# Effectiveness of leather strops (and polishing compounds)



## HRRLutherie (13 Apr 2012)

Saw a very interesting web article comparing leather strops to micro mesh abrasives: 

http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/Stropping.html


----------



## bugbear (13 Apr 2012)

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTe ... paste.html

BugBear


----------



## David C (13 Apr 2012)

Have always had an unfounded prejudice against stropping. Brent seems to provide some evidence !

Best wishes,
David


----------



## Paul Chapman (13 Apr 2012)

I used to use a leather strop with jewellers rouge, which gave a very good polish but I think tended to round over the edge because of the compressibility of the leather. I now use a piece of wood with Solvol Autosol, which gives just as good a polish and no rounding of the edge. My blades are super sharp  

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Racers (13 Apr 2012)

Solvol autosol? I can only find solvol metal polish these days!
Used tubes of the stuff on motorbikes years ago!

Pete


----------



## HRRLutherie (13 Apr 2012)

Are honing compounds at 0.3 Micron or less readily available?

I read, for example, Lee Valley advertise their green honing rouge as have an _average_ 0.5 micron particle size. The compound is only as fine a grit as the lowest grit it the compound, i.e a 0.01 micron compound is really a 10 micron compound if it contains those particles.


But again, bear in mind that I have absolutely no experience in practice, so what I'm saying might be utter...


----------



## David C (13 Apr 2012)

Pete,
Autosol paste in tubes, should be available in car accessory shops or garages.

David


----------



## custard (13 Apr 2012)

I get all the arguments about soft stropping substrates "dubbing over" edges, so I'm not arguing in favour of stropping, nor am I saying stropping is better than using 3M film...but still, there has to be something that's just plain _wrong_ with those photos!

I've seen carving chisels go from having that frosted matt look after sharpening on even the finest arkansas stones, to then becoming polished after stropping. But those photos suggest the exact opposite. 

I think I'll trust the evidence of my own eyes, and hundreds of years of accumulated craft experience, and say stropping can improve edge sharpness after sharpening on oil stones.


----------



## HRRLutherie (13 Apr 2012)

I suppose it just depends on the polishing compound your using, for there must be some really fine compounds that go above and beyond those of Lee Valley.


----------



## Steve Elliott (14 Apr 2012)

I did a test that confirms what Brent Beach found, namely that a well-honed edge can be degraded by stropping on leather. I took my standard sharp edge honed with 1 micron diamond on cast iron and refined it by "stropping" on boxwood charged with 1/4 micron diamond. After 80 strokes the scratches were so fine that my 540x microscope couldn't see them, in fact I doubt any optical microscope could. Then I started stropping on uncharged leather and saw scratches begin to reappear.

When diamond is used on a wood substrate the grit embeds quite deeply. Maple and especially cherry need a lot of diamond paste to work well. Boxwood was a lot better and didn't absorb nearly as much paste.

Leather would allow abrasive to sink in quite deeply so that the effective grit size would be smaller than the actual grit size, but leather seems to have abrasives of its own. My real objection to stropping on leather is the dubbing it causes at the edges.

Here's a link to an image that sums up my experiment using boxwood and uncharged leather:
http://bladetest.infillplane.com/StroppingTest.jpg


----------



## matthewwh (14 Apr 2012)

I notice he didn't test neat chromium oxide.....

Starting with a blade honed to 0.5 micron I would expect to find the same results as Brent did - the compounds that he tested made things worse. 

Indeed, straight Chromox at 0.3 micron would also have a minimal effect on a blade that has been honed to that standard, I doubt it would worsen the situation but any improvement would be so marginal it wouldn't be worth talking about. The point of stropping is that it is fast and smooths out irregularities at the edge. A freshly honed edge of that quality has no irregularities so there is nothing to strop. 

In a way it's like a microcosm of the secondary bevels argument, (if you can get ten fresh edges by honing a tiny secondary bevel between grindings why would you waste steel by taking a tormek to the edge every time.)

There are two assumptions at work that I believe have caused Brent to reach the conclusions that he has.

1. If any wear bevel is present the tool is no longer sharp.

2. Wear bevels are the same all the way along the edge.

Taking the first assumption I would suggest that wear bevels begin to develop from the second the blade enters the wood. Given that you are able to make a second and third cut without honing there must be a degree of wear that is acceptable - a tolerance. 

Now remove the assumption that wear bevels on an edge are uniform: why would they be, wood isn't uniform and if you are anything like me you hang a corner out here and dig one in there to get the timber the way you want it). 

A quick stropping will bring the irregular edge closer to the uniform, even wear bevels that you would get if you extrapolated Brent's diagrams along the entire edge. Under lab conditions a blade with any wear bevel seems like exactly the situation we are trying to avoid, but in practice a smooth evenly worn edge will still cut and will cut better than a ragged one. Up to a point an edge will come back to you (or move further inside it's working tolerance) with a quick stropping. Once the wear bevels grow to the point where they are outside tolerance, honing is the only medicine.

I never thought I'd be arguing in favour of freehanding a rounded bevel but for managing the condition of the last 1/100th of a mm of steel I believe it is more viable than doing nothing.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (14 Apr 2012)

I think that stropping has its place. It is not a replacement for traditional methods _when those methods are readily available_. I rarely use a leather strop anymore, but this is because it is not necessary to do so as I have a dedicated sharpening station alongside my bench. It is, in fact, easier to use a ceramic waterstone, such as a Shapton, at the station than pull out a leather strop from under the bench and find a spot on the bench to use it. 

There is evidence that a leather strop can degrade a bevel's sharpness. There are a few issues that this finding raises:

(1) Should this be interpreted as a criticism of the honing compound, or of the compound substrate? I resist using MDF as it contains impurities that are released and contaminate the honing process. Leather, even horse butt, is soft enough to alter the angles as well as containing its own contaminants. Hardwood seems to be a better choice, but some contain a high degree of silica. Now what does this say about plain leather?

(2) One does not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If stropping does nothing for an edge that comes off an 8000 grit waterstone, it still can do a lot for an edge that comes off a 4000 grit waterstone, an extra fine (1200 grit) diamond stone, or a 2000 grit oilstone. 

(3) The resultant dubbed edge off leather is not the same as a dulled edge. It is not rounded. It is, instead, given the equivalent of a tapered micro bevel. This is still sharp (look at the recent interest raised in the sharpening method of Paul Sellers and our own Jacob). 

(4) There are some blades that are not negatively affected by a tapered micro bevel and for which there are few alternate methods of sharpening, such as carving blades. 

There are modern alternatives to the traditional leather strop now available: diamond paste on cast iron and diamond film on glass or a wooden form. I have a little on diamond film here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTe ... dFilm.html

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## David C (14 Apr 2012)

I do think it is important to keep in mind, that the fine "stones" used by Paul Sellers and Jacob are around 1,200 grit, and their edges will certainly benefit from some improvement. 

Hard Arkansas used to be considered extra fine, or "surgical". However it is not in the same league as 0.5 miicron film or paste. So we have two scenarios which bear no relationshio to each other.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## David C (14 Apr 2012)

My local saddler told me that untreated leather was abrasive!

David


----------



## Jacob (14 Apr 2012)

David C":f5gpdldl said:


> I do think it is important to keep in mind, that the fine "stones" used by Paul Sellers and Jacob are around 1,200 grit, and their edges will certainly benefit from some improvement.


 Could be sharper yes - but not necessarily worth the time and effort, depending on the job in hand, bearing in mind that very sharp edges are very quickly blunted. I do find myself going on to a finer stone when needed, and occasionally stropping too. It's all a compromise.
NB Paul Seller's 3 diamond plates idea is very very quick and good enough for _almost_ everything.


> Hard Arkansas used to be considered extra fine, or "surgical". However it is not in the same league as 0.5 miicron film or paste. So we have two scenarios which bear no relationshio to each other.
> 
> best wishes,
> David Charlesworth


Neither of these are much use to woodworkers. Surgeons and Barbers perhaps, oh and sharpening enthusiasts of course. :lol:


----------



## Jacob (14 Apr 2012)

matthewwh":2louzevd said:


> .....
> I never thought I'd be arguing in favour of freehanding a rounded bevel........


Glad to hear you are getting there, albeit slowly! 
It's only a few woodworkers who have this modern phobia about rounded bevels. They were normal - and still are in many other areas of sharpening.
I think the phobia is a good example of the "viral" dissemination of misinformation.


----------



## shim20 (14 Apr 2012)

i sharpen free hand, way i was tort and its the way it was done years ago, i do it little and often only takes a little time that way, i often just buzz over on a medium then fine oilstone. i tried waterstones but at work i found them to messy, as for strops i do have a bit of leather on a block but most the time i don't use it, my 2ps worth :lol:


----------



## woodbrains (14 Apr 2012)

Hi,

Putting a tiny (rounded or not) microbevel at the tip of the cutting tool to eek a little more working time out of a tool before re sharpening, is something we all probably do from time to time. This is not the same as the total bunkam of rounding under, that Jacob continuously prattles on about. Let us face it, the Fine India stone which appears to be his staple, has a grit size of 42 microns. I don't think any reasonable person would even consider that sharp enough for anything finer than an axe. And how anyone can say with any amount of seriousness that a sharper edge just dulls quicker anyway--words fail me I have to say. It is pityful we have to put up with such twaddle.

I don't think stropping is of much use to those who sharpen with waterstones to a fine enough grit or those who use 3M lapping film. Oilstones don't get any finer than about 9 micron (surgical Arkansas) so stropping after these would definitely give a better edge.

I don't buy into the idea that stropping on a cushioned substrate (leather) gives the paste a softer effect, either. 0.5micron chrome oxide is 0.5 micron no matter what it has been coated on to. The idea of the leather is to create a micro bevel so it doesn't take so long to actually achieve a polish with such a fine, cutting abrasive.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (14 Apr 2012)

woodbrains":3lomaxnu said:


> H.....This is not the same as the total bunkam of rounding under, that Jacob continuously prattles on about.


If you, or anybody else, could explain why "rounding under" is bunkum, I could stop prattling on about it it. But you can't, and neither can anybody else.


> Let us face it, the Fine India stone which appears to be his staple, has a grit size of 42 microns


. 1200grit (whatever that means) according to DC see above, but I do go finer if I need to


> I don't think any reasonable person would even consider that sharp enough for anything finer than an axe. And how anyone can say with any amount of seriousness that a sharper edge just dulls quicker anyway--words fail me I have to say. It is pityful we have to put up with such twaddle.


Twaddle yourself. Not exactly "dulls quicker", more loses it's uber sharpeness quickly and becomes averagely sharp, which deteriorates more slowly. Thats why if you want to keep a very sharp edge sharp you have to strop very frequently, as everybody knows, except you perhaps.
It might help with these threads if they were labelled either "hobby/enthusiast sharpening" or "sharpening for woodworkers". Several people pointed out in an earlier thread that sharpening is a hobby in it's own right, which creates crossed lines!


----------



## Karl (14 Apr 2012)

I think these last two posts demonstrate something fundamental here.

How sharp is sharp enough? 

To an extent I agree with Jacob in that as long as the edge does the job, it is sharp enough. I have spent plenty of time putting an extreme edge on blades (particularly for wooden planes), and then losing some of that "ultimate" edge in setting up the plane and taking test cuts! If you're working a plane hard it may need re-sharpening after 10/15 mins anyway, and putting a super-sharp 0.3grit edge on the blade doesn't make any difference to the work in hand. With the exception of smoothing planes, where I tend to go the extra mile as the blade is only used for a few swipes in any event.

For general work, if it shaves the hair on my arm, it's sharp enough - regardless of what the grit says.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## David C (14 Apr 2012)

Jacob,

I was being kind and assuming that you might have something like a hard Arkansas stone.

David


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Apr 2012)

Something the experimenters might like to investigate is the lasting quality of edges sharpened in different ways. For example, with modern equipment such as diamond lapping films it appears possible to achieve almost insanely sharp edges, but how much service will such an edge give before breaking down? What's the optimum level of sharpness that gives good results with minimum time spent maintaining the edge, and maximum time cutting wood, on different duties?

Karl's point about how sharp an edge needs to be for different tasks seems to me the key point. For example, there seems little milage in sharpening and honing a mortice chisel to the sort of edge angles and sharpness normal for a finish carving tool, as the edge would break down almost at the first whack of the mallet.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, when the only sharpening stones readily available were the likes of Turkey, Charnley Forest and Welsh Slate, stropping on dressed leather (which was fairly cheaply and easily available) was a realistic way of quickly refining an edge. (I've never tried this, but I think you can strop an edge on the palm of your hand; seem to remember this written in one of Charles Hayward's many books.) Now that the technology of sharpening has developed, it would be surprising if no better method of achieving a very fine edge than stropping had been developed. However, that doesn't mean that stropping is dead - it quite plainly worked very well for many craftsmen over several generations, and much fine work was done by them to prove the point; so it will still work just as well.


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 Apr 2012)

Cheshirechappie":1318llf2 said:


> Karl's point about how sharp an edge needs to be for different tasks seems to me the key point.



But it's not just about sharpness. Very often it's about matching your tools and techniques to the wood. I was planing lots of Sapele today. It was horrible stuff with all the usual reversing grain. No matter what I did I couldn't get a decent finish with my normal planes - just lots of tearout and general roughness. So I got out my scraper planes (the large Veritas and small LN #212) and had a silky smooth finish in no time  

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (14 Apr 2012)

David C":3c7yukdi said:


> Jacob,
> 
> I was being kind and assuming that you might have something like a hard Arkansas stone.
> 
> David


I have a black "surgical" Arkansas stone. It's too fine for woodwork purposes. Probably why it's termed "surgical".


----------



## Jacob (14 Apr 2012)

Paul Chapman":3u54g8vp said:


> Cheshirechappie":3u54g8vp said:
> 
> 
> > Karl's point about how sharp an edge needs to be for different tasks seems to me the key point.
> ...


It's sapele which set me off on the perfect planing hunt. It's not hard all over, quite the opposite in parts, and very crossed reversing grain. Some parts impossible to plane even with my LV la smoother. OK it might have been possible if I'd spent several hours crazy sharpening and then repeating between strokes, but I gave up and bought a Bosch ROS.
My planing did improve a lot during the exercise so it wasn't an entire waste of time.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (15 Apr 2012)

Hi Jacob

I know that you are a professional woodworker and I am a mere amateur .... actually it is _because_ you are a professional woodworker .... that I really struggle to grasp why you want to work with chisels that are not hair-popping sharp (don't take that literally, you know what I mean). The danger of crushing timber fibres rather than severing them cleanly is an ever-present risk. Why would you wish to put yourself in this situation?

Note that despite my hobbiest status as a woodworker, I am not a sharpening hobbiest. I just pay attention to sharpening issues and own decent sharpening media. Perhaps I am too naive to think and work like a professional. 

In my experience there is a world of difference in paring, for example, endgrain with a sharp edge, especially in either softwoods or very hardwoods. Dull edges are dangerous as you are required to use more force than necessary. "Sharp enough" in my book is VERY sharp. I cannot get that off a 2000 grit whatever (waterstone equivalent). At least 8000 grit is my target (I generally go to 12000). This usually only requires a 1000 and 12000 stone to achieve this level, and a couple of minutes at most. In terms of time and effort I just do not see what the fuss is about.

Just what do you consider "sharp enough" to be? And how do you determine this in the work you do?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## St.J (15 Apr 2012)

Dear all,
I've been lurking here a long time, what a great resource.
It's a bit sad that the first time I've felt able to offer something the thread is about sharpening...

Those interested in the different merits of green rouges (is that an oxymoron?) will enjoy this fabulously geeky post about the granularity of Lee Valley compound: (at this point I tried to post a link but my account won't allow it so try the google search term "lee valley rouge micron consumer alert" and it's the top hit.

I use a hollow grind on most of my edges and then work my way down through three Arkansas oilstones. Because I sharpen freehand this takes very little time and while working I rarely go back to the coarsest stone.
I rarely strop my woodworking tools: plane irons, chisels etc. but do strop my carving tools.

I have two leather strops, one with Boron Carbide paste (1 micron?), the other with Chromium Oxide (0.5?). If the light is angled correctly the surface of the first strop appears shiny. When I take the first stroke it goes black. - dull and perhaps rougher. I believe that this is the very fine wire edge created by the finest Arkansas stone coming off. The next few strokes make the strop go shiny again.

I don't strop my carving tools because it makes them sharper (it might, but after a couple of minutes use who can tell?). I do it because it polishes the bevel and makes them less grippy, easier to push through the wood. And because Chris Pye tells me to :wink: 

In short - stropping makes my paring tools seem sharper because they're polished. And it removes the wire edge. I think.

St.John


----------



## shim20 (15 Apr 2012)

Cheshirechappie":3cl48072 said:


> (I've never tried this, but I think you can strop an edge on the palm of your hand.



yep what i do in the palm of my hand, its not as dangeorus as it sounds never cut myself doing it


----------



## Jacob (15 Apr 2012)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> .........
> Just what do you consider "sharp enough" to be? And how do you determine this in the work you do?
> 
> Regards from Perth
> ...


It's a question of striking a happy medium between time and effort spent sharpening and the requirements of the job in hand. 
If the job particularly requires very sharp edges (clean finishing cuts) then frequent honing on finer stones may be required. Or not, as the case may be - hacking out a mortice and you can go a lot longer between honings. The limit then isn't the finish quality but the force required to make the cut.
In other words - it's perfectly self evident isn't it? Why am I having to spell it out? :lol:


----------



## Paul Chapman (15 Apr 2012)

Jacob":7qsrruep said:


> Paul Chapman":7qsrruep said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie":7qsrruep said:
> ...



You should have tried a scraper plane, Jacob. No need for any crazy sharpening :wink: I've yet to find a piece of wood with difficult grain that can't be tamed with a scraper.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (15 Apr 2012)

Paul Chapman":2evet49v said:


> Jacob":2evet49v said:
> 
> 
> > Paul Chapman":2evet49v said:
> ...


I might try it one day. Stanley 80 is pretty good but slow if there's a lot to do. 
NB I'm not religiously committed to hand processes, I just like the idea and the results, but in the end it's getting it done wot counts.


----------



## custard (15 Apr 2012)

Paul Chapman":3v5wjxty said:


> I've yet to find a piece of wood with difficult grain that can't be tamed with a scraper.



Or a 20 degree back bevel...


----------



## Jacob (15 Apr 2012)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> .....The danger of crushing timber fibres rather than severing them cleanly is an ever-present risk. Why would you wish to put yourself in this situation?


I don't put myself in that situation; I'm not insane. :roll: 
If the tool is "crushing timber fibres rather than severing them cleanly" I hone it a bit more until it cuts! Is this the wrong thing to do?
In fact "crushing timber fibres rather than severing them cleanly" defines a blunt blade, which answers your other question.

If an edge "crushing timber fibres rather than severing them cleanly" it needs "sharpening". Just thought I would repeat that for those who don't get it. :roll: 
Do you really not get it? is it a wind up or are you all in a trance of some sort? :lol:


----------



## Jacob (15 Apr 2012)

St.J":dx54nz6p said:


> ........
> In short - stropping makes my paring tools seem sharper because they're polished......
> St.John


Candle wax has a similar effect, particularly on a plane. It can transform it as though freshly sharpened and set, for just a quick squiggle.
"Seems" sharper is the same as "is" sharper. In other words there's more to sharpening than meets the eye :shock:


----------



## David C (16 Apr 2012)

> I have a black "surgical" Arkansas stone. It's too fine for woodwork purposes. Probably why it's termed "surgical".



Jacob,

I think these conversations would go better if you did not express your opinions as facts.

Arkansas stones were highly prized by cabinetmakers for more than a hundred years.

David


----------



## bugbear (16 Apr 2012)

Cheshirechappie":1fub9qaj said:


> In the 18th and 19th centuries, when the only sharpening stones readily available were the likes of Turkey, Charnley Forest and Welsh Slate, stropping on dressed leather (which was fairly cheaply and easily available) was a realistic way of quickly refining an edge. (I've never tried this, but I think you can strop an edge on the palm of your hand; seem to remember this written in one of Charles Hayward's many books.) Now that the technology of sharpening has developed, it would be surprising if no better method of achieving a very fine edge than stropping had been developed. However, that doesn't mean that stropping is dead - it quite plainly worked very well for many craftsmen over several generations, and much fine work was done by them to prove the point; so it will still work just as well.



Absolutely - the historical use of stropping exists in a context where Arkansas, let alone waterstones hadn't been introduced. Even when Ark stones were available they were hugely more expensive than a strop.

And for carvers, a slightly yielding strop is ideal for the many curved gouge edges involved.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (16 Apr 2012)

David C":288aadiu said:


> > I have a black "surgical" Arkansas stone. It's too fine for woodwork purposes. Probably why it's termed "surgical".
> 
> 
> ........
> ...


As were/are many others. 
What I'm saying, and having to repeat over and over again, is that the "surgical' sharpness possible with the right kit, is not necessarily desirable ALL the time for ALL woodworkers, and in fact could be counter productive for those wasting their time on creating and maintaining insanely sharp edges, sharper than required for the job in hand.
To which one of the (very stupid) replies tends to be to imply that woodwork which does not require insanely sharp edges is somehow inferior.
Crazy sharpening is particularly unhelpful to beginners IMHO as it sets the fence too high, whereas a simple trad routine with double sided oil stone is good enough for starters, in fact with only a few add-ons is good enough for life!


----------



## Philipp (16 Apr 2012)

Hi Folks,

Haven't read all the posts in this thread, so I hope the following has not been written in this thread before.

When grain sizes are being compared to each other it is essential to know how they were determined. Grain size determination can be done by different analytical methods, each giving _different results_. Even one and the same analytical method, using the same equipment but in different laboratories can give different results.
Also the material itself (i.e. the geometry of its particles/crystals) has a strong influence on the measured grain size.

Certainly, a "10-micron-powder" (whatever that may mean: D100 (haha)? D90? D50?) is very most likely coarser than a "1-micron-powder" (again: whatever that may mean: D100 (haha)? D90? D50?).

But assuming that a powder with a median grain size of, say, 0.5 µm is considerably finer("better") than a powder (perhaps with another chemistry or from another supplier) with, say, 0.8 µm is complete nonsense.

Regards, Philipp (not caring about the digit behind the decimal point)


----------



## Jacob (16 Apr 2012)

bugbear":iqbh4szd said:


> Cheshirechappie":iqbh4szd said:
> 
> 
> > In the 18th and 19th centuries, when the only sharpening stones readily available were the likes of Turkey, Charnley Forest and Welsh Slate, stropping on dressed leather (which was fairly cheaply and easily available) was a realistic way of quickly refining an edge. (I've never tried this, but I think you can strop an edge on the palm of your hand; seem to remember this written in one of Charles Hayward's many books.) Now that the technology of sharpening has developed, it would be surprising if no better method of achieving a very fine edge than stropping had been developed. However, that doesn't mean that stropping is dead - it quite plainly worked very well for many craftsmen over several generations, and much fine work was done by them to prove the point; so it will still work just as well.
> ...


Reality check - Arkansas stone was introduced in the paleozoic era, stropping (and sharpening) has been going on since the paleolithic.


----------



## Paul Chapman (16 Apr 2012)

Jacob":10mkeyw7 said:


> Reality check - Arkansas stone was introduced in the paleozoic era, stropping (and sharpening) has been going on since the paleolithic.



Blimey, Jacob, you must be older than we thought :shock: :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Kalimna (16 Apr 2012)

Jacob - sorry to be the geological era pedant here, but it is highly unlikely that stropping was around in the paleolithic. Twas only stone tools then - not sure how you would go about stropping a flint axe.
On another point, your arkansas stone may be 'surgical' grade, but it will produce an edge not nearly fine enough for a surgical tool in the modern era. What may have been appropriate and acceptable in antiquity (surgical or woodwork - the line blurs somewhat!) has now been superseded by modern techniques (laser cut for scalpel blades, I think), if it was good enough a couple of hundred years ago, that is only because there was nothing better at the time.
I do appreciate your experience, and pragmatic approach to woodworking, but it really would be nice and make a pleasant change if you appreciated that yours isnt the only acceptable way of doing things, and some folk have different reasons for doing woodwork the way they do.

A maxim (or is that axiom?) I use at work - 'If there truly was only one good way of doing things, then everyone would be doing it without exception'.

Cheers,
Adam


----------



## Jacob (16 Apr 2012)

Kalimna":16nww8w0 said:


> Jacob - sorry to be the geological era pedant here, but it is highly unlikely that stropping was around in the paleolithic. Twas only stone tools then - not sure how you would go about stropping a flint axe.


Polished stone axes would most likely have been done with abrasives on leather as both were available and it wouldn't have taken much to work out the technique


> ...
> I do appreciate your experience, and pragmatic approach to woodworking, but it really would be nice and make a pleasant change if you appreciated that yours isnt the only acceptable way of doing things, and some folk have different reasons for doing woodwork the way they do......


The thing is it took me some time to get to rounded bevel and very quick honing/sharpening and I thought it would be churlish to keep it to myself. I would say the same to you; "it really would be nice and make a pleasant change if you appreciated that yours isnt the only acceptable way of doing things".
Also I am intrigued by the rounded bevel thing and the fact that so many people don't get it - there's a bit of a sociological phenomenon going on here - could be somebody's thesis?
Also my name was mentioned in this thread, having kept out of it at first. If people comment on what I do, I may well return the compliment!


----------



## Paul Chapman (16 Apr 2012)

Jacob":3liq5eex said:


> Kalimna":3liq5eex said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob - sorry to be the geological era pedant here, but it is highly unlikely that stropping was around in the paleolithic. Twas only stone tools then - not sure how you would go about stropping a flint axe.
> ...



And then some bloke invented the wheel and they thought: 'Ah, now we can build a honing guide' :idea: :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## bugbear (16 Apr 2012)

Jacob":xkfze5gw said:


> bugbear":xkfze5gw said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie":xkfze5gw said:
> ...



I was talking about its introduction into the UK, imported from the USA, starting in the 1880s. I assume you knew this, and missed the point deliberately for reasons of your own. Please do TRY and be more constructive in discussions; at the moment your presence in a thread almost inevitably turns it into a cr*p fest.

BugBear

(I wonder what they were using "useless" surgically sharp edges for in the paleozoic - were they crazy sharpening even then?)


----------



## Kalimna (16 Apr 2012)

Jacob - i not a paleohistorian, but Im pretty sure stone axes were chipped (like flint), not honed. And your reflection of my comment back upon myself is poor - I do appreciate your way of working (as stated in my post), but I happen to prefer honing guides etc. So, whilst you have a vastly greater amount of experience than I do (in life as well as woodworking no doubt), you dont appear to have mastered the art of checking your facts regarding anothers opinion before commenting upon them.

Cheers,
Adam


----------



## Jacob (16 Apr 2012)

St.J":3ey0mn6b said:


> ...........
> 
> I don't strop my carving tools because it makes them sharper (it might, but after a couple of minutes use who can tell?). I do it because it polishes the bevel and makes them less grippy, easier to push through the wood. And because Chris Pye tells me to :wink:
> 
> ...


I think St. J's comment above is the most interesting thing in this thread. Polishing (stropping) the edge actually reduces friction _in the vicinity_ of the edge where it is being forced against the material. This is why it helps and gives the impression of increased sharpness, whatever the actual effect on the edge itself.
It's obvious with hindsight! Well done St J!

In other words all the emphasis in earlier posts on the effect on the edge has entirely missed the point (no pun intended) - it's the surface _immediately behind_ the edge which needs the strop.

You may not agree with this but stick with it: It follows that a perfect polished surface is not required - but merely that the relatively rough _surface_ (not the edge) left by the previous medium (stone etc) , should have it's sharpness _taken off_ to reduce friction. So even a little strop is effective.

So carry on stropping, we knew it worked, we now know why it works.

I'm really pleased with that conclusion as I've often felt a bit unsure of stropping, and left it out. I won't in future.

PS I expect the usual sequence of feeble sarcasm and mild abuse to follow this post - but chaps, don't waste you time, I really could not care less! :lol: :lol:


----------



## DTR (16 Apr 2012)

custard":2tv9g9gz said:


> Or a 20 degree back bevel...



20 degree? I thought the "usual" back bevel was at 10 degrees? I was just thinking about this today as I am having some difficulty with a hardwood of unknown origin (ID thread to come later). Apologies for going off topic, if the current discussion can be considered on topic.


----------



## David C (16 Apr 2012)

Dave,

Anything between 10 degrees and 25 degrees works for me. 

The harder and nastier the timber, the steeper I go.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Karl (16 Apr 2012)

No need to stop at 10/20/25 degrees. See here.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Paul Chapman (16 Apr 2012)

Karl":10lxajce said:


> No need to stop at 10/20/25 degrees. See here.



Karl,

Did you plane that table top with the modified blade? If so, how did it go?

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Karl (16 Apr 2012)

All being well i'll be doing it tomorrow Paul. I'll post an update.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## DTR (17 Apr 2012)

Thanks for the tips


----------



## Corneel (17 Apr 2012)

It's a good theory. Of course we don't really KNOW if that is the only advantage. When you use a somewhat coarser stone for your final honing, like an Arkansas, then the extra sharpness of the edge coulde be an advantage too.

I am meaning to get a strop for eons now, but never get round to it. My 8000 waterstone seems fine enough.




Jacob":eaw8lpuc said:


> St.J":eaw8lpuc said:
> 
> 
> > ...........
> ...


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Apr 2012)

> I am meaning to get a strop for eons now, but never get round to it. My 8000 waterstone seems fine enough.



The point is made that you do not need to strop if you have an 8000 waterstone.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## bugbear (18 Apr 2012)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> > I am meaning to get a strop for eons now, but never get round to it. My 8000 waterstone seems fine enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Historical/contextual question: does anyone (happen to) know if the Japanese tradition used strops for any purpose? I've never heard of it, but my reference material is primarily UK, North European and American.

BugBear


----------



## Harbo (18 Apr 2012)

Never heard of it used too - even for knife sharpening?

Rod


----------



## custard (18 Apr 2012)

Jacob":3vyb7tqo said:


> St.J":3vyb7tqo said:
> 
> 
> > ...........
> ...



Very interesting point. 

Also the Chris Pye style of stropping (and sharpening) is to rotate the carving gouge _sideways_ along the oil stone or strop. He also strops inside the arc of the gouge using a really thick piece of leather folded over, which means it's an automatic fit to the internal radius of the gouge.


----------



## Jacob (19 Apr 2012)

Jacob":3sid6hdp said:


> St.J":3sid6hdp said:
> 
> 
> > ...........
> ...


I've changed my mind about the bit in bold - pressure around a chisel or plane blade edge is going to be a lot higher than on a plane sole, so although "taking the sharpness off" a freshly ground plane sole is undoubtedly effective maybe the cutting edges really do need more polishing - just a few mm up the bevel and the face where the timber or the shavings are going to be pressing hard (i.e. not the whole face!).

Back to the OP and Brent Beach: BB starts his investigation with the observation "Overview. People often report better results after stropping their tools." 
Fair enough, this is true, we do. 
But BB then goes on to completely ignore this - at no point does he actually apply a stropped or un-stropped chisel to a piece of wood and compare/contrast the outcome. His conclusions are completely meaningless.

But anyway we now know why to strop - it's to polish the vicinity of the edge to make the cutting action easier. Incidentally this is quite different from the barber's strop of a razor - chisels and plane blades are very crude 25/30º wedges compared to the fine edge of a razor.
It also makes sense that carvers know this - they use chisels/gouges to a much greater extent than other woodworkers.


----------



## Corneel (20 Apr 2012)

Like I said, good theory. Now, of course, in a good scientific environment like an internet forum, we need to test the theory. How would you test your theory?

My advice: Hone some plane irons on a fine India stone. Then do your regular stropping. Finally hone again a tiny microbevel with the India stone. Then proceed to planning and measure resistance, watch the shavings, look at the planed surface, test the longevity of the edge etc etc. And compare to the same irons stropped without the extra hone.

Personally I think it is not a black and white thing. I think stropping does something for the edge AND the bevel and face surface. Of course I don't really know because I haven't yet ever stropped anything other then swiping the iron a bit on my jeans.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 Apr 2012)

Corneel":2r5w775a said:


> Like I said, good theory. Now, of course, in a good scientific environment like an internet forum, we need to test the theory. How would you test your theory?
> 
> My advice: Hone some plane irons on a fine India stone. Then do your regular stropping. Finally hone again a tiny microbevel with the India stone. Then proceed to planning and measure resistance, watch the shavings, look at the planed surface, test the longevity of the edge etc etc. And compare to the same irons stropped without the extra hone.
> 
> Personally I think it is not a black and white thing. I think stropping does something for the edge AND the bevel and face surface. Of course I don't really know because I haven't yet ever stropped anything other then swiping the iron a bit on my jeans.



Careful, Corneel! We could end up with a long and involved discussion about which brand of jeans is best for stropping, and whether or not the jeans should be impregnated with jeweller's rouge, diamond dust or workshop floor-sweepings!


----------



## Jacob (20 Apr 2012)

Corneel":3thsvvah said:


> ...
> Personally I think it is not a black and white thing. I think stropping does something for the edge AND the bevel and face surface. ....


I am sure you are right. Except it _is_ a black and white thing i.e. the question is; does a chisel or plane cut better after stropping? A lot of users say yes. Isn't that good enough? 
You could do a test rig with a chisel, some sort of standardised mallet stroke, and see how far a chisel penetrates. More meaningful than B Beach's staring through a microscope!


----------

