14 Jul 2016)

It's absolutely ok to let a side get dished if you wish. Makes certain honing operations easier. Some people even look for dished stones but ultimately it's up to you.

Remember:

THEY. HAVE. TWO. SIDES.


----------



## D_W (14 Jul 2016)

re: the above discussion, I don't usually flatten a stone after I get it and do an initial flattening. I'd say it's a safe thing to say that I don't do it at all, I can't remember doing it to any stone in the last several years. 

BUT, anyone who is buying tools or preparing things like cap irons and iron backs will need a flat surface. 

If someone buys an old tool where you can't access the wire edge without lifting the tool up off of the stone a substantial amount, then a flat surface is also needed - it's hard to do those sorts of things without them. I'd bet that a lot of the stones allowed to get very out of flat got that way because their owners were using their tools heavily with a dedicated set of tools and the acquiring and rehabilitating was nearly zero. Sometimes on the stones like the washitas, it's nice for them to be a bit higher around the edges than the middle (talking small fractions here, not a quarter of an inch), because it makes for a situation where removing the wire edge from the back of the iron, or at least pushing it back in the other direction, is done easily without having a large back suspended on oil on a perfectly flat surface. 

One of the most convincing things I've seen in out of flat stones in terms of dedicated use was a 10x2 inch yellow/green escher that had about 1/4" of dip along its length. Some barber or shop of barbers were using the stone and using it hard. It had a near perfect surface (so it wasn't being used for tools or knives), but the surface had been worn very hollow over time. I doubt the barbers' customers noticed, and the razors wouldn't have, either, I'm sure the barbers using the stone didn't have a dozen separate stones to use, and the hollowed stone would've been ideal for a new razor.


----------



## woodbrains (14 Jul 2016)

Jacob":3kjqfuth said:


> woodbrains":3kjqfuth said:
> 
> 
> > Hello,
> ...




Hello,

And that is all anyone ever does, there is no craziness in it. The OP was not doubt making his stone 'less doughnut shaped or whatever'. It may have been ill advised to try and un-doughnut shape that particular stone, but that is besides the point, Only you talk about modern crazy sharpening, but no one has ever done anything that is not needed, some do quite a bit less, but that is their look out. We do have choice of different stuff than had been available in the 1980's, but no one has it all, they just do the same old same old with a new media.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (14 Jul 2016)

One can't help but wonder what would have happened if Stewie had simply turned the stone over and used the flat side, which I'm almost sure the stone had. 

Only Stewart knows for sure.


----------



## swagman (15 Jul 2016)

you mentioned that you were on the forums to take shots at people and not to offer advice or talk woodwork, as you said, other people are around to do that. 

Charles; this forum would be better without your involvement.




> David Weaver
> 
> 02-21-2013, 12:59 AM
> 
> ...



http://www.sawmillcreek.org/archive/ind ... 99208.html


----------



## Racers (15 Jul 2016)

Chaps, you need to add a couple of people to your ignore list, it makes the forum a much better place.

Pete


----------



## bugbear (15 Jul 2016)

Racers":3ox76975 said:


> Chaps, you need to add a couple of people to your ignore list, it makes the forum a much better place.
> 
> Pete



Three people, prominent in this thread, comprise my entire list.

BugBear


----------



## essexalan (15 Jul 2016)

Yeah stay around Stewie, noli illegitimi carborundum. Which I think means "Use 60 grit carborundum powder for grinding you will find it better" ;0)


----------



## CStanford (15 Jul 2016)

Well guys, regardless of my past, present, or future if I've convinced even one person that stones are actually a three dimensional solid (THEY ARE!) and if one side is not to your liking it's not an emergency, you can usually just turn it over AND GET YEARS of service from the other side (working to middle you know, takes a long time to get there), then I'm happy.

Of course there's the matter of a $20 bill or DW'S EBay lots that average out to about a $1 a stone -- an equally compelling alternative to ALL THE WORK.

Cheers!


----------



## D_W (15 Jul 2016)

CStanford":1jjwjju9 said:


> Well guys, regardless of my past, present, or future if I've convinced even one person that stones are actually a three dimensional solid (THEY ARE!) and if one side is not to your liking it's not an emergency, you can usually just turn it over AND GET YEARS of service from the other side (working to middle you know, takes a long time to get there), then I'm happy.
> 
> Of course there's the matter of a $20 bill or DW'S EBay lots that average out to about a $1 a stone -- an equally compelling alternative to ALL THE WORK.
> 
> Cheers!



I hope people don't take your past comments too seriously (or mine to you). It's like someone admitting they took steroids right after they retire from athletics (when everyone already knew it). I was just surprised by the candid admission on knots (maybe that's why I remembered it), but it doesn't actually change reality, you know? I tracked it down, it turned into a 304 post saga..worth a brief chuckle looking at it. 

The quote SMC comment above in reference to people being too polite is the number of folks complaining when you're on a bender, but they rarely complain to *you* until they pop. 

I agree on the stones, though, but it appears that flattening is becoming part of everything, and it does make a bit of sense for people like stewie making new tools. but the guy I linked from youtube...flattening a new stone to sharpen knives, really no clue about that.


----------



## CStanford (15 Jul 2016)

I've been down more woodworking dead ends than I care to count and wish there had been somebody around to point out what an effin' silly person I was.

Less is more. Of this, I'm sure. And I STILL have too much junk around. It's shameful really.


----------



## essexalan (15 Jul 2016)

Some new stones are not flat and do not cut well after manufacture and do require both flattening and a surface refresh before use. The knife boys are fanatical about having flat stones perhaps it is something to do with the very small bevels and the thinness of the steel involved.


----------



## D_W (15 Jul 2016)

essexalan":2vh4hw7p said:


> Some new stones are not flat and do not cut well after manufacture and do require both flattening and a surface refresh before use. The knife boys are fanatical about having flat stones perhaps it is something to do with the very small bevels and the thinness of the steel involved.



my fascination with sharpening everything by hand carries over to knives and straight razors (and scissors, and pencil sharpeners, and...whatever else you can get on a stone). The knife sharpeners might want a uniform surface, but the flatness thing is strange for knives because the bevel isn't large enough to require it. Different thing if the stone has to do double duty with something that needs to be flattened on the back. 

The knife forums are really afflicted with the disease of complication, but then again, so are the razor forums, but razors do require a little bit of extra care above and beyond knives - stones can be hollow in their length, but no razor stones will be hollow in their width whereas such a thing doesn't matter for knives. I think the fascination with knives begins with the desire to use softer stones to sharpen them as far as natural stones go, and those stones go hollow quickly. Still would be more economical to use the entire stone and work off the high spots, but that's not popular. 

The normal response of "what did professionals do 100 years ago" doesn't allay anyones' fascination on razor or knife forums either, though. And a lot of the folks sharpening knives and razors have never sharpened anything before, so you can't reason with them - they have no context and don't use their knives for anything other than to practice sharpening, so the idea of a cycle of use and sharpening doesn't register. They will try to convince you that nobody could've ever done anything with carbon steel, though!


----------



## CStanford (15 Jul 2016)

essexalan":18a6sk1i said:


> Some new stones are not flat and do not cut well after manufacture and do require both flattening and a surface refresh before use. The knife boys are fanatical about having flat stones perhaps it is something to do with the very small bevels and the thinness of the steel involved.



And this makes sense given that a knife is the end product of a knife maker and will arrive in the hands of its new owner with a perfect and pristine edge. Then the owner of that knife will proceed to use it as a tool and it will never be quite the same again unless the owner then becomes a knife maintainer rather than a knife user. One stroke with the knife and the edge isn't quite what it was. Should we stop and hone, or finish the job at hand, or strike some sort of balance with our own end product taking primacy?


----------



## D_W (15 Jul 2016)

That's not quite true, unless you're talking about really high end goods (like hand finished knives might actually come with something you'd put on a knife). Most knives now, even "good" ones that cost about $75 a knife will come with a blunt secondary angle that most woodworkers would find easier to better in a couple of minutes. They probably used to come with a good edge, but the last few I've bought were blunt (which probably makes them more durable for a doofus user). 

It's possible to maintain a better edge in a couple of minutes every several months (steeling between honing), but it doesn't have anything to do with the flatness of a stone. That's the part I don't get.

i don't buy knives like I buy stones and tools, though, so my sample size of knives is probably 4 in the last decade.


----------



## CStanford (15 Jul 2016)

So these guys that are worried about absolute stone flatness (essexalan's post) aren't delivering a very sharp knife to their customers? That doesn't make sense to me, it may be so though, the most expensive knife for the shop that I've ever bought was a Case pocket knife for about $30. I have a few kitchen knives that cost more but not drastically so. I don't have a doubt that somebody could get the Case sharper, but I manage to get it sharp enough. Of course, a $30 pocket knife didn't have an edge that was all that great, but it wasn't that bad either.


----------



## swagman (15 Jul 2016)

Charles; my thoughts are with those that have withdrawn their membership over recent years due to the unsavoury attitude of a very small group of individuals. 

regards Stewie;


----------



## Jacob (15 Jul 2016)

D_W":n7mswpkg said:


> .....
> my fascination with sharpening everything by hand carries over to knives and straight razors (and scissors, and pencil sharpeners, and...whatever else you can get on a stone). ....


I don't do razors but I do do scythes and sickles, other stuff besides woodwork tools. When I first reverted to freehand sharpening (convex bevels and all!) I was so pleased with myself I sharpened everything I could lay my hands on - rusty old tools in the scrap heap even. Didn't take long.
My fascination is with how much you can do with with how little, often by hand without props, training wheels etc. Probably comes from reading all those "Boys Own" real and fictional accounts of survival and adventure!
Also I do admire the hand made traditions in many things - rarely perfect but often full of life and quality. Not that there's any virtue in being less than perfect but there is something attractive about optimisation - the leaving off at the point where no further working would add value, e.g. the slight irregularity of dovetails done freehand but very quickly.


----------



## essexalan (15 Jul 2016)

Most knife sharpeners sharpen longer knives like Gyutos in sections across the width of the stone using light finger pressure over the bevel, hence they demand a flat stone a concave stone would only correspond to certain areas of the natural curve of the knife. You certainly end up with a concave area in the middle of the stone after/during sharpening. 
I think that Japanese knives like their chisels traditionally arrived in an unfinished state so you had to change the handle and hone the edge to your requirements. Hence I have never had such a knife sharp out of the box, something the public seem unable to understand. I always sharpen on stones and never steel.

Even my Yorkshire spud peeler got the sharpening treatment and much betterer it were ;0) Scissors I can get sharper but not sharp so WIP. I do have a hairdressing friend who spends over £250 plus £50/year sharpening on her scissors, I did not offer to sharpen her scissors!


----------



## D_W (15 Jul 2016)

CStanford":1gi60673 said:


> So these guys that are worried about absolute stone flatness (essexalan's post) aren't delivering a very sharp knife to their customers? That doesn't make sense to me, it may be so though, the most expensive knife for the shop that I've ever bought was a Case pocket knife for about $30. I have a few kitchen knives that cost more but not drastically so. I don't have a doubt that somebody could get the Case sharper, but I manage to get it sharp enough. Of course, a $30 pocket knife didn't have an edge that was all that great, but it wasn't that bad either.



Sometimes I don't know how you draw some of your conclusions. 

The ones who are using absolutely flat stones, first, don't appear to be serving any customers and second, they're not delivering sharp beyond what they would deliver with a stone that was new spec. 

The very high end of knives includes hand made and hand finished stuff by makers like Shigefusa, they are ten times what i'd ever spend on a knife - they are very carefully finished. There are a tiny few sharpeners "professionally" sharpening those knives for people for about the cost of what you or I would pay for a new knife, which could only make the average person shake their head. I doubt their customers are chefs. 

The rest of the professional sharpening that occurs is done on a machine or five for about a dollar a knife (that's the going rate here). The professional chefs I've observed using western knives do their sharpening with something similar to a norton india stone and finishing by just ripping the burr right off and then steeling as necessary. 

The folks fascinated with flattening stones are hobbyists who are not using those stones to turn around knives for pay. I can't imagine pulling out a new norton india or SiC stone and flattening it to sharpen a knife.


----------



## D_W (15 Jul 2016)

essexalan":35ikw4cl said:


> Most knife sharpeners sharpen longer knives like Gyutos in sections across the width of the stone using light finger pressure over the bevel, hence they demand a flat stone a concave stone would only correspond to certain areas of the natural curve of the knife. You certainly end up with a concave area in the middle of the stone after/during sharpening.
> I think that Japanese knives like their chisels traditionally arrived in an unfinished state so you had to change the handle and hone the edge to your requirements. Hence I have never had such a knife sharp out of the box, something the public seem unable to understand. I always sharpen on stones and never steel.
> 
> Even my Yorkshire spud peeler got the sharpening treatment and much betterer it were ;0) Scissors I can get sharper but not sharp so WIP. I do have a hairdressing friend who spends over £250 plus £50/year sharpening on her scissors, I did not offer to sharpen her scissors!



Some of my wife's friends drop of knives for me to sharpen. I always sharpen them on an IM313 setup that ends with a mid grade arkansas so that it doesn't take 10 minutes a knife to sharpen something they'll use as a scraper the next day, anyway. 

The japanese knife craze is something that exists more on the internet than in person. For the rest of the knives that are made to about saw temper, a smooth steel is a far better idea than sharpening every time they're dull. But if you're using a japanese knife and you don't steel, that's probably good, as steels break the edge instead of straightening them like they do on the various western knives. 

Knives designed to be steeled are better maintained by steeling between sharpening, more economical in time and knife life.


----------



## swagman (15 Jul 2016)

David; you mentioned you use the Norton IM313 System. Did you bother purchasing the premium Straight Edge. https://www.sharpeningsupplies.com/Chec ... 0C203.aspx

regards Stewie;


----------



## essexalan (15 Jul 2016)

The only hand forged and finished knives I have seen have a somewhat rustic appearance none of which matters it is all about the heat treatment, grind and the ability of the steel to take and hold a sharp edge. As you say way beyond what I would pay for a knife but none the less fine pieces of work. Plenty of pro sharpeners on knife forums if you take a look but as you say not a lot considering how many are sold.
I flatten my stones for knife sharpening for the same reason I do for other tools, it works for me! Already had the discussion re steeling elsewhere, suffice to say I like fresh steel on all my sharpened tools. I suppose you could say that cooking as well as woodworking is just a hobby to me and I like sharp tools for both and they get sharpened only when I consider they need it.


----------



## D_W (15 Jul 2016)

swagman":3ohk2qjl said:


> David; you mentioned you use the Norton IM313 System. Did you bother purchasing the premium Straight Edge. https://www.sharpeningsupplies.com/Chec ... 0C203.aspx
> 
> regards Stewie;



No. I already have straight edges better than that one, but it's not a place where I'd use them (I use them only for toolmaking). I don't know how dead flat my stones came, two of them are norton synthetics and the third is a stone that Dan's sells for about $50 (only because it's large). 

I have prepared cap irons on those stones without ever checking the stones, and the cap irons have fit well on a flattened iron. That's pretty much my gold standard. I use the whole stone of each type as much as possible and presume that they will never need to be flattened functionally, but the crystolon stone will eventually go partially out of flat, I'm sure (I don't use it to prepare backs of anything - it's a superb bevel and knife grinding stone).

I consider a new IM 313 more or less a luxury item. They're expensive, but the long stones make sharpening and grinding long curved blade knives (like chef's knives) very quick. I've heard of a few people chancing on older versions at yard sales, and sometimes they are for sale inexpensively on ebay. Nice rig, but difficult to flatten the stones on them.

The only knives that I have that are totally flat are chip carvers and a couple of pocket knives with wharncliffe blades and sheepsfoot blades.


----------



## CStanford (15 Jul 2016)

swagman said:


> Charles; my thoughts are with those that have withdrawn their membership over recent years due to the unsavoury attitude of a very small group of individuals.
> 
> regards Stewie;[/quote
> 
> I'm sure they appreciate your sentiments.


----------



## D_W (15 Jul 2016)

essexalan":2s9q7fw6 said:


> The only hand forged and finished knives I have seen have a somewhat rustic appearance none of which matters it is all about the heat treatment, grind and the ability of the steel to take and hold a sharp edge. As you say way beyond what I would pay for a knife but none the less fine pieces of work. Plenty of pro sharpeners on knife forums if you take a look but as you say not a lot considering how many are sold.
> I flatten my stones for knife sharpening for the same reason I do for other tools, it works for me! Already had the discussion re steeling elsewhere, suffice to say I like fresh steel on all my sharpened tools. I suppose you could say that cooking as well as woodworking is just a hobby to me and I like sharp tools for both and they get sharpened only when I consider they need it.



Certainly doesn't hurt anything if you flatten your stones.

FWIW, I did once steel a stainless japanese knife knowing that it was overhard for steeling, but just wanted to see what would happen. It just one of those western style chef's knives that cost about $70, bottom of the barrel for large japanese knives, but it's really a very nice knife (hardness claimed to be 61, probably accurate). It didn't chip out big chunks or anything, but you could tell by the sharpness that it had chipped a tiny bit of the edge off all the way along and was far less sharp after a light steeling than it was to start with. German knives, other way around, steeling works wonders with them, and I'd do it before sharpening, too, because you'll have a lot less that you have to grind off. 

If I steel a henckels knife 20 times over several months and then have to sharpen it (wife's knife), the inexpensive japanese knife (relatively, still expensive) is still as sharp as the henckels knife at the same sharpening interval with no screwing around in between. Put both of them in kitchen prep in a restaurant, and the same probably wouldn't be true.


----------



## essexalan (15 Jul 2016)

Probably talking about Tojiro knives which are a bargain in VG10 even in the UK definitely recommend them. A smooth steel does seem to burnish these knives but I would not call it sharpening. Anything over about approx RC 60 will chip before it deforms. My sister has had about every knife used by TV chefs ever made and they always ended up blunt steel or no steel, so I always took my diamond plates along when visiting to sharpen them. Some were rubbish steel anyway but most I used to get pretty sharp. She eventually bought a set of Global knives and you can imagine the state they ended up in.
Line work in a kitchen is something else and the inability of Japanese knives to handle bone without chipping would be a problem, add on the fact that knives are constantly "borrowed" and I would not take a Shig into that environment.
My R-2 knife lasts a lot longer than VG10 and the HAP40 longer still to the point where I give it a sharpen because I have the stones out.

Anyway flat stones rule! ;0)


----------



## D_W (15 Jul 2016)

Yes, tojiro. I do have a blue steel tanaka santoku that I actually sharpen correctly, but it is banned from the kitchen. Even the tojiro will chip of slightly and lose its keeness with a light touch on a smooth steel (another thing that's not easy to find these days - the smooth steel). those are as "high end" as I would go, personally, because they last for months between sharpenings and can be sharpened in a couple of minutes. The payoff for other things isn't there in terms of durability vs. sharpening, and the crystolon stone is much nicer to use than a diamond hone. Less portable and more messy, but we are woodworkers and that stuff can stay in the shop.

I worked in kitchens in mid-grade restaurants as a kid and college student (like $20 a plate here now), and in most of those places, I saw knives that I'd describe as food service cheapest. When they were dull, they were sent out. Very soft. 

Most of the knives my wife brings (from her friends) are soft mid carbon stainless, and they just melt away on a medium carborundum stone, and don't take that great of an edge on an ark stone (ark stones will cut saw tempered steel or softer aggressively). But I have gotten a look at some less expensive knives that are good quality, like the spanish origin henckels knives. I like them just as much as the german ones, they feel the same on the stone and they're less expensive. The current german knives are underwhelming, but soft knives love a steel and you can correct a whole lot with a steel. I guess that's the point.


----------



## essexalan (15 Jul 2016)

Tools are for using and that knife is screaming "Use me"! Just don't let HID use it or you will have a wreck. Carborundum does tend to rip steel away and not ideal for sharpening soft steel. The diamond plates I use are well worn and quite benign compared with a new diamond plate.

Victorinox are mostly what I use for heavy work but they are old and I have no idea how they compare with the modern knives.


----------



## D_W (15 Jul 2016)

essexalan":6skqi7qm said:


> Tools are for using and that knife is screaming "Use me"! Just don't let HID use it or you will have a wreck. Carborundum does tend to rip steel away and not ideal for sharpening soft steel. The diamond plates I use are well worn and quite benign compared with a new diamond plate.
> 
> Victorinox are mostly what I use for heavy work but they are old and I have no idea how they compare with the modern knives.



They are probably harder (than the new ones). The henckels knife I have is probably 440C, but the other knife that I have (wusthof) is 0.5% carbon steel. It is soft, but takes a lot of abuse. Given the state that my wife's friends knives show up in, I don't think most people would notice a difference. 

(I keep the blue steel santoku stored out of sight and above my wife's height and use it from time to time. It's not an expensive knife, another one in the range of $70 -easy to maintain as long as it's dried after use, but it is sharpened with no secondary bevel and it generates complaints from everyone who uses it, I guess because people are used to dull knives. It is pure pleasure in fruit and vegetable work, and good for boneless meat work)


----------

