# Mock ye not !!



## David C (20 Aug 2013)

Corneel,

As it happens my (used to be £5) Ecliipse guide, does a cracking job on the Stanley or L-N, scrub plane blade camber.

Obviously there are several freehand methods of doing the job, one of which benefits from that develish new invention, *The Felt Tip Permanent Marker.* 

I often wonder why the freehand cultists abuse the guide users? I am not aware of abusing them. 

Perhaps this is a relic of the heirarchical superiority of the skilled man over the apprentice? "I can do it but it will be some time before you can."

Guides allow my students, who may be beginners, to work with tools as sharp as mine on day two.

David Charlesworth


----------



## dm65 (20 Aug 2013)

I too use a guide, to good effect and am not embarrassed to say so

I could spend some time learning to do it freehand but I can spend the time saved by justifying new/prospective purchase's to swmbo instead, thanks ! (I think you get the point - I could do other 'things' with the time)

Now gonna spend some of that time looking to see what this post to Corneel is related too


----------



## Jacob (20 Aug 2013)

David C":184jti65 said:


> Corneel,
> 
> As it happens my (used to be £5) Ecliipse guide, does a cracking job on the Stanley or L-N, scrub plane blade camber.
> 
> ...


You should read your own posts Dave post793405.html#p793405 "misleading drivel". This isn't an isolated incident - you indulge in quite a bit of sarcasm and abuse, not to mention misleading drivel. :lol: :lol: Clearly you aren't aware of it.
It lowers the tone and turns harmless discussions about different methods into bad tempered exchanges. Calling us "cultists" is another example.


> ....
> Guides allow my students, who may be beginners, to work with tools as sharp as mine on day two.
> 
> David Charlesworth


Day 2? Thats a bit slow Dave. It takes 10 minutes or so to get the hang of freehand sharpening.


----------



## ColeyS1 (20 Aug 2013)

Here we go again :lol:

Sent from my GT-I9300


----------



## Dangermouse (20 Aug 2013)

Sharpening debates should be BANNED on this forum !!!! :-# [-( [-X #-o ](*,) :evil:


----------



## dm65 (20 Aug 2013)

Dangermouse":21e773c7 said:


> Sharpening debates should be BANNED on this forum !!!! :-# [-( [-X #-o ](*,) :evil:


No way - most become highly entertaining, might start one myself ......


----------



## j123j (20 Aug 2013)

Jacob":1r1c1o0s said:



> David C":1r1c1o0s said:
> 
> 
> > Corneel,
> ...



Jacob, man... you need to seek help, really.


----------



## Corneel (20 Aug 2013)

Well, lucky you David. My German scrub plane blade isn't so cooperative, which is a pitty because the plane only cost me 1 euro.





Which brings me to my point. A jig limits you in the tools you can use. A well rounded woodworker has plenty of edge tools that can't be sharpened with a jig, so freehand sharpening is an essential skill. We learned in the other thread that the best way to learn this skill is to start with the simple stuff, like chisels and planeblades, practice a lot and get good at it. Then you move on to the more esoteric stuff.

A woodworking course is the ultimate location to learn such an essential skill. No feeble, human natured, excuses (I have no time, I can't do it, it's too difficult, I want to buy nice shiny toys). No, the strong dominant teacher forces you to learn and the student is happy afterwards. And it is not rocket science, half a day should be plenty to get the basics of the skill down. Perfection it is a lifetime endeavour of course, but after half a day you should be able to reliably sharpen a straight edge freehand. 

That's why I wrote that a woodworking teacher does a disservice to his students when he learns sharpening with a jig. That's not condesending, that's plain logic.

And like I said also, whatever one does in his freetime is his own business.


----------



## Paul Chapman (20 Aug 2013)

Corneel":1iemrmrf said:


> Well, lucky you David. My German scrub plane blade isn't so cooperative, which is a pitty because the plane only cost me 1 euro.



Not sure what projection you are using there - I don't recall the knob of the guide touching the stone when I hone my Veritas scrub plane blade.

In any case, it matters not because when using a scrub you don't use the whole width of the blade, only the central portion, so you only need hone part of the curve.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (20 Aug 2013)

Paul Chapman":1szcl8wx said:


> ......
> In any case, it matters not because when using a scrub you don't use the whole width of the blade, only the central portion, so you only need hone part of the curve.
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> ...


Hmm not really. Yes the middle does more work, as with all cambered blades, but you might well use the whole edge on parts of a rough surface. It all needs sharpening.
A cambered scrub is very easy to sharpen freehand, I can't imagine why anyone would want to use a jig here.


----------



## Corneel (20 Aug 2013)

The German scrub plane blade is very narrow, it only fits in the chisel position. Projection is for 30 degrees. And I don't use all the width, but I do use more then this. And this is just one example.


----------



## MIGNAL (20 Aug 2013)

I think I can safely bring the whole sharpening thing to a definitive conclusion. 
If you are highly skilled, don't use a honing guide. However if you are unskilled, a bit of an amateur, then feel free to use as many guides as you wish.


----------



## dm65 (20 Aug 2013)

MIGNAL":3fapu7zd said:


> I think I can safely bring the whole sharpening thing to a definitive conclusion.
> If you are highly skilled, don't use a honing guide. However if you are unskilled, a bit of an amateur, then feel free to use as many guides as you wish.


+1 (but don't spoil the argument)

Just to fan the flames a bit, a guide can be useful to get the original blade angle back as well as just for honing and I'm sure even the pro's like some sort of guide when doing this initial work


----------



## ColeyS1 (20 Aug 2013)

Wonder if they were onto something with the replaceable tip chisels and disposable plane cutters. Save a heck of a lot of arguing which sharpening method was best 

Sent from my GT-I9300


----------



## dm65 (20 Aug 2013)

ColeyS1":o5869982 said:


> Wonder if they were onto something with the replaceable tip chisels and disposable plane cutters. Save a heck of a lot of arguing which sharpening method was best
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9300


Hahahahaha - I have a Stanley rb5 from bee and queue - that the sort of thing you mean ?


----------



## ColeyS1 (20 Aug 2013)

Thats the boy. Check out these little beauties aswell 
http://www.m-powertools.com/products/mercpro/mercpro.htm

Sent from my GT-I9300


----------



## dm65 (20 Aug 2013)

ColeyS1":1ite7k3e said:


> Thats the boy. Check out these little beauties aswell
> http://www.m-powertools.com/products/mercpro/mercpro.htm
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9300


Sweet - never come across anything like that before !

I wonder if you can resharpen those tips to get your moneys worth :wink:


----------



## Paul Chapman (20 Aug 2013)

Jacob":2tusntbr said:


> Paul Chapman":2tusntbr said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



Blimey, Jacob, if you can plane with a scrub plane with the whole of the bevel exposed, you must have muscles like Popeye :shock: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Bigdanny (20 Aug 2013)

I hope David C and all who use them realise that Permanent Marker pens have chemicals in them that deteriorate sharpening stones. (hammer)


----------



## Scouse (20 Aug 2013)

Corneel":r99vr71z said:


>



I'm curious as to how this problem is overcome with an Eclipse type guide; I turned to freehand sharpening a few years ago after I had the same problem with a 2 3/8 inch Stanley blade from a 5 1/2 with a 9 inch camber at 25 degrees, not an extreme blade or camber by any means. I've still got the guide with the wear marks from the stone. 

The Veritas mk2 solved the problem, but it was a faff to use and in the end it was easier to learn to sharpen freehand than learn to use that.


----------



## David C (20 Aug 2013)

Old Eclipse guides have a more delicate body size than the modern Far Eastern copies.

This may explain the scrub plane blade issue.

Blades which need honing by hand, are naturally done by hand.

David


----------



## matthewwh (21 Aug 2013)

Why hone a scrub at all?

The surface it produces will be replaced by the later planes - fore, jack etc.

It is used across the grain (weakest direction) rather than along it, so you are going to get a splintery mess anyway.

If you use a very light touch with the final pass on the grinder / linisher / belt sander you can get a perfectly adequate edge that cuts across the grain with little resistance.

If you are going to hone one, I would hold the blade still and move the stone over it, as you would when stoning an axe.


----------



## Corneel (21 Aug 2013)

David C":ksazuhrf said:


> Blades which need honing by hand, are naturally done by hand.
> 
> David



I rest my case


----------



## dj. (21 Aug 2013)

matthewwh":1em2piei said:


> Why hone a scrub at all?
> 
> The surface it produces will be replaced by the later planes - fore, jack etc.
> 
> ...




Steady Mathew, adding common sense to these sharpening debacles is the last thing we need. 

"ding ding" round 2



Regards.

dj.


----------



## woodbrains (21 Aug 2013)

matthewwh":34a6ytlv said:


> If you are going to hone one, I would hold the blade still and move the stone over it, as you would when stoning an axe.




Hello,

I said much the same in the other thread. There is almost nothing in common with honing a plane/ bench chisels, with things having curved edges like gouges, axes, severely cambered blades. Either the stone is taken to the tool, or the tool's width is held longitudinally on the stone whilst rolling it. Plane irons etc are presented transversely with arms locked to maintain the angle, and no rocking in any direction. Even slightly cambering blades is achieved by increasing pressure alternately at each corner, rather than physically rolling the tool. Whether honing freehand or jigged, there are no real transferable skills here and no disadvantage to a jig honer, when it comes to sharpening other stuff. I know, I'd do both and there is no problem sharpening gouges freehand if I want, I don't feel I have not had enough practice from the flat blades being jigged.

Also, it is perfectly valid in a teaching situation, to get the students tools sharp by the most expedient method. These students pay good money to learn many aspects of woodworking and need/ want to use tools and get results from the off. Labouring on freehand sharpening, is not going to help things progress. Besides, it is important that the students get to experience what true sharpness is, so they understand what needs to be achieved. Once this is understood, it frees them to get the sharp edges however they think fit from then on. It is surprising how many people think they have been sharpening well for years, until they are shown a truly sharp edge, and what it can do. It causes universal amazement, I think David C will agree. I remember my time at college, which was filled with woodworkers of varying degrees, but all with some experience. Of the 20 there, about 4 knew what truly sharp was and how to acheive it. ( I'm sure David will confirm that these proportions are repeated similarly in his classes ) To the rest, it was an epiphany. Incidentally, pupils there were not really taught to sharpen in any particular fashion. It was more of a, ' this is how it can be done and this is what sharp looks like' approach. Everyone found their own way, and everyone got sharp.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (21 Aug 2013)

matthewwh":10mbs9zp said:


> Why hone a scrub at all?
> 
> The surface it produces will be replaced by the later planes - fore, jack etc.
> 
> ...


The distinction between honing and sharpening is a bit artificial. From coarse grinding to fine "honing" is a continuum and every step is "sharpening".
Yes a perfectly acceptable edge is obtainable on a linisher etc, but ditto freehand on a coarse stone. And you can then progress to a finer stone as far as you can be bothered.
And scrubs can be used along the grain too. They are good for rapid removal of board edges. I've taken to using one where previously I might have used an axe . Say you want to remove 10mm or so from a thin board edge it can actually be quicker than using the band saw, if the plane is to hand.

PS just read the above 
_Plane irons etc are presented transversely with arms locked to maintain the angle, and no rocking in any direction._
My arms don't lock :shock: and I do rock the blade :shock: and they do seem to get sharpened quite quickly :shock: 
What am I doing wrong? NB I "maintain the angle" by "looking" at it and keeping it near or below 30º.
_Labouring on freehand sharpening, is not going to help things progress._ I agree I think you should stop labouring and relax a bit. All this arm locking and rigidity sounds like painful contortionism and adds nothing to the sharpening process - unless you are a bit of a masochist? Hmm, is that what it's all about? Well smack me! :lol:


----------



## woodbrains (21 Aug 2013)

Hello,

Jacob, the arm flapping that you do is not what anyone here recognises as sharpening whilst maintaining a fixed, flat, bevel angle ( primary or secondary) The idea of locking arms and wrists to acheive repeatability is nothing strange to anyone here except those with anomalous practices. I'm sure someone somewhere sharpens with their feet, but I cannot describe a method which takes into account these eccentricities.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (21 Aug 2013)

woodbrains":1dbh47xw said:


> Hello,
> 
> Jacob, the arm flapping that you do is not what anyone here recognises as sharpening whilst maintaining a fixed, flat, bevel angle ( primary or secondary) The idea of locking arms and wrists to acheive repeatability is nothing strange to anyone here except those with anomalous practices. I'm sure someone somewhere sharpens with their feet, but I cannot describe a method which takes into account these eccentricities.
> 
> Mike.


But nobody needs a fixed flat bevel. That's the whole point. 
We are getting there slowly - it's been about 5 years since I first brought this up!
A slightly rounded bevel is perfectly OK as long as the edge is close to the desired angle, usually 30º.
There is no _point_ in a rounded bevel as such, except that if you adopt an easy relaxed attitude to sharpening it is a (harmless) byproduct. 

_The idea of locking arms and wrists to acheive repeatability is nothing strange to anyone here _. I realise that. Who came up with this stupid idea? They haven't half wasted a lot of people's time. Probably brought on early arthritis in the process! Stop doing it immediately, it can't be good for you and it's pointless!

PS and there's nothing wrong with a perfectly flat fixed bevel if that's what you want, but getting one freehand is not easy, as you make clear. How is the back BTW? Any stiffness in the wrist area?


----------



## Sheffield Tony (21 Aug 2013)

There seems to be a lot of sophistry going on here. Of course you can sharpen a scrub iron with a jig - either a different design of guide (I find an old Record one does the job nicely), or a narrower stone will help. Or find yourself a nicely dished old stone that nobody else wants anymore and you won't even need to rock it side to side :lol: 



woodbrains":b1tfqz4q said:


> Also, it is perfectly valid in a teaching situation, to get the students tools sharp by the most expedient method. These students pay good money to learn many aspects of woodworking and need/ want to use tools and get results from the off. Labouring on freehand sharpening, is not going to help things progress. Besides, it is important that the students get to experience what true sharpness is, so they understand what needs to be achieved. Once this is understood, it frees them to get the sharp edges however they think fit from then on.



I agree with this. I have only been on one woodworking course since I left school a few years ago :wink:, that one was green woodworking. The most tedious thing is when the woodworking comes to a stop to talk sharpening.


----------



## Corneel (21 Aug 2013)

woodbrains":x5ns9ltl said:


> matthewwh":x5ns9ltl said:
> 
> 
> > If you are going to hone one, I would hold the blade still and move the stone over it, as you would when stoning an axe.
> ...



You sound like someone who competes in downhill biking but puts trainingwheels on his citybike. If you can reliably sharpen a gouge, why on earth do you bother with a jig for something mundane like a chisel? And yes it is exactly the same, however you move the tool over the stone and with flapping arms or not. You need to target a honing angle in both cases.


----------



## Jacob (21 Aug 2013)

Sheffield Tony":mzurvbu4 said:


> .... Of course you can sharpen a scrub iron with a jig - either a different design of guide (I find an old Record one does the job nicely), or a narrower stone will help.


Yebbut why would you bother when it's so easy freehand?


> Or find yourself a nicely dished old stone that nobody else wants anymore and you won't even need to rock it side to side :lol: .......


Perfectly easy on a flat stone - more of a twist than rock n roll.

It's really weird that these simple procedures are portrayed as so difficult. Much of woodworking is far more difficult than simple freehand sharpening. We all do more difficult things every day. Hitting a darts board is more difficult. Think of all those ball games played. Musical instruments. All more difficult than holding a plane blade at 30º - which a trained chimpanzee could probably manage!
I'd say sharpening a pencil is about the same level of difficulty as sharpening a chisel. Come to think I know people who can't sharpen a pencil but I bet they could manage a chisel.
Wossit all about? Mass hysteria? Brain washing?


----------



## Jacob (21 Aug 2013)

dm65":2qkcieqq said:


> MIGNAL":2qkcieqq said:
> 
> 
> > I think I can safely bring the whole sharpening thing to a definitive conclusion.
> ...


Yes I've done that with old planes. First thing with a rusty old blade covered in cobwebs is to put it in a jig at 30º and give it a quick sharpen - just 2 or 3 passes. It shows up instantly all the defects of the edge and you can see what needs doing - sometimes surprisingly little.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (21 Aug 2013)

Jacob":gem2j9c8 said:


> Sheffield Tony":gem2j9c8 said:
> 
> 
> > .... Of course you can sharpen a scrub iron with a jig - either a different design of guide (I find an old Record one does the job nicely), or a narrower stone will help.
> ...



I am only an amateur, so what I do / find easy / find hard might not count for much, but I sharpen a range of tools - including gouges, knives, pole lathe tools as well as plane irons and chisels. 

All but the plane irons and the wider chisels I do as I was taught in school - wet grinder and freehand hone on an oilstone, India and/or Arkansas. For plane blades and wide chisels I use a guide. Why ? Because it is quick and easy, and relieves me of the concentration needed to sharpen, say, an in-cannel gouge properly. Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean it is the easiest or best way. It is easy to mess up freehand - the odd stroke with your blade too steep is all that is needed to raise the bevel angle, very little steel to remove. But drop your had a little and you can spend an age removing steel with no effect whatsoever on the cutting edge sharpness. And once you (inadvertently or otherwise) no longer have a single flat honing bevel, you lose tactile feedback.

I also suspect it is because I'm an engineer and like the lovely crisp look of the flat bevels it produces. I am sure the wood doesn't notice though.

BTW, I am no good at playing darts, ball games or musical instruments either.


----------



## chipmunk (21 Aug 2013)

I don't want to get into this argument (really) but I feel I must be missing out on something?

Here's the confession - I always consider sharpening as a bit of a nuisance and definitely more of a means to an end than an end in itself. 

I am mainly a woodturner and I admit to freehand grinding my swept back gouges but in the current climate this sets me apart from the norm where most people grind with jigs. In my case it's certainly not for "religeous reasons" :wink: It's 100% because I'm a tight sod who isn't prepared to pay the wad required for a fancy jig but if I was given one I readily admit that I'd probably use it. 

I do use a cheap Stanley pressed steel jig for plane irons and chisels although I also have an Eclipse one but the cheap Stanley has nice measuring rules that stick out front to set the angles. 

...but neither gives me much enjoyment - am I the only one? 

Jon


----------



## Jacob (21 Aug 2013)

chipmunk":2k5arcln said:


> ...
> ...but neither gives me much enjoyment - am I the only one?
> 
> Jon


I actually like sharpening. It's something I look forwards to as a little break from the other work. And then very satisfying to feel the difference as a chisel cuts instead of crunching through the grain. But this only since I got into freehand - I always found jigs to be a PITA and it's a great relief to leave them behind.
I've got a big box of old woodies to do something with (another story :roll: ) but the idea of taking out 40 rusty knackered blades and getting each one going is quite an attractive challenge for an idle hour or so.
It takes all sorts!


----------



## woodbrains (21 Aug 2013)

Corneel":1t2b5m90 said:


> You sound like someone who competes in downhill biking but puts trainingwheels on his citybike. If you can reliably sharpen a gouge, why on earth do you bother with a jig for something mundane like a chisel? And yes it is exactly the same, however you move the tool over the stone and with flapping arms or not. You need to target a honing angle in both cases.




Hello,

Ahh, but this is the point. I have no built in protractor, but may like to choose an angle which the bevel is not naturally going to give me just by feel. I might want an included angle of 30 deg, composed of a 20 deg primary bevel and a 10 degree back bevel and turn my plane into a middle pitch smoother for cranky grain. I might want a 38 deg bevel in a BU smoother, a 45 deg in a scraper plane, a 22 for a pairing chisel for punky end grain. It is fun to know what I'm doing and I like to know what works for future repeatability. Not for everyone, perhaps, but definitely something I like to do, and I know others do also.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (21 Aug 2013)

woodbrains":1p47gz07 said:


> ..... I have no built in protractor,


Wot no brain?


> but may like to choose an angle which the bevel is not naturally going to give me just by feel. I might want an included angle of 30 deg, composed of a 20 deg primary bevel and a 10 degree back bevel and turn my plane into a middle pitch smoother for cranky grain. I might want a 38 deg bevel in a BU smoother, a 45 deg in a scraper plane, a 22 for a pairing chisel for punky end grain. It is fun to know what I'm doing and I like to know what works for future repeatability. Not for everyone, perhaps, but definitely something I like to do, and I know others do also.
> 
> Mike.


30 is easy - 1/3 of a right angle. a gradient of 1/2, half the corner of an equilateral triangle etc
90 is easy 
45 is easy (half 90)
15 is easy (1/2 of 30 or 1/3 of 45)
etc etc other angle being a tweaK more or less than the easy ones
but we all know that you don't really need all these angles - or you would have to be changing blades/angles as you worked your way along the same piece of wild wood. You'd never finish anything!
What are you working on at the mo? Any WIPs?

PS It might help if you practiced visualising bevel angles, perhaps with your arm in the air like this chap - having a go at 15º

OK I removed it!


----------



## iNewbie (21 Aug 2013)

Is it Godwins Law time already...


----------



## Corneel (21 Aug 2013)

Oh please Jacob, no that. Can you still remove that image?


----------



## iNewbie (21 Aug 2013)

What, that picture of Hitler?


----------



## woodbrains (21 Aug 2013)

Hello,

WIP at the moment is a black walnut blanket chest. Nothing too ornery, timber wise, so nothing special about the plane setup, other than the usual very sharp blade, fine mouth and finely set cap iron. Unfortunately, this is on hold for the moment as I am moving into my home workshop presently, which is a great upheaval. Perhaps I will post some images when things get settled down a bit. I have to make a new bench first, the shed is smaller than my pervious workshop, so I need storage in the bench for as many tools as I can manage. Might post images of the workshop, too, when things are more set up, everything is in heaps on the floor and every other horizontal surface at the minute.

Once you know what honing angles, other than the basic one, will do, it enables us to dispense with power sanders. This in general is good thing, as we are hand tool users here, but especially in a small shed. If there is too much perceived effort in having tools with special sharpening requirements, think about the time ultimately saved by not having to resot to belt sanders etc. not to mention dust. Sanders are not efficient at removing wood compared to planes; think about how much sanding dust would make up the volume of wood in one shaving, that takes fractions of seconds to produce.

Jacob, I did mention that your raison d'être seems to be contradicting everything I say, these days. Please do not find it necessary to do so, especially if it involves posting images in poor taste. What I do is usually not badly conceived, though perhaps not for you. This is fine, I'm not trying to covert anyone to anything, but if someone asks why I do a thing, I will tell them. The things I do yield positive perceivable results. For those who want to try what I do, they may find something they can use, or they may find it is not for them. But we are all trying to learn and try new things.

Mike.


----------



## lurcher (21 Aug 2013)

may i ask wen you have done your thing with sharpening wether with a jig or a waltz or hand rubbed do you then go that extra 
1/8th and strop your edge 
i do mine on a piece of leather glued to a flat board the moisten leather with a little wd40 then tormek honing paste now that is an edge to shave with or even just the tormek honing paste on a piece of mdf it does a good job and i would rather keep my tools sharp as possible for as long as possible


----------



## woodbrains (21 Aug 2013)

Hello,

Tormek paste is made up of an abrasive with mixture of particle sizes, but if memory serves, has an effective size of about 3 microns. I will check on this fact, but it is about the sort of thing. The 8000 grit waterstone has a particle size of less than half this, so it would be a backward step to use a strop for me. When I used oilstones, I did strop. The finest oilstones were about 9 micron, so stropping with tormek paste would show a benefit, though I used chrome oxide, about 0.5 micron. What you have to take into account is, you must go to a fine enough grit on the stones before stropping. The particle size on stropping paste will not remove much metal, so you must get to Hard Arkasas sort of fineness of stones for a strop to be of any use. Also, stropping is unlikely to 'refresh' an edge on its own. As it removes so little material, it will not get past the wear bevel on the flat side of he blade, and therefore It will not get the tool back to sharp. I always do some work on the finest stone and then strop to quickly get back an edge in a little and often regime. I like waterstones as they effectively cut quicker and miss out the strop stage, but I did use oilstones for 30 years, and if this is what you have and are happy, work very well as I describe.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (22 Aug 2013)

> Jacob, I did mention that your raison d'être seems to be contradicting everything I say, these days.


Honest it's nothing personal - we just have different views about a lot of things! I do feel that the meticulous, precision laboratory, tool centred approach is a very long way from mainstream woodwork. At the other end of the spectrum is greenwood working with axe and adze, which is not "inferior" - just a different approach. And there is a lot in between.

IMHO stropping isn't an additional way to hone an edge but is about polishing the bevel and the face (near the edge). This helps shavings slip past more easily and also leave a cleaner cut when e.g. carving with a tool finish. It will remove some metal of course so there is a tiny element of sharpening involved. It's similar to applying candle wax to a plane sole or saw blade - doesn't directly sharpen at all, but miraculously improves cutting performance.


----------



## bugbear (22 Aug 2013)

Jacob":30ul5uuc said:


> IMHO stropping isn't an additional way to hone an edge but is about polishing the bevel and the face immediately behind.



Your distinction is a false one; coarse grinding through honing to polishing is a continuum.

Carvers view stropping as a major sharpening method - indeed, a chisel might be used for weeks without seeing a stone, stropping regularly.

Stropping (with a substrate of just the right density) is very good for non-straight edges, as you get a degree of comformance, which reduces the manouvres needed to work the entire edge.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (22 Aug 2013)

Obviously you could sharpen indefinitely by stropping "with a suitable substrate" but stone is the main thing.
Good demo here http://www.finewoodworking.com/how-to/v ... tools.aspx
Freehand, slightly rounded bevel, no problem with "manouevres" (so many if these problems are imaginary!).
His main concern (after sharpening) is the finish on the workpiece.
Much the same is done with straight edge tools


----------



## woodbrains (22 Aug 2013)

bugbear":7zfiipmt said:


> Jacob":7zfiipmt said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO stropping isn't an additional way to hone an edge but is about polishing the bevel and the face immediately behind.
> ...




Hello,

Yes, I have to agree with Bugbear. At some point, the abrasives become so small, that the metal removal is percived to be polishing, but it is just tiny scratches, the same as previous honing grits, just fine enough to make the metal shine. Some stones are fine enough to get the same result and negate the need for stropping. However, going to a strop, or a very fine stone from too coarse a previous one, may make the edge shinier, but not remove the rough scratches, from the coarser stone. I won't say there won't be some perceived benefit doing this, BUT the coarse grinding scratches are still there, so the edge is not really any sharper than if the strop were omitted. We have just polished the peaks of deep scratches. It would be better not to bother with the strop and just go for a finer stone as the last stage. Of course you could gild the lily an then strop too. It is just like sand papering really, you have to go through all the grits. No one would think it a good idea to jump from P80 to P 340 without going to P 120,180,220 first.

Mike.

PS it may be worth starting a new thread for this topic, it has gone way off the original question, and may get more responses if it is a fresh thread.


----------



## bugbear (22 Aug 2013)

Jacob":jb573w5o said:


> Obviously you could sharpen indefinitely by stropping "with a suitable substrate" but stone is the main thing.



Read a little on traditional carving.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (22 Aug 2013)

Polishing the peaks of deep scratches actually does work in reducing friction. It may not be desirable for a tool finish (e.g. carver) but is helpful otherwise.



> No one would think it a good idea to jump from P80 to P 340 without going to P 120,180,220 first.


If reducing friction is the issue then it _is_ a good idea. It may leave a scratchy _looking_ surface but the bits in contact with the wood are smooth. An extreme example would be a corrugated plane sole. We've been here before in another thread - must have a look for it.
If frinstance you flatten a plane sole on 80 grit you can jump straight to 400 to reduce friction. If you don't believe me then try it yourself.
Armchair theorising is all very well but there is a real world out there. 
The need for a mirror finish is one of the delusions due to theorising without practice, and is a complete waste of time (unless you want to see your face on your chisel!)


----------



## bugbear (22 Aug 2013)

Jacob":r2vfwq4l said:


> The need for a mirror finish is one of the delusions due to theorising without practice, and is a complete waste of time (unless you want to see your face on your chisel!)



*The reverse, (large flat surface) of my edge tools such as chisels, planes, spokeshaves and so on are lapped flat and then polished through refining stages to a mirror finish. *

-- Paul Sellers

BugBear


----------



## woodbrains (22 Aug 2013)

Hello,

Jacob, You are right, a corrugated plane is an extreme example of what I am saying. No one wants that for a final finish, though. Reducing friction is not going to make the scratches any shallower. A truly sharp edge will have the finest scratch pattern and leave the finest surface. I do no theorise from my arm chair, this is all from experience and experimentation ovr decades.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (22 Aug 2013)

woodbrains":3aj828ei said:


> Hello,
> 
> Jacob, You are right, a corrugated plane is an extreme example of what I am saying. No one wants that for a final finish, though. Reducing friction is not going to make the scratches any shallower. A truly sharp edge will have the finest scratch pattern and leave the finest surface. I do no theorise from my arm chair, this is all from experience and experimentation ovr decades.
> 
> Mike.


The corrugations on a plane sole do not leave corresponding ridges on the workpiece. Explain!


----------



## bugbear (22 Aug 2013)

Jacob":27nmml2f said:


> woodbrains":27nmml2f said:
> 
> 
> > Hello,
> ...



The sole of a plane isn't cutting - obvious...

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (22 Aug 2013)

bugbear":2v4m0815 said:


> Jacob":2v4m0815 said:
> 
> 
> > woodbrains":2v4m0815 said:
> ...


Neither is the bevel or the face of a chisel or plane edge.


----------



## bugbear (22 Aug 2013)

Jacob":19j506cz said:


> Neither is the bevel or the face of a chisel or plane edge.



Scratches opposite the bevel cause teeth to form in the edge; Take a look at a toothing plane iron.







Simple, real, no armchairs harmed in the making of this post.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (22 Aug 2013)

bugbear":3oq7mpoe said:


> Jacob":3oq7mpoe said:
> 
> 
> > Neither is the bevel or the face of a chisel or plane edge.
> ...


Only if they reach the edge itself - take a look at a toothing plane iron.


----------



## bugbear (22 Aug 2013)

Jacob":2z0rhhxv said:


> bugbear":2z0rhhxv said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":2z0rhhxv said:
> ...



Correct. Not sure what your general argument is, but you've got the narrow "scratches opposite the bevel cause teeth" concept at last.

BugBear


----------



## James C (23 Aug 2013)

If we are talking about the real world most of the carvers that I am currently learning from consider stropping to be the most important part of sharpening not for letting things slip past but for the ultimate edge. 

I have found what others have said to be true in that I can bring my carving chisels and knives back to sharpness without wasting time on a stone. My stones get used when the bevel gets to big and the correct angle needs to be properly established. A few minutes free hand every 10 or so strop sessions.


----------



## woodbrains (23 Aug 2013)

James C":1bi9nsor said:


> If we are talking about the real world most of the carvers that I am currently learning from consider stropping to be the most important part of sharpening not for letting things slip past but for the ultimate edge.



Hello,

Yes, stropping is sharpening, not just for reducing friction on a coarse edge. 

However, there is a subtle but important difference between carving tools and plane irons/bench chisels. Carving chisels are double beveled, to some extent, so stropping of both meeting planes takes place: a regular strop on the bevel and a slip strop on the inside bevel. This will not work on planes unless you want a back bevel and is to be avoided at all costs on chisels. This is why I say you must always stone these, to remove the wear bevel on the back. Stropping then, if you want to, will take place on the bevel side only.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (23 Aug 2013)

woodbrains":1azm7kme said:


> ....
> However, there is a subtle but important difference between carving tools and plane irons/bench chisels. Carving chisels are double beveled, to some extent, so stropping of both meeting planes takes place: a regular strop on the bevel and a slip strop on the inside bevel. This will not work on planes unless you want a back bevel and is to be avoided at all costs on chisels. ..


Why? What's the difference?


----------



## woodbrains (23 Aug 2013)

Jacob":3u4gvt93 said:


> woodbrains":3u4gvt93 said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Hello.

If you actually read the above, it explains that it would introduce a back bevel to the blade. You know full well why a back bevel on a bench chisel is not a good thing. On planes it might be useful, but only if you intend it, otherwise it will just make sharpening unlikely to produce the sharp edge you expect.

Mike.


----------



## matthewwh (23 Aug 2013)

A subtle but important point is that anything involving rubbing the back of a blade on a larger flat surface will move it in the direction of convexity (as opposed to causing convexity). If your chisel back is ever so slightly concave to begin with, both stropping and backing off will always be making things flatter. 

Should you pass beyond flat, convexity becomes self perpetuating until the back is re-ground to restore the slight concavity.


----------



## Corneel (24 Aug 2013)

Each and every old chisel I find is convex, some with pretty pronounced bellies. Until recently this worried me a lot and I would go to great lengths to remove this belly. But I'm not so sure anymore if it matters. When you are talking about steering a chisel in a cut, a belly might be beneficial, it gives you a fulcrum. Pressing down with the handle steers the edge upwards and vice versa. I learned this technique from an oldtimer in regards drawing knifes. 

When restoring old chisels I now only worry about the dropped corners and pitting. This can be hard enough to remove without worrying what happens further up the chisel face.


----------



## woodbrains (24 Aug 2013)

matthewwh":9b0r46io said:


> A subtle but important point is that anything involving rubbing the back of a blade on a larger flat surface will move it in the direction of convexity (as opposed to causing convexity). If your chisel back is ever so slightly concave to begin with, both stropping and backing off will always be making things flatter.
> 
> Should you pass beyond flat, convexity becomes self perpetuating until the back is re-ground to restore the slight concavity.




Hello,

Wasn't actually talking about stropping the flat as such, but stropping a back bevel, as you would find on carving tools. The wear bevel on a plane or bench chisel needs to be removed for it to be sharp, whereas a carving tool the wear bevel can be stropped into the honed bevel, since they are honed with bevels on both sides. There is a distinction between how the tools are used and this makes differences in how they are sharpened.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (24 Aug 2013)

Corneel":vwbg7dmn said:


> Each and every old chisel I find is convex, some with pretty pronounced bellies. Until recently this worried me a lot and I would go to great lengths to remove this belly. But I'm not so sure anymore if it matters. When you are talking about steering a chisel in a cut, a belly might be beneficial, it gives you a fulcrum. Pressing down with the handle steers the edge upwards and vice versa. I learned this technique from an oldtimer in regards drawing knifes.
> 
> When restoring old chisels I now only worry about the dropped corners and pitting. This can be hard enough to remove without worrying what happens further up the chisel face.


Agree. Perhaps there are circumstances when a dead flat chisel face is useful but it's hard to see when or why. Flattish is fine, even including a trace of back bevel due to pressing down to remove the burr (a.k.a. the ruler trick but without a ruler).
I sold some nice chisels a few years ago because I'd picked up on the flat face dogma and they weren't perfectly flat. Nothing wrong with them at all I now realise!

Woodbrains says _you know full well why a back bevel on a bench chisel is not a good thing._ Well he's wrong (again) I don't know why and I'm waiting for an explanation. What is it you can't do with a less than perfectly flat faced chisel?


----------



## woodbrains (24 Aug 2013)

Hello,

Still not talking about the flatness of the backs, how did this creep in?

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (24 Aug 2013)

matthewwh":28pmeitq said:


> A subtle but important point is that anything involving rubbing the back of a blade on a larger flat surface will move it in the direction of convexity (as opposed to causing convexity). If your chisel back is ever so slightly concave to begin with, both stropping and backing off will always be making things flatter.
> 
> Should you pass beyond flat, convexity becomes self perpetuating until the back is re-ground to restore the slight concavity.


True, but so what, and why would anyone want to regrind the face?
It's not so much convexity you get - more a long flat bevel on the face as you turn to remove the burr. Unless you flatten the whole face every time you sharpen, which would take an age and rapidly destroy your blade! I wouldn't be surprised if people actually do do this, when you read all the nonsense about "prepping" chisels etc. :roll:


----------



## woodbrains (24 Aug 2013)

Hello,

Still not about the flat face. This is not difficult to grasp; the wear, on a single bevel tool MUST be removed by sharpening on the bevel side only, a double bevel tool can have both bevels worked on to remove the wear. Therefor stropping on a double bevel tool is effective, but not on a single bevel tool, as you cannot deal with the side adjacent to the bevel without introducing a double bevel. It is fairly simple to deduce we do not want a double bevel on a singe bevel tool, be definition. We have to use a stone to remove enough metal on a single bevel tool as wee have to cut past the wear on the back.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (24 Aug 2013)

woodbrains":27wyiqn3 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Still not about the flat face. This is not difficult to grasp; the wear, on a single bevel tool MUST be removed by sharpening on the bevel side only, a double bevel tool can have both bevels worked on to remove the wear. Therefor stropping on a double bevel tool is effective, but not on a single bevel tool, as you cannot deal with the side adjacent to the bevel without introducing a double bevel. It is fairly simple to deduce we do not want a double bevel on a singe bevel tool, be definition. We have to use a stone to remove enough metal on a single bevel tool as wee have to cut past the wear on the back.
> 
> Mike.


Strictly speaking they are all double bevel tools. One bevel on the end and the other being the whole face. A single bevel is like one hand clapping.
All you are saying is that the face should be flat. But why? And why can't you strop the face? I can see that according to your circular logic and arbitrary rules you MUST NOT but that's your problem, not mine.


----------



## woodbrains (24 Aug 2013)

Hello,

Erm, no! We can have one angle measured from a reference face, (single bevel) or 2 or as many as we like, double, triple, multiple if the mood takes. Stop being obstreperous.

Mike.


----------



## wizard (24 Aug 2013)

Do any of you lot ever use your tools or do you spend all day sharpening them and then talking about it
:lol:


----------



## Jacob (24 Aug 2013)

wizard":1xxtuj08 said:


> Do any of you lot ever use your tools or do you spend all day sharpening them and then talking about it
> :lol:


Using them every day! And only as much time sharpening as necessary.


----------



## Jacob (24 Aug 2013)

woodbrains":2b8yqjf5 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Erm, no! We can have one angle measured from a reference face, (single bevel) or 2 or as many as we like, double, triple, multiple if the mood takes. Stop being obstreperous.
> 
> Mike.


Evading the question. Why must a single bevel chisel have a flat face with no tendency towards a double bevel (Corneels "bellied" chisels as described above, or Matthew's creeping bevel). What would it stop you doing? Can you think of a way of demonstrating this so we can all try it and see for ourselves?


----------



## Cottonwood (24 Aug 2013)

Jacob do you have any video available where you demonstarate your hooning method?


----------



## Jacob (24 Aug 2013)

No but it's much the same as Paul Sellers method here.


----------



## bugbear (27 Aug 2013)

Jacob":2wdsa84n said:


> Strictly speaking they are all double bevel tools. One bevel on the end and the other being the whole face.



That's not a bevel - that''s a face. Whist all edges are formed by the intersection of two surfaces, not all surfaces are planes, and not all planes are bevels.

"strictly speaking"

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (28 Aug 2013)

Jacob":3o4lfdgb said:


> No but it's much the same as Paul Sellers method here.



Except that Seller flattens and mirrors polishes his backs, works through a _succession_ of diamond grits finishing at 9 micron, instead of a single (43 micron - "coarse" in diamond plate jargon) India stone, he uses a different lubricant, and _then_ uses a strop loaded with 0.5 micron paste to mirror polish the bevel.

Apart from that, much the same.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (28 Aug 2013)

bugbear":3tzq4sim said:


> Jacob":3tzq4sim said:
> 
> 
> > No but it's much the same as Paul Sellers method here.
> ...


The action is much the same (dipping the handle - rounded bevel). I don't use a single India stone* and I do strop (with Autosol which may be 0.5 micron paste or finer for all I know) and I do use the same lubricant*
* both of these with variations - I've got various stones and use various lubricants - it's an ongoing experiment as far as I'm concerned. But certainly a single fine India stone is a good default starting point and sufficient for most purposes.
I don't know how he caught the polishing bug - maybe a temporary aberration and he'll grow out of it!


----------



## Cottonwood (28 Aug 2013)

well Jacob, to be fair I gave his method a go and I was amazed at how well it worked, particularly on a 1st time try out. I used a bog standard norton abandoned around 6 years ago in favour of the ubixquitous water stones. (1200? grit, not sure, cuts fast though) lubed with white spirit, then solvol polish to strop. I did a set of 5 chisels in just a few minutes, and I was astonished actually, the wire edges just peeled off and all 5 were slicing paring sharp very fast, even taking clean slices off crumbly pine end grain. It seemed too good to be true. I suddenly thought this method works WITH the natural motion of a blade moving back and forth over a stone, not against it-raised a little at the back, dropped a little by the time it gets to the front of the pass. No need to agonise about maintaining a human version of a honing guide either. Just the one stone, suddenly there seems to be no real need for a tormek and a set of japanese stones, and all the fiddly maintenance, fragility etc associated with them. Plus I forgot how good it was to hone on a proper solid surface. I mean those jap stones arent cheap and a lot of them seem to end up as wasted dust. Hey maybe my technique with the waterstones was off, but to be fair I gave it a good go, but I want to work wood, not be a pro sharpener.... :idea: The system you and Mr Sellers use is OK as far as I can tell, and I intend to keep working with it, its fast and it delivers the result you want, no fuss sharp edges in a short time.


----------



## Cottonwood (28 Aug 2013)

bugbear":209ptlig said:


> Jacob":209ptlig said:
> 
> 
> > No but it's much the same as Paul Sellers method here.
> ...



According to Mr Seller's video he is using coarse (250) Medium (800) and fine (1200) diamond plates, I think they are eze type?


----------



## Jacob (29 Aug 2013)

Cottonwood":1c9uh03t said:


> bugbear":1c9uh03t said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":1c9uh03t said:
> ...


Yes "Eze-lap" you can get them from Tilgear.


----------



## Jacob (29 Aug 2013)

Cottonwood":l1jheg8e said:


> well Jacob, to be fair I gave his method a go and I was amazed at how well it worked, particularly on a 1st time try out. I used a bog standard norton abandoned around 6 years ago in favour of the ubixquitous water stones. (1200? grit, not sure, cuts fast though) lubed with white spirit, then solvol polish to strop. I did a set of 5 chisels in just a few minutes, and I was astonished actually, the wire edges just peeled off and all 5 were slicing paring sharp very fast, even taking clean slices off crumbly pine end grain. It seemed too good to be true. I suddenly thought this method works WITH the natural motion of a blade moving back and forth over a stone, not against it-raised a little at the back, dropped a little by the time it gets to the front of the pass. No need to agonise about maintaining a human version of a honing guide either. Just the one stone, suddenly there seems to be no real need for a tormek and a set of japanese stones, and all the fiddly maintenance, fragility etc associated with them. Plus I forgot how good it was to hone on a proper solid surface. I mean those jap stones arent cheap and a lot of them seem to end up as wasted dust. Hey maybe my technique with the waterstones was off, but to be fair I gave it a good go, but I want to work wood, not be a pro sharpener.... :idea: The system you and Mr Sellers use is OK as far as I can tell, and I intend to keep working with it, its fast and it delivers the result you want, no fuss sharp edges in a short time.


Glad it's working for you! 
It's easy to forget that all the new sharpening stuff is very recent - 30 years ago hardly anybody used jigs, diamond stones, water stones etc etc yet sharpening was not seen as a problem, except for beginners of course. Not much had changed in 100s of years of unproblematic sharpening.
Having said that I have to say that two modern things radically improve oil stone usage - a 3M diapad for refreshing the surface and a rare earth magnet for lifting off swarf. Doesn't do to stick in the past!


----------



## Cottonwood (29 Aug 2013)

Your welcome Jacob.  
I mean even the tormek, which can produce decent edges, needs maintenance. That jolly old wheel has to be trued regular and a lot of the wheel rather qiuckly ends up as a bunch of slurry dust in the collecting tray. But you can of course get replacement wheels, £70 or £80? They do a complete kit, best part of £1000. LOL I'd much rather spend on decent timber like pitch pine or something, the sharpening industry, its prolific these days, and I speak as one who has woken up and realised I was stung and been had.....
:idea: My seemingly redundant water stones could possibly be recycled & ground up to make stropping paste??? :shock:


----------



## bugbear (29 Aug 2013)

Jacob":28ueni21 said:


> Not much had changed in 100s of years of unproblematic sharpening.



100s is (as usual) a severe overstatement, 

Aluminium Oxide, Silicon Carbide and Carborundum were all first synthesised in the late 19th century, and had a major effect on everyday sharpening. The India stone you drone on about ad nauseam is from this time.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (29 Aug 2013)

Oh dear what a little troll. Ad nauseum indeed!
Yes to new materials, basically speeding things up, no to any particular changes in technique. Modern techniques/materials slowing things back down again?


----------



## Corneel (29 Aug 2013)

Cottonwood":2s587yvc said:


> Your welcome Jacob.
> I mean even the tormek, which can produce decent edges, needs maintenance. That jolly old wheel has to be trued regular and a lot of the wheel rather qiuckly ends up as a bunch of slurry dust in the collecting tray. But you can of course get replacement wheels, £70 or £80? They do a complete kit, best part of £1000. LOL I'd much rather spend on decent timber like pitch pine or something, the sharpening industry, its prolific these days, and I speak as one who has woken up and realised I was stung and been had.....
> :idea: My seemingly redundant water stones could possibly be recycled & ground up to make stropping paste??? :shock:



Any reason why you can't use this technique with your waterstones?


----------



## bugbear (29 Aug 2013)

Jacob":1f89ji2m said:


> Yes to new materials, basically speeding things up, no to any particular changes in technique.



So what stones (be specific) would *you* use if you suddenly didn't have stones made from the synthetics I listed?

Would the rates of cutting and stone wear affect your choice of technique in any way?

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (29 Aug 2013)

Corneel":rlrccxv2 said:


> Cottonwood":rlrccxv2 said:
> 
> 
> > Your welcome Jacob.
> ...


As I understand it water stones are fairly soft. The main advantage of the rounded bevel dip handle thing is that you can dig hard - be quite energetic, and hence faster. 
Water stones might not take the pressure but I've never tried water stones so this is just a guess.


----------



## Cottonwood (29 Aug 2013)

On reflection I think the jap stones, for me personally, would be more useful to me ground up into a fine stropping paste. Perhaps you could form a rounded bevel with them, but frankly, I cant be bothered any more. I had forgotten what it was like to press into the resilient norton stone without worrying if a careless pass would nick the soft surface as often happened with the jap stones....The waterstones are just too delicate for my purposes, too easily damaged, too much maintanance.


----------



## Jacob (29 Aug 2013)

Cottonwood":25hwipls said:


> .......The waterstones are just too delicate for my purposes, too easily damaged, too much maintanance.


I also wonder about the faster cutting of waterstones as compared to oil stones. 
This is probably so if you use an oil stone in the same way as you would a water stone - with a jig and/or cautiously, tentatively etc. 
But if you put some effort into an oil stone, freehand, I guess it would be quicker than a waterstone. Can't say I'm interested enough in water stones to want the bother of finding out!


----------



## PAC1 (29 Aug 2013)

Jacob":2jvj4l00 said:


> Cottonwood":2jvj4l00 said:
> 
> 
> > .......The waterstones are just too delicate for my purposes, too easily damaged, too much maintanance.
> ...



At the risk of causing another six pages of argument, does the above mean that you have not actually tried a waterstone to see if it is faster or better than an oilstone?


----------



## woodbrains (29 Aug 2013)

Cottonwood":1f2d54e6 said:


> On reflection I think the jap stones, for me personally, would be more useful to me ground up into a fine stropping paste. Perhaps you could form a rounded bevel with them, but frankly, I cant be bothered any more. I had forgotten what it was like to press into the resilient norton stone without worrying if a careless pass would nick the soft surface as often happened with the jap stones....The waterstones are just too delicate for my purposes, too easily damaged, too much maintanance.



Hello,

You stated your waterstone is 1200 grit. This is not a fine stone and nowhere near fine enough to strop with, even if you could grind it up to do so. Norton Fine India is not a fine stone either, Norton intends that the blade is honed subsequently on Arkansas stones or equivalent. You can do as you find best suits you, of course, but things have to have a context and the general context that most sharpen to, (excepting Jacob of course) is much finer than these stones are capable of. You say you are getting faster results, but the result you are getting isn't the same, you must realise this when you make a statement. It is like saying you have the faster car, when you own a very respectable BMW. But you are making the statement to a forum of Ferrari owners. 

Tormek is not a honing tool either, it is a grindstone which does not have the danger of drawing temper from the tool like a dry grinde. It is intended to be followed up with some form of honing. Most people use the Tormek to establish a primary bevel, followed by very fine honing stones to produce a secondary bevel, which can be repeated several times, until re establishing the primary bevel is needed. This makes things very fast, as only a few strokes are required with the finest stone available, and the job is done. I get the ultimate edge with as little as 4-6 strokes on the stone. 

Jacob has also been told on many occasions that Norton India stones are not ancient, but relatively modern and that Japanese stone, although synthetic, mimic natural stones that have been used for millennia, so there is nothing new fangled, fashion about these stones.but like a bad penny, the same tired misinformed statements get reitterated, as though everyone forgets the corrections that were made? Bugbear is not being a troll at all, just as ticked off as many at Jacob for continually re stating his tired and comprehensively disproved myths.

Even Paul Sellers, who Jacob often mentions in the backing of his rounded bevel sharpening, actually uses stones much finer than Jacob, and probably the most modern and new fangled available, being diamond plates. And why does he use diamond? Because to get the level of sharpness he wants, norton India is not fine enough and the available oilstones that are fine are slow.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (29 Aug 2013)

PAC1":1pucndl0 said:


> Jacob":1pucndl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Cottonwood":1pucndl0 said:
> ...


They get such a bad press - all the difficulties, the mess, the softness, the need to flatten, the cost, the short life, rust etc I can't quite see the point. It's just so easy to whip over to an oil stone for a quick hone and straight back to work. 
I'd have a go if one came my way but I'm not going to buy one.


----------



## Jacob (29 Aug 2013)

woodbrains":1yl8ozir said:


> Cottonwood":1yl8ozir said:
> 
> 
> > On reflection I think the jap stones, for me personally, would be more useful to me ground up into a fine stropping paste. Perhaps you could form a rounded bevel with them, but frankly, I cant be bothered any more. I had forgotten what it was like to press into the resilient norton stone without worrying if a careless pass would nick the soft surface as often happened with the jap stones....The waterstones are just too delicate for my purposes, too easily damaged, too much maintanance.
> ...


I've got quite a few stones. I do say that a fine india stone will do for most things for most people most of the time but I also use finer ones including black and white arkansas but these are a bit too fine to be practical (you'd never get any work done). I've got several finer man made stones (don't know what they are) and a set of diamond plates same as Sellers. As I've said - it's an ongoing experiment for me - I try one , then the other. But if in doubt stick to fine india, say if you had to take just one on to a desert island!
You are a bit confused about stropping Mike - it is done with a "strop" (hence the name "stropping" geddit?) which is a piece of leather with or without added abrasives/polish. You can't do it with a stone; even if the outcome is similar it's not "stropping". Stropping strictly speaking is a razor or knife thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stropping_(blade) but woodworkers do something similar with leather. Hope that helps.


----------



## Cottonwood (29 Aug 2013)

Are you calling me a liar?
Seriously?
I do know my own mind mate!
I am not arguing in favour of norton oilstones, lets clear that up. I would happily try the round bevel technique on slate or other sorts of solid resilient stone. Joiners and cabinetmakers managed to get decent edges for doing mortices and dovetails etc long before carbundurum was developed, they managed to do "a better class of work" without a tormek or a waterstone...! 
I know by my own recent experience that I quickly and efficiently got VERY sharp chisels, sharp enough to cleanly and easily take end grain shavings, after just a few minutes for a set of 5 chisels, it wasnt complex, which I liked a lot. I know precisely what I was looking at after I finished honing-mirror polished rounded bevels Yes, the same result could have happened with waterstones, perhaps by someone more expert than myself; it was just faster easier and more consistent for me using the hard norton. 
I know I have used the "fashionable" jap stones for 5 or 6 years and as I said, do not rate them, too fragile, messy, fiddly, you couldnt say I havent given them a fair try. Fair enough I was able to get decent edge using them, but it is such a hassle. I was willing to have a go at the round bevel method, (despite a bizarre apparent hostility to it), and was pleasantly surprised and impressed. The rounded bevel method-on an oilstone as it happens for my own recent experiment, could of been any stone-was faster, I do know that much.
I know that a tormek is a safe "cool" grindstone, and that it also strops, and it gives a decent usable edge. If you want to mess about honing after that, thats up to you! 
My OILSTONE is 1200 grit (as far as I know, the finer details dont matter) I have no idea what grits the jap stones are...I used an oilstone to try out this rounded bevel method, because it was the only solid stone I have at the moment. 
I also know that the tormek stones and waterstones are somewhat of a workshop consumable, they wear out relitively quickly...
Mr Sellers uses 250/800/1200 diamond stones, then a heavy strop, it works for him, or is he lying too?!


----------



## woodbrains (29 Aug 2013)

Cottonwood":vm148955 said:


> Are you calling me a liar?
> Seriously?
> I do know my own mind mate!
> I am not arguing in favour of norton oilstones, lets clear that up. I would happily try the round bevel technique on slate or other sorts of solid resilient stone. Joiners and cabinetmakers managed to get decent edges for doing mortices and dovetails etc long before carbundurum was developed, they managed to do "a better class of work" without a tormek or a waterstone...!
> ...



To whom are you referring?

If it was me, where did I call you anything at all. Where did I not say you must do whatever you think best for your situation. Do what the heck you like, but don't expect people to believe you are achieving the same ends, because you are not. You are saving time and accepting lesser results, than if you used the waterstones. if thatbis fine with you then it is fine with me. i have never tried to persuade anyone to do as i do. It looks like you said your waterstone was 1200 grit in your first post. If this is not the case, then I'm sorry if I misquoted. But there is no need to be uppity his is a discussion. And I am definitely not your mate.

Mike.


----------



## Cottonwood (29 Aug 2013)

Mike, you started getting uppity "mate" :roll: when you innsinuated I was, basically, lying. There was no call for that, I thought this was a forum to exchange ideas and so forth, perhaps I am mistaken? I was merely attempting to relate how a small experiment worked for me, thats about it. If you want to make sharpening routines into a big deal, thats fine, you go for it. I personally no longer want to spend time on that route, and would pefer a method that is fast, consistent, non fiddly, non messy, and definately not dependent on an extensive and costly array of fragile high maintenance kit...


----------



## woodbrains (29 Aug 2013)

Hello,

Sorry, but I'm not sure how you infer that I was calling you a liar. I definitely was not. I have no doubt you get the results you want. I did not contradict anything you said. The only thing I do not like is the continual myth reciting that accompanies these posts. Do not take offence again, because there is none intended, but another of these myths popped up again in another of your posts. 'A better quality of work was done before carborundum was invented'. Well no it wasn't, some of the best work ever done is being done today, just as some pretty mediocre stuff was done in Chippendales day. And the old timers did sharpen to levels as fine as we do now. There have been all kinds of fine quarried stone and powdered abrasives available for centuties. The modern synthetic alternatives are substitutes for stones that are no longer quarried, because of expense, or to try and speed up the process, as the old timers methods could also be slow and tedious.

I have never shown hostility to convex bevel sharpening, either, though if someone asks why I dont like it, I wil tell them. ( I have in the past, I wont again here) but that is not the same as being hostile to it. Trust me, if anyone comes up with a more expedient method that achieves the same level of sharpness I require, I would be all over it. But they haven't, there is always a trade off. This is all I try to point out. Another myth is that waterstones are soft (not your contention) they are not, the abrasive is very hard, otherwise it would not abrade hardened steel. But the trade off here is that the abrasive is used up more quicky to effect a very fast rate of sharpening. Faster than oilstones by a long way for equivalent grits. so it is a choice, faster sharpening, friable stones or stop sharpening at a coarser grit and dont quite get the finest edge. This is the fact of the matter and we have to make our trade off. There are too many myths on these fora.

Mike.


----------



## Reggie (30 Aug 2013)

Isn't the thing with waterstones the fact that they're soft and produce a slurry which is akin to the pastes people end up using? I'm not really sold on any one method right now, since we've had our other discussions on sharpening techniques, I don't do enough sharpening for it to make a difference in the method I use, I chose a honing guide to give me a reference to start from, luckily I have spare chisels of each size so I can try the hand method on those and compare.


----------



## MIGNAL (30 Aug 2013)

Well put it this way. You wouldn't want to hone a card scraper on one, not in a straight up/down manner anyway. You would easily put a serious groove in it, irrespective of the waterstone grit.


----------



## Jacob (30 Aug 2013)

woodbrains":3o1ywdfn said:


> ...... but the result you are getting isn't the same, you must realise this when you make a statement. It is like saying you have the faster car, when you own a very respectable BMW. But you are making the statement to a forum of Ferrari owners. ....


It's more like saying I want to get from A to B easily, reliably, cheaply and efficiently. This isn't a prime concern of Ferrari owners, nor even of respectable BMW owners.
The point is Mike we _are_ getting there, however loudly you tell us our vehicles are rubbish!


----------



## Corneel (30 Aug 2013)

Easy lads, easy! It's just about stones you know....

Waterstones come in all kinds of flavors. From very soft (like the King's) to very hard (like the Shaptons). Faster or slower, messier or not, soakers or spritzers, cheap or expensive. There is a taste for everyone. Of course, each and every choice has its disadvantages too. In the end, choosing a sharpening system is about choosing a system which annoys you the least. You might even start to enjoy it after a while. And if that system is oilstones, well, so be it :lol: .

And I can get a respectable edge on a 1000 grit waterstone too, suitable for a lot of woodworking tasks. Point is, it's not much work to change to a finer stone and polish the edge and the back a bit, to get a much finer edge. So little work in fact, that it doesn't make sence not to do it.


----------



## Jacob (30 Aug 2013)

woodbrains":14d1brtr said:


> ..........Another myth is that waterstones are soft (not your contention) they are not, the abrasive is very hard, otherwise it would not abrade hardened steel. But the trade off here is that the abrasive is used up more quicky to effect a very fast rate of sharpening. Faster than oilstones by a long way for equivalent grits. so it is a choice, faster sharpening, friable stones or stop sharpening at a coarser grit and dont quite get the finest edge. This is the fact of the matter and we have to make our trade off. There are too many myths on these fora.
> 
> Mike.


OK not "soft" but "friable". :lol: Same difference.
Oil stones are not so friable which means they can be used more heavily and hence faster than water stones.
If you fiddle about cautiously with an oil stone, water stone fashion - with a jig etc, it will be slow.
If you put a bit of effort into it (not possible with a jig) it will be fast.
I think this is the crucial detail which the crazy sharpeners have missed.

Why would one "stop sharpening at a coarser grit and dont quite get the finest edge"? You can go as fine as you like with oil stones.

PS Deiter Schmidt thinks they are soft. Maybe you should drop them a line woodbrains and correct them.


----------



## bugbear (30 Aug 2013)

Corneel":34g8o9wi said:


> Waterstones come in all kinds of flavors. From very soft (like the King's) to very hard (like the Shaptons). Faster or slower, messier or not, soakers or spritzers, cheap or expensive. There is a taste for everyone. Of course, each and every choice has its disadvantages too. In the end, choosing a sharpening system is about choosing a system which annoys you the least. You might even start to enjoy it after a while. And if that system is oilstones, well, so be it :lol: .



Oilstones also come in all kinds of flavour (yum!);

http://www.taths.org.uk/special-publications.htm

"Natural 19th and Early 20th Century Sharpening Stones and Hones" by Brian Read and Doug Morgan

lists some of them. Despite Jacob's narrow experience (which conflates "oilstone" with "Norton India Fine") many oilstones (especialy the slate types) are very soft, and care has to be taken not to dig in a blade corner, or catch the whole edge when freehanding. The Synthetic and Arkansas stones are the only ones that are essentially immune to this.

BugBear


----------



## Cottonwood (30 Aug 2013)

LOL Mike if you want to qoute, do it correctly. Please dont mis quote what I said
I did not say
'A better quality of work was done before carborundum was invented' That is your comment not mine  
What I did say was
"Joiners and cabinetmakers managed to get decent edges for doing mortices and dovetails etc long before carbundurum was developed, they managed to do "a better class of work" without a tormek or a waterstone...! " (LOL ironically, both man made stones...)
-Meaning, their non-access to "advanced" modern tool sharpening parephanalia didnt prevent them from creating "a better class of work".


----------



## Jacob (30 Aug 2013)

bugbear":3il8f2zb said:


> Corneel":3il8f2zb said:
> 
> 
> > Waterstones come in all kinds of flavors. From very soft (like the King's) to very hard (like the Shaptons). Faster or slower, messier or not, soakers or spritzers, cheap or expensive. There is a taste for everyone. Of course, each and every choice has its disadvantages too. In the end, choosing a sharpening system is about choosing a system which annoys you the least. You might even start to enjoy it after a while. And if that system is oilstones, well, so be it :lol: .
> ...


And "the Synthetic and Arkansas stones are the only ones" (just about) in common use - no doubt for the very reason that they "are essentially immune" etc. etc. they can be used energetically and as a consequence are highly effective.


----------



## bugbear (30 Aug 2013)

Jacob":xwrv5ztw said:


> bugbear":xwrv5ztw said:
> 
> 
> > Corneel":xwrv5ztw said:
> ...



Indeed. I pointed out this development earlier in the thread.

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (30 Aug 2013)

Before anyone would get the idea that one can't use a waterstone freehand and energetically, let me add that you can. Even the King ones. You have to be a bit more carefull not to dig in a corner, but even that is not the end of the world, just annoying when it happens.
The modern ceramic ones like Sigma, Bester, Naniwa chosera, Shapton are a lot harder, more dish resistance, without loosing their efficiency. I have Sigma and Bester which are really fine stones. My polishing stone is a Naniwa Superstone, which is a bit more delicate, but nothing to get really worried about. And I do use them freehand with an energetic motion pattern.

If you don't like a watery mess, then maybe oilstones are more your cup of tea. If you don't like an oily mess either, then you could have a look at diamond plates.


----------



## Jacob (30 Aug 2013)

Corneel":3j1tlmba said:


> Before anyone would get the idea that one can't use a waterstone freehand and energetically, let me add that you can. Even the King ones. You have to be a bit more carefull not to dig in a corner, but even that is not the end of the world, just annoying when it happens.
> The modern ceramic ones like Sigma, Bester, Naniwa chosera, Shapton are a lot harder, more dish resistance, without loosing their efficiency. I have Sigma and Bester which are really fine stones. My polishing stone is a Naniwa Superstone, which is a bit more delicate, but nothing to get really worried about. And I do use them freehand with an energetic motion pattern.
> 
> If you don't like a watery mess, then maybe oilstones are more your cup of tea. If you don't like an oily mess either, then you could have a look at diamond plates.


OK so you can use some water stones energetically. Still not too impressed!
Oily mess about the same on diamond or stone, except you can easily clean an oil stone with a rare earth magnet (whilst flooded with oil) which also saves oil.


----------



## Corneel (30 Aug 2013)

No you can use all waterstones energetically. The softer ones just have a slightly longer learning curve to prevent digging in. Nothing to be afraid off.


----------



## MIGNAL (30 Aug 2013)

Only 500 Euros for a 30,000 G :shock: Shapton. :shock: 
I thought 50 Euros for a King was a bit expensive. I think I'll try slate next.


----------



## G S Haydon (30 Aug 2013)

Slate worked for me. A piece from a Brazilian slate worktop did a great job.


----------



## Corneel (30 Aug 2013)

Try to find a really good black Arkansas....

An alternative for that overpriced piece of Shapton dust is a Sigma power 13000. Gets your tools crazy sharp too at 60 pound.


----------



## MIGNAL (30 Aug 2013)

I doubt that there is very much to be gained past 8,000 and stropping. At least that combination has served me well enough for the last 15 years or so but my 8,000 king is fast becoming a thin stone. I do have some sort of white Arkansas to fall back on though. Slate intrigues me because it's fairly local and they aren't expensive. Some of them are sold with a slurry stone.


----------



## G S Haydon (31 Aug 2013)

This is how I sourced my slate


----------



## Jacob (31 Aug 2013)

That's all very well but what about the grit sizes? We want microns!

It's gone quiet on the sharpening/polishing front. 
Too quiet? :shock: 
Maybe the opposition have paused for thought and are considering that we may have something.
In fact - maybe we know something which they don't know? 8) 
Not sure why DTs feature so much; a fairly undemanding run of the mill operation. - I can think of other things where you might actually need an extra degree of sharpness; fine carving, lettering, etc. And shaving of course, not to mention splitting hairs.

PS Tilgear do Arkansas stone from these people I seem to recall http://www.hallsharpstones.com/


----------



## G S Haydon (31 Aug 2013)

This slate is quite hard and brings a more refined edge. Beyond that I simply don't know what grit it is or to be compared with. I have been a little naughty though. I ordered a very cheap honing guide to have a go with next time I have an edge that needs a hone.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Sep 2013)

:shock: :shock: :shock: A honing guide?! Wash your mouth out with soapy water!


----------



## G S Haydon (1 Sep 2013)

:lol: :lol: :lol: You know what, I thought why not. It's been so long since I used one. Who knows, perhaps I might like it :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Cottonwood (1 Sep 2013)

Do you use the lump hammer to flatten your slate?


----------



## G S Haydon (1 Sep 2013)

No, just to break a chunk of the corner. It was a worktop so it was very flat. And the reason we have a broken worktop is that it failed after 4 years, a bad seam just let go and a corer cracked. I'm not saying it's the best medium or everyone should be running out with sledge hammers to get some. I just saw it, felt the surface and thought it was worth a shot.


----------



## iNewbie (2 Sep 2013)

I use a Riley's snooker tables slate with a honing guide. You get a good long run up with 12ft. I then strop on the green baize and slosh the sludge down the pockets, so-I-do. 


/joke


----------



## Carl P (3 Sep 2013)

Mock ye not? Most enjoyable bit so far!

Coincidentally a couple of weeks ago I ordered a slate oilstone (from Inigo Jones) called dragon's tongue, it hasn't arrived yet so I haven't been able to write a review on what getting a proper dragon tonguing feels like...

Cheerio,

Carl


----------



## Jacob (3 Sep 2013)

Carl P":12gul3sb said:


> Mock ye not? Most enjoyable bit so far!
> 
> Coincidentally a couple of weeks ago I ordered a slate oilstone (from Inigo Jones) called dragon's tongue, it hasn't arrived yet so I haven't been able to write a review on what getting a proper dragon tonguing feels like...
> 
> ...


 :lol: 
You do realise - it'll just be a bit of slate?
I wonder if I could sell bits of our Derbyshire stone, with added names; "Dovedale Rough", or even "Grimsdale Excelsior" etc etc.


----------



## bugbear (3 Sep 2013)

Jacob":3qi51xbf said:


> You do realise - it'll just be a bit of slate?



You do realise - slate is a widely varying material?

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (3 Sep 2013)

bugbear":ytwcf9ya said:


> Jacob":ytwcf9ya said:
> 
> 
> > You do realise - it'll just be a bit of slate?
> ...


No really? Well blow me down ooda thortit? :roll:


----------



## Dangermouse (3 Sep 2013)

Surely the best thing to grind your blades on is a nice broken bit of concrete block :-({|=


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Sep 2013)

:idea: Yes - a mundic one would produce a good slurry.


----------



## Racers (3 Sep 2013)

I use grinding paste and a nice piece of glass, the obscured bathroom stuff usually.

Pete


----------



## MIGNAL (3 Sep 2013)

Carl P":quksuz7o said:


> Mock ye not? Most enjoyable bit so far!
> 
> Coincidentally a couple of weeks ago I ordered a slate oilstone (from Inigo Jones) called dragon's tongue, it hasn't arrived yet so I haven't been able to write a review on what getting a proper dragon tonguing feels like...
> 
> ...



Ahh, but it's only an Oil stone if you start using Oil. Some of the Welsh slate stones come with a little slurry stone, similar vein to the fine Japanese waterstones. I expect slate to cut quite a bit slower than those.
Unless it has been pre oiled you could try water first. Water as a medium usually allows faster cutting than Oil. You can always let it dry and switch to Oil. A bit harder to do going the other way.


----------



## Carl P (3 Sep 2013)

Amazingly it arrived today not long after I'd posted here - it is indeed just a bit of slate in the shape of an oilstone, rather flatter than the bits I found on Llanfarian beach a couple of weeks ago. I have used it, initially with water, then as it got gunked up with the remains of the oil I use in a futile attempt to keep rust at bay, with oil. I must say I was pleased, I don't have a huge ammount of experience, so feel free to disregard my comments, but I can imagine being quite happy to go from a Norton fine to this to a strop. The only slight problem is slate is easier to scratch so requires a little more care, the upside of that is hopefully it'll improve my technique on oilstones and stop me hashing up my chisel corners. It's also cheap at £7+p&p and, although nothing to do with sharpening, it's nice to know that my money is staying in the UK with people making something.

One final thing, Inigo Jones' site specifically say it is to be used with water, which makes it a waterstone - a Welsh waterstone, apart from the rather pleasing alliteration, is this any more or less acceptable than Japanese waterstones, given that slate has probably been used in this way since time immemorial.....

I'm retreating to my bunker for now but here's a link to a review by someone who seems to know what they're talking about.

http://www.britishblades.com/forums/showthread.php?130020-Inigo-Jones-Welsh-Slate-Wetstone

Cheerio,

Carl


----------



## Cottonwood (3 Sep 2013)

LOL Only today, I looked at the damned waterstone, in its wooden box stand. It is the hardest of my collection, probably 1500 grit? Not sure. Anyway I soaked it up for 10 minutes :roll: Then had a go with it. The difference today being my attitude to that stone was what the #### I've got nothing to lose. Instead of getting wound up with it being an expensive precious thing, getting nicked etc, fussy, fiddly etc, instead I just began to see it as a piece of stone to be USED....So I just went ahead FAST and FURIOUS without a care and it was like a revelation. Wether doing a normal flat bevel or a round convex bevel, it worked for both. In fact I couldnt move fast enough. Something clicked. So maybe I might keep one or 2 after all. I HAVE made some waterstone stropping paste from one old (1990) stone though..... (hammer)


----------



## G S Haydon (3 Sep 2013)

Carl P":9h2idf2x said:


> Amazingly it arrived today not long after I'd posted here - it is indeed just a bit of slate in the shape of an oilstone, rather flatter than the bits I found on Llanfarian beach a couple of weeks ago. I have used it, initially with water, then as it got gunked up with the remains of the oil I use in a futile attempt to keep rust at bay, with oil. I must say I was pleased, I don't have a huge ammount of experience, so feel free to disregard my comments, but I can imagine being quite happy to go from a Norton fine to this to a strop. The only slight problem is slate is easier to scratch so requires a little more care, the upside of that is hopefully it'll improve my technique on oilstones and stop me hashing up my chisel corners. It's also cheap at £7+p&p and, although nothing to do with sharpening, it's nice to know that my money is staying in the UK with people making something.
> 
> One final thing, Inigo Jones' site specifically say it is to be used with water, which makes it a waterstone - a Welsh waterstone, apart from the rather pleasing alliteration, is this any more or less acceptable than Japanese waterstones, given that slate has probably been used in this way since time immemorial.....
> 
> ...



Carl,

My thoughts exactly, to echo you, please feel free to disregard my comments.


----------



## Corneel (4 Sep 2013)

Congratulations Cottonwood! It's always nice to have a few different kinds of stones around, instead of throwing them away. And I agree with not being too carefull with your stones. You should see my polishing stone, it looks like rubbish, works great though. Sometimes I dig a corner, but who cares. After a few flattenings, the nick in the stone is gone.

There is absolutely no correlation between waterstones and jigs. The Japanese keep traditional handskills in high regard. The word sharpening jig doesn't exist in their dictionary. :wink:


----------



## Cottonwood (4 Sep 2013)

Corneel":nb8tdn2y said:


> Congratulations Cottonwood! It's always nice to have a few different kinds of stones around, instead of throwing them away. And I agree with not being too carefull with your stones. You should see my polishing stone, it looks like rubbish, works great though. Sometimes I dig a corner, but who cares. After a few flattenings, the nick in the stone is gone.
> 
> There is absolutely no correlation between waterstones and jigs. The Japanese keep traditional handskills in high regard. The word sharpening jig doesn't exist in their dictionary. :wink:



The irony is that the more looser and "care-less" (worry free, not careless) the easier it became, and in fact despite the rapid speed, the blade never dug in once, either doing a normal flat bevel, or the convex bevel (yes the rounded bevel worked with that particular stone as well the same as with the oil stone-but like I said it is the hardest one I have, but not the finest) 
I thought maybe its llike when someone is learning to draw or use watercolour paints. At first they are tight and nervous because of the expensive paper and materials etc. Eventually they earn to relax....
Can I ask please, is it normal on fine stones for them to feel slippery or slimy when honing on them? I often wonder if they are working correctly, it doesnt feel like they are cuting much?
Cheers Jonathan


----------



## bugbear (4 Sep 2013)

Cottonwood":2r7pxxjh said:


> Can I ask please, is it normal on fine stones for them to feel slippery or slimy when honing on them? I often wonder if they are working correctly, it doesnt feel like they are cuting much?
> Cheers Jonathan



They vary - I have a Yellow Lake slate that feels like that - horrible thing. And yet a recent (unidentified) s/h green stone (no, it's not a Charnley Forest) it very grippy, but cuts ridiculously slowly, leaving a mirror finish.

I have a Japanese Synthetic waterstone (used for my better kitchen knives) that is both grippy, fast cutting AND leaves an excellent edge.

I like it...

http://www.chefknivestogo.com/suri50grst.html

BugBear


----------



## MIGNAL (4 Sep 2013)

Well even my White/Grey Arkansas feels a little like that. I expect it's at around 3,000G - but it cuts quite a bit slower than my 8,000G waterstone. I guess the trade off is life expectancy. The Arkansas was bought 30 years ago and shows little sign of wear. The Japanese waterstone is half that age and I've probably used a good 70% of it's initial thickness and I rarely flatten the waterstone. It would probably be down to nothing if I'd adopted the method of flattening it before each and every sharpening.


----------



## mark w (4 Sep 2013)

David Charlesworth seems to have gone very quiet, I would like to know what he thinks of Paul Sellers method of sharpening, I`ve been a fan of David`s method, not only for sharpening planes but also in fine tuning them, its methodical and accurately repeatable, Paul Sellers on the other hand, he seems a bit manic in almost everything he does, I recently watched a Youtube video of him making a workbench, the flattening of the top was almost laughable, I wonder how flat that top really was, I don`t think his work is what you would call fine furniture making, please feel free to prove me wrong.


----------



## Corneel (4 Sep 2013)

I think you are looking at two different ways of woodworking. The engineer and the artisan. Because I am an engineer (electrical though), I tend to the former approach, but the more I learn about woodworking, the more I see the artisan approach is more valid for using handtools. When you first seek a mathematical solution for every problem, you might just as well use a machine. It''s the development of handskills, that make handtools so powerfull.

I can't compare the work of Sellers and Charlesworth though and really don't want to.


----------



## Cottonwood (4 Sep 2013)

I think a lot depends on wether you see woodworking as an activity which attempts to mimic precision engineering (still using hand tools)-becoming "clever" enough to acheive CNC type tolerances by hand. Or wether it is something looser intuitive and more expressive.
How "precise" does something need to be? just how "sharp" does a blade need to be? How far do you take these things before you get befuddled with pseudo metaphysical and philosophcal "dilemmas"? :lol: I am not arguing for or excusing sloppy work, but on the other hand super precision can become a kind of tedious end in itself, look at me I am super precise... :lol:


----------



## iNewbie (4 Sep 2013)

Corneel":2p8zhwqp said:


> The Japanese keep traditional handskills in high regard. The word sharpening jig doesn't exist in their dictionary. :wink:



Maybe not yet, no - but like Dr. Johnson it'll be along, soon... 

Jig


Dr. Johnson


----------



## MIGNAL (4 Sep 2013)

mark w":2m7x9pkw said:


> David Charlesworth seems to have gone very quiet, I would like to know what he thinks of Paul Sellers method of sharpening, I`ve been a fan of David`s method, not only for sharpening planes but also in fine tuning them, its methodical and accurately repeatable, Paul Sellers on the other hand, he seems a bit manic in almost everything he does, I recently watched a Youtube video of him making a workbench, the flattening of the top was almost laughable, I wonder how flat that top really was, I don`t think his work is what you would call fine furniture making, please feel free to prove me wrong.



No, he didn't work within 0.0001 mm. Why should he? What will it achieve? There's an expression called 'good enough'. We also use it in making very fine musical instruments. Unfortunately all the craftsmen are seemingly trying to mimic the products that are made by the factories and their CNC machines. Everything has been turned on it's head. Factories initially tried to mimic the work of the hand tool craftsmen. They couldn't achieve that aesthetic simply because it's virtually impossible to do with the use of machines. These days it's the craftsmen who are trying to get their work to look like the stuff that comes out of factories. Perfection. Sadly, much overrated.


----------



## Cottonwood (4 Sep 2013)

Credit to Mr Sellers, he is on a mission to get woodworking back to its basics of developing essential hand tool skills, not being overly reliant on machinery, and it being a fun, rewarding and creative activity. I think he deserves particular credit for attempting to get youngsters involved in woodworking as a hands on practical activity, rather than something that is noisy, dusty and dangerous


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2013)

mark w":weo5zujv said:


> .....Paul Sellers on the other hand, he seems a bit manic in almost everything he does, I recently watched a Youtube video of him making a workbench, the flattening of the top was almost laughable, I wonder how flat that top really was, I don`t think his work is what you would call fine furniture making, please feel free to prove me wrong.


Well it was a work bench, not fine furniture, so the flatness was almost certainly "flat enough".
Maybe laughable to you, but probably a great relief to beginners who just want to get a practical bench up and working.
Sellers seems good at getting people started with good basis of trad skills. It's up to them if they want to go on and develop in any particular way. 
No one says the engineering approach (thous, microns, flattening, polishing, expensive tools, and all that jazz :roll: ) doesn't work, but it could put people off and/or leave them forever in the dark about highly effective traditional methods.


----------



## AndyT (4 Sep 2013)

mark w":1s30cztm said:


> Sellers on the other hand, he seems a bit manic in almost everything he does, I recently watched a Youtube video of him making a workbench, the flattening of the top was almost laughable, I wonder how flat that top really was, I don`t think his work is what you would call fine furniture making, please feel free to prove me wrong.



Fine furniture making by Paul Sellers:












See Paulsellers.com for more evidence.


----------



## Cottonwood (4 Sep 2013)

AndyT":39ugd2xj said:


> mark w":39ugd2xj said:
> 
> 
> > Sellers on the other hand, he seems a bit manic in almost everything he does, I recently watched a Youtube video of him making a workbench, the flattening of the top was almost laughable, I wonder how flat that top really was, I don`t think his work is what you would call fine furniture making, please feel free to prove me wrong.
> ...



You dont get invited to make furniture for the White House if your a mdf and kreg pocket hole merchant.... :wink:


----------



## mark w (4 Sep 2013)

*Andy T & Cottonwood*, pictures of fine furniture indeed, I believe Mr Sellers was part of a team working at the White House.
Good point* Jacob,* the bench would get a beginner up and running, up to the point where they would need to plane something very flat, I suppose if you`re working mottos are near enough and flat enough then the Sellers bench would do.


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2013)

mark w":1a5y963h said:


> .... the bench would get a beginner up and running, up to the point where they would need to plane something very flat, .......


You don't need an especially flat bench to plane a piece of wood flat. Normal everyday flat will do. Un-flat can be coped with if necessary. Sellers bench no prob.


----------



## mark w (4 Sep 2013)

Jacob, I dissagree with you about bench flatness.


----------



## Racers (4 Sep 2013)

There are only two ways, Jacobs way and the wrong way.

Think I have mentioned this before :shock: 

Pete


----------



## mark w (4 Sep 2013)

Pete what is this all about?
Pete, Mad Bad and Dangerous to Know
It doesn't have to scream to cut wood

I killed my dinner with karate
kick 'em in the face, taste the body
shallow work is the work that I do

do you want to sit at my table
my fighting fame is fabled
and fortune finds me fit and able


----------



## woodbrains (4 Sep 2013)

mark w":3t6la13o said:


> Jacob, I dissagree with you about bench flatness.



Hello,

Bench flatness was discussed at length in previous threads. The fact that wood deflects under the weight of the plane on a non- flat bench, so itself cannot be planed flat,
Was totally lost on Jacob then, as it s now. He obviously works to lesser parameters of flatness than others here.

Mike.


----------



## Kalimna (4 Sep 2013)

Slightly off topic, but I think I have worked it out.

Just
Another
Crock
Of
Bu....it

Sorry. 
Adam


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2013)

woodbrains":qyhygbc1 said:


> mark w":qyhygbc1 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob, I dissagree with you about bench flatness.
> ...


A little wedge or two is the answer. In any case of the underside of a board isn't itself flat (as is usually the case when you start planing a sawn board) it makes no difference if the bench top is flat as a pancake. How would you cope? :lol:


----------



## Racers (4 Sep 2013)

mark w":2koa9mpq said:


> Pete what is this all about?
> Pete, Mad Bad and Dangerous to Know
> It doesn't have to scream to cut wood
> 
> ...



Well the last 6 lines are from a song I like.

Johanna Newsome The book of right on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDQIGraR3aI

Pete


----------



## Jacob (4 Sep 2013)

Are you really Mad Bad and Dangerous to Know? A big hairy psychopath covered in tattoos?

PS and what's wrong with the Sellers bench? If you really want it flatter surely you'd just plane it (err..) flatter? There's nothing about it to prevent this, is there?


----------



## Racers (4 Sep 2013)

Big-ish hairy-ish and defiantly a biker, no tattoos.

Google, Mad Bad and Dangerous to Know

Pete


----------



## Cottonwood (4 Sep 2013)

woodbrains":2u7yvs4w said:


> mark w":2u7yvs4w said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob, I dissagree with you about bench flatness.
> ...



Is _your_ bench as flat as an engineers surface plate (AAA) or better? If its _not_ your fighting a losing battle, and your illusion of flatness is unobtainable. #-o 
Why not simply operate a CNC machine instead?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (4 Sep 2013)

At the risk of being drawn into yet another pointless debate, may I respectfully suggest that a bench should be about as flat as you want the work done on it to be. 

Wood has a certain amount of 'give' (not much, especially in the denser tropical varieties, but some nonetheless), so the sort of flatness associated with Calibration Grade surface plates would not be appropriate, but if you need wedges under the workpiece in the final stages of planing to hold it flat enough, the bench isn't flat enough to start with.

It's not really that tricky. All you need are a try plane, a reliable straightedge and a pair of winding sticks. Check the bench top over, and plane off the high bits. Repeat until the high bits are all level with the low bits. Working across the grain to start with usually needs less effort, then a final finishing cut with the grain. You can tooth the surface if you wish, some say it makes it a bit 'grippier'. Since almost everything I plane is held between dogs or in the vice, I leave the surface as it finishes from the try plane, and that seems to work OK for me.

It may be worth checking the bench surface annually, but once a bench has settled down from new - say a couple of years, it generally won't want much correction unless the surface is roughened up and needs cleaning.


----------



## mark w (4 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie, nicely put.
Pete, thanks for explaining.
Jacob, I still disagree.
Cottonwood, probably not, but very flat, no thanks to the CNC.


----------



## MIGNAL (4 Sep 2013)

My workbench has a ply top, not really suited to removing material. It's a good quality birch Ply though. Lengthwise it's slightly hollow, about 0.6 mm over 2 ft. Pretty handy because a standard veneer helps to get that engineering flatness. :wink:


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2013)

Cheshirechappie":oxm2g1ik said:


> ... but if you need wedges under the workpiece in the final stages of planing to hold it flat enough, the bench isn't flat enough to start with.


Well yes obviously - but it doesn't matter because you can put wedges in etc. The underside of a newly sawn board is unlikely to be flat - so how do you cope with that if you are planing the top side? NB a flat bench does not help.

PS and what's wrong with the Sellers bench? If you really want it flatter surely you'd just plane it (err..) flatter? There's nothing about it to prevent this, is there?


----------



## bugbear (5 Sep 2013)

We've had this conversation about benches before:

sharpening-for-beginners-t63079.html

(The topic drifted a little  )

If anyone has anything new and useful to add, as opposed to loud repetition, I encourage you to post it.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (5 Sep 2013)

PS and what's wrong with the Sellers bench? If you really want it flatter surely you'd just plane it (err..) flatter? There's nothing about it to prevent this, is there?


----------



## Reggie (5 Sep 2013)

I have to agree with Jacob, I had to flatten a pine board that had cupped, if you saw my bench (it'll fall in 1/2, badoomtish), I had to use scrap bits of wood as wedges to hold it up, I'm not looking for precision here and good enough really is good enough  Just for clarity, my bench is a bit of 9mm plywood slung between a workmate and a portable dual compound mitre saw/router table station, it has no concept of flat surfaces except at the ends.

I'm sure paul sellers method for flattening his bench is fine, don't forget he's showing you on a video tutorial, so I suspect if you care enough, you can use his method and get it as flat as you like. As with everything though, I think it comes down to how much you want to think about this stuff or how much you just want to get on and make it.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (5 Sep 2013)

Jacob":xy9p1mvb said:


> Cheshirechappie":xy9p1mvb said:
> 
> 
> > ... but if you need wedges under the workpiece in the final stages of planing to hold it flat enough, the bench isn't flat enough to start with.
> ...



My post referred to "the final stages of planing". I didn't mention anything about the initial planing of rough-sawn and possibly distorted timber.

PS - Where have I criticised the Sellers bench? It's as good a design as any other, especially for someone trying to build a first bench using limited facilities.


----------



## David C (8 Sep 2013)

Jim Kingshott, apprentice trained cabinetmaker states "It is probably unnecessary to stress how important a truly flat benchtop is"

This becomes obvious when planing 5/16" drawer sides.

I have never advocated working to one thou tollerances, but four thou makes a significant difference to the fit of a tennon.

Hope to see you at Cressing Temple.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## mark w (8 Sep 2013)

Good to hear from you David, after you pointed out in one of your DVDs about the importance of bench flatness and planed an area of a bench flat to work on, I found it hilarious to watch Paul Sellers flatten the bench he was making, the point being Jacob and you other Sellers fans is, he claimed it was flat, I said I bet it wasn`t.


----------



## MIGNAL (8 Sep 2013)

:roll: Stop being such an silly person. How on earth can YOU tell that it's not flat, by watching a video? and if so can you can please inform us all by how much, to the nearest 0.1 mm will do.
The more I read this forum the more I think that Jacobs 'armchair woodworkers' really do exist!


----------



## Jacob (8 Sep 2013)

David C":35z1i5lf said:


> Jim Kingshott, apprentice trained cabinetmaker states "It is probably unnecessary to stress how important a truly flat benchtop is"
> 
> This becomes obvious when planing 5/16" drawer sides.


I find myself less and less interested in selected quotations from the scriptures, I want to know what people do themselves. So Dave if you have a sawn board say 1/2" ready for your drawer side how would you plane the first side flat? NB the underside would be not flat, however flat the work surface.


> I have never advocated working to one thou tollerances, but four thou makes a significant difference to the fit of a tennon.


Hmm not a lot but so what anyway? Working from gauge marks, with hand tool tolerances, either it fits perfectly (or is slightly loose which is probably good enough) or it's tight so you ease it a bit - without measuring, knowing or caring about thous.


----------



## Cottonwood (8 Sep 2013)

LOL someone was ticked off, (I imagine, I might be wrong?), because Mr Sellers, who has very well developed, time served skills, was able to do a mundane task quickly and efficiently, without it becoming a nerve wracking time consuming quuasi-religious existential endurance test. Much like sharpening, cutting dovetails, planing stock etc-just presents a pratical non BS method that is proven with time and experience to be effective.


----------



## mark w (9 Sep 2013)

*Mignal,* silly person am I, strong offensive word. I believe it was not flat for two reasons, one because of the size of the plane he used on a long top and two, the random way in which he planed it. 
*Jacob*, sorry to hear you can`t or won`t learn from history.
*Cottonwood*, quickly yes, efficiently not so sure, accurately, probably not, which is more important? 
As Mignal decided to get personal, I think I will make this my last post on this thread, hope to see at the European Woodworking show Mignal.


----------



## iNewbie (9 Sep 2013)

MIGNAL":3pryfnjx said:


> The more I read this forum the more I think that Jacobs 'armchair woodworkers' really do exist!



Its not about the armchairs! :mrgreen:


----------



## MIGNAL (9 Sep 2013)

mark w":2dcx4tn2 said:


> *Mignal,* silly person am I, strong offensive word. I believe it was not flat for two reasons, one because of the size of the plane he used on a long top and two, the random way in which he planed it.
> *Jacob*, sorry to hear you can`t or won`t learn from history.
> *Cottonwood*, quickly yes, efficiently not so sure, accurately, probably not, which is more important?
> As Mignal decided to get personal, I think I will make this my last post on this thread, hope to see at the European Woodworking show Mignal.



Oh well you're quite happy to call Mr. Sellers manic and find his techniques 'laughable'. That's 'personal' enough. 
Anyway, don't forget you're grade A engineers straight edge before you set off for the European Woodworking show. You'll need it. :wink:


----------



## DMF (9 Sep 2013)

Some interesting reading for someone at the start of all this, thank-you all


----------



## Dangermouse (9 Sep 2013)

TIME TO PUT AN END TO THIS THREAD I THINK !!!!! =;


----------



## Cottonwood (9 Sep 2013)

Mind, Jacob asked a perfectly reasonable question-if flatness is so crucial, then how DO you deal with a rough board, (which is never going to conveniently present itself with a nice ready made perfect flat face to place on a flat bench, for planing to thickness)..
If it IS so important to have a perfect flat reference surface to plane thin stuff &c, then why not have somme sort of specialist planing beam or jig to work on, which you could keep in a safe place, regullarly check it for flatnness, and fit it into the vice or between dogs etc only when needed for a job that did require particular precision (not all jobs do) then store it out of harms way when not in use? Isnt that precisely why we have shooting boards and mitreing boards, as aids for accuracy?


----------



## David C (9 Sep 2013)

Who is this Dave?

Has Jacob stopped reading?

There is no point explaining anything to the man who knows everything and will disagree with every detail.

I suspect he knows perfectly well that trying to plane and thickness thin stuff, of some length, accurately on a bumpy surface is virtually impossible.

David


----------



## AndyT (9 Sep 2013)

Cottonwood":3eavbjgf said:


> Mind, Jacob asked a perfectly reasonable question-if flatness is so crucial, then how DO you deal with a rough board, (which is never going to conveniently present itself with a nice ready made perfect flat face to place on a flat bench, for planing to thickness)..
> If it IS so important to have a perfect flat reference surface to plane thin stuff &c, then why not have somme sort of specialist planing beam or jig to work on, which you could keep in a safe place, regullarly check it for flatnness, and fit it into the vice or between dogs etc only when needed for a job that did require particular precision (not all jobs do) then store it out of harms way when not in use? Isnt that precisely why we have shooting boards and mitreing boards, as aids for accuracy?



This is from George Ellis, Modern Practical Joinery, 1902:

Panel Boards are used for planing up panels and other thin stuff requiring a cleaner and truer surface than is provided by the ordinary bench top. They are commonly made from a short length of 1 1/2 by 9in deal, with two or three screws at one end to serve as stops... a superior form of board is shown in fig 2... (page 38)

There's nothing new under the sun!


----------



## Jacob (10 Sep 2013)

David C":2czcqeb8 said:


> .......
> Has Jacob stopped reading?......


You mean I've got to buy a book or DVD or something Dave? :lol:


> ........
> 
> I suspect he knows perfectly well that trying to plane and thickness thin stuff, of some length, accurately on a bumpy surface is virtually impossible.
> 
> David


Nobody is proposing that (though it isn't impossible at all, but it does involve hand and eye skills :shock: ). What I'm saying is that the emphasis on engineering standards of flatness aren't too relevant to woodworkers and that "ordinary" flatness is perfectly OK for the task here (5/16" drawer sides).
If necessary we have AndyT's solution from Ellis - which is exactly what I do myself although usually I use a bit of chipboard with laths pinned on as stops. This also helps bridge the well on my bench and the planing board with laths attached can be set aside for re-use.
The engineering approach is often a hindrance rather than a help and sets beginners off on a wild goose chase for super precision in places where it is really not needed.

PS and mark w is revealing definite armchair tendencies in not knowing that planing a workbench flat (enough) with a no 4 is perfectly possible! Sellers idea of sticking to a 4 as first choice is a good one I think.


----------



## Cottonwood (10 Sep 2013)

Thanks for the tip Andy, I never knew that had been done before! I had envisaged a sort of T shaped beam or I beam with a stop at the end similar to what we have on a bench hook, that could drop into the vice...I'll have a look into Mr Ellises book again, I have a copy somewhere, but havent really trawled its depths.

Jacob makes yet another fair point, the obsession with super accuracy, engineer-like precision IS off putting-and can create unrealistic expectations in the minds of people new to woodworking. Of ourse this inevitably involves parting with lots of cash...the latest tools, paraphernalia, books and dvd's etc. There seems to be a notion that woodworking isnt done correctly unless you pay your dues & spend out a whole lot of cash. Look how often people post and ask what should I buy? how much do I need to spend? As if £££'s will infer woodworking skill, when actually it come down to the munndane reality of the traditional and age old time spent practising the essential basic hand skills. Personally I would far rather spend my money on some good timber (I got some quality redwood just yesterday) and crack on with it, than yet another book or dvd series on dovetails or sharpening or whatever....
I have been fortunate to watch one or 2 master woodworkers at work. I remember one man (time served) who was teaching a group of us basics of drawing rods, face side face edge, setting out mortices & tennons etc. What was truly amazing was that he could pick up any of the (somewhat battered and blunt after studennt misuse) colleges tools to do demos, and STILL acheive good results with them-not brilliant, as would be the case with his own personal well cared for and sharpened kit-but GOOD.


----------



## iNewbie (10 Sep 2013)

Cottonwood":aipktvnr said:


> Jacob makes yet another fair point, the obsession with super accuracy, engineer-like precision IS off putting-and can create unrealistic expectations in the minds of people new to woodworking. Of ourse this inevitably involves parting with lots of cash...the latest tools, paraphernalia, books and dvd's etc. There seems to be a notion that woodworking isnt done correctly unless you pay your dues & spend out a whole lot of cash. Look how often people post and ask what should I buy? how much do I need to spend? As if £££'s will infer woodworking skill, when actually it come down to the munndane reality of the traditional and age old time spent practising the essential basic hand skills. Personally I would far rather spend my money on some good timber (I got some quality redwood just yesterday) and crack on with it, than yet another book or dvd series on dovetails or sharpening or whatever....
> I have been fortunate to watch one or 2 master woodworkers at work. I remember one man (time served) who was teaching a group of us basics of drawing rods, face side face edge, setting out mortices & tennons etc. What was truly amazing was that he could pick up any of the (somewhat battered and blunt after studennt misuse) colleges tools to do demos, and STILL acheive good results with them-not brilliant, as would be the case with his own personal well cared for and sharpened kit-but GOOD.



Serious question: how many beginners out there are hung-up on Engineers thous of an inch perfection when starting out. Its an _unrealistic_ expectation - perhaps a few with an OCD issue might be out there imploding... 

How many threads are started with. "_I'm one thou out, what should I do?_" We could probably count them on one hand. This is Jacob's world/view they're all in armchairs -out there. Its a distorted view imho. Daily mail, anyone?


People are always asking what tools should I buy -and how much should I spend, because they're not sure. Its par for the course. You'll find the same (what should I) question(s) on _any _forum where someone has a new interest in something and has no knowledge to the subject.


Jimi Hendrix/Clapton could make any sh**** guitar sing, yet they always have nice tools... 

If anyone thinks buying a top-line tool will instantly make them an artisan they're an silly person. I don't know any who do - its a bit like if I bought Dave Beckhams footie boots and I'll be curlin 'em like him in 5 mins... It isn't reality.


----------



## Jacob (10 Sep 2013)

Cottonwood":m7dd0wgj said:


> Thanks for the tip Andy, I never knew that had been done before! I had envisaged a sort of T shaped beam or I beam with a stop at the end similar to what we have on a bench hook, that could drop into the vice........


That's the way I do it more or less - a bit of a batten screwed to the underside of the planing board to be held in the vice and other battens, laths, or just screws, as stops on top.


----------



## Jacob (10 Sep 2013)

iNewbie":1geni1m4 said:


> ....
> Jimi Hendrix/Clapton could make any sh**** guitar sing, yet they always have nice tools... .....


Actually fairly bog standard Fender Strats. Nothing special - cheap but very good. A few tweaks of their own but not a lot different from the one I just bought on ebay for £50. I can't play it very well but that's another story - not sure if it relates to woodwork.


----------



## iNewbie (10 Sep 2013)

Jacob":w8ipdpzq said:


> iNewbie":w8ipdpzq said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



When Hendrix was using strats they were top-of-the-line (woodwork _tool_ related), as was the Gibson Flying V he used... 

And I'm afraid you'll find they were/are alot different to your £50 ebay buy, especially in materials. 

NB: As well as his vintage guitars (like collectable Stanleys) Clapton has been using Custom Shop built guitars for a number of years. They're like Clifton/LV/Nielsen in build/quality... Hardly like yours at all.


----------



## mark w (10 Sep 2013)

I said I wasn`t going to post again but I don`t want to leave David Charlesworth on his own and besides that I would like to help make this the longest thread ever (how long is that?)
*Mignal*, I won`t be taking my engineers straight edge to Cressing Temple, I`m sure the top craftsmen there will have their own. I didn`t call Paul Sellers manic, I said he is manic in everything he does referring to his work method, you are right though I was happy to say it and the bench flattening is laughable. Calling me an silly person is probably a sign you are losing the debate.
*Cottonwood and Jacob*, a flat bench top is beneficial when flattening a rough sawn or uneven board, it gives a reference from which to work from, you can use it to check the flatness of the board as you plane it flat. *Jacob* as someone who does not like to use unnecessary jigs (honing guides) and believes in keeping things simple, if you keep your bench top flat you will have no need for an additional board, I beam, jig or whatever, regarding the No 4, answer this question, is it more accurate to plane a long length of timber flat with a short plane or a long plane? As to my arm chair, I have little time for it at the moment, I have an influx of work, right now I should be typing out an order for timber but I have been distracted! Looks like you are wrong about the guitars, out of your depth again?
If I may I would like to thank *David Charlesworth*, I have copied *Alan Peters* regarding plane blades, I sharpen 3 at the same time for the same plane, changing them as they become blunt and then sharpening all 3 again. David`s sharpening method is by far the best, quick, accurate and easily repeatable. I would also like to thank *Tom Lie-Nielsen* for making my No 7 plane (a pleasure to use), *Starrett* for my straight edge, *Veritas* for my honing guide and the *Ice* *Bear* company for my water stones, all of which I use in my workshop day to day. 
Now back to my order.


----------



## Jacob (10 Sep 2013)

iNewbie":7wobjyjo said:


> ....
> 
> And I'm afraid you'll find they were/are alot different to your £50 ebay buy, especially in materials.


Not a lot, and the materials perhaps the least important detail. In fact the rosewood finger boards on later (and cheaper) ones are arguably better than the one piece maple of the originals. They weren't top of the line then and aren't now - they are just a very good value working instrument, well made, well designed but with few frills (except as optional extras of course) - sometimes referred to as "the working mans guitar". They made some posh ones too but more cosmetic then useful.
As product designs they are brilliant and could be a lesson to our tool makers!
I've been reading about them - it's a new interest for me -I need something louder as my hearing goes!


----------



## Jacob (10 Sep 2013)

mark w":1uzgegza said:


> I said I wasn`t going to post again but I don`t want to leave David Charlesworth on his own and besides that I would like to help make this the longest thread ever (how long is that?)
> *Mignal*, I won`t be taking my engineers straight edge to Cressing Temple, I`m sure the top craftsmen there will have their own. I didn`t call Paul Sellers manic, I said he is manic in everything he does referring to his work method, you are right though I was happy to say it and the bench flattening is laughable. Calling me an silly person is probably a sign you are losing the debate.
> *Cottonwood and Jacob*, a flat bench top is beneficial when flattening a rough sawn or uneven board, it gives a reference from which to work from, you can use it to check the flatness of the board as you plane it flat. *Jacob* as someone who does not like to use unnecessary jigs (honing guides) and believes in keeping things simple, if you keep your bench top flat you will have no need for an additional board, I beam, jig or whatever, regarding the No 4, answer this question, is it more accurate to plane a long length of timber flat with a short plane or a long plane? As to my arm chair, I have little time for it at the moment, I have an influx of work, right now I should be typing out an order for timber but I have been distracted! Looks like you are wrong about the guitars, out of your depth again?
> If I may I would like to thank *David Charlesworth*, I have copied *Alan Peters* regarding plane blades, I sharpen 3 at the same time for the same plane, changing them as they become blunt and then sharpening all 3 again. David`s sharpening method is by far the best, quick, accurate and easily repeatable. I would also like to thank *Tom Lie-Nielsen* for making my No 7 plane (a pleasure to use), *Starrett* for my straight edge, *Veritas* for my honing guide and the *Ice* *Bear* company for my water stones, all of which I use in my workshop day to day.
> Now back to my order.


I see you have swallowed the party manifesto, hook, line and sinker! I think they should thank you for buying all their gadgets and bits of flash gear! 3 blades!! What on earth for? :lol:


----------



## David C (10 Sep 2013)

What a ludicrous question.....

Alan Peters book "I keep three spare irons and only sharpen when all 4 are dull". i.e. when planing up he wanted to get on with it instead of having frequent interruptions for sharpening.

It should be remembered that the Stanley blades of the sixties and seventies were at an all time low quality. They blunted in a few minutes. Alan worked with many exotic and abrasive timbers as well as home grown.

I find a modern harder replacement blade will do 3 or four times the work of a seventies Stanley.

David


----------



## CStanford (10 Sep 2013)

David C":1r76g0an said:


> What a ludicrous question.....
> 
> Alan Peters book "I keep three spare irons and only sharpen when all 4 are dull". i.e. when planing up he wanted to get on with it instead of having frequent interruptions for sharpening.
> 
> ...



I believe Alan Peters used Record planes. I've found that their irons seem to last a little longer than Stanley of roughly the same vintage.


----------



## Paul Chapman (10 Sep 2013)

David C":110w5fz6 said:


> What a ludicrous question.....



Couldn't agree more. I also keep several spare blades for most of my planes so that work can continue with a minimum of interruption.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (10 Sep 2013)

David C":3f7nr8ht said:


> What a ludicrous question.....
> 
> Alan Peters book "I keep three spare irons and only sharpen when all 4 are dull". i.e. when planing up he wanted to get on with it instead of having frequent interruptions for sharpening.


Is that what all the orthodox brethren now do then? I know some of them try to get by using only a 7 as per A Peters. 
IMHO it's not good to slavishly follow bits of text - not least because sooner or later it will be contradicted by an even more venerable old fart, and then what do you do!


> It should be remembered that the Stanley blades of the sixties and seventies were at an all time low quality. They blunted in a few minutes. Alan worked with many exotic and abrasive timbers as well as home grown.......


Sharpening them altogether wouldn't actually save any time would it, or had he caught the multiple bevels virus? We should be able to get chapter and verse!*
I've got old Stanley blades which seem OK to me. Swings and roundabouts - the quicker they blunt the quicker they sharpen.

PS some slightly bonkers logic about 3 blades - it takes longer to swap them over than it does to sharpen them (if you do a little and often) so you might as well sharpen the one you have just taken out. Keeping 3 planes on the go would make more sense, if continuity was the issue.


----------



## iNewbie (10 Sep 2013)

Jacob":1la6d306 said:


> Not a lot, and the materials perhaps the least important detail. In fact the rosewood finger boards on later (and cheaper) ones are arguably better than the one piece maple of the originals. They weren't top of the line then and aren't now - they are just a very good value working instrument, well made, well designed but with few frills (except as optional extras of course) - sometimes referred to as "the working mans guitar". They made some posh ones too but more cosmetic then useful.
> As product designs they are brilliant and could be a lesson to our tool makers!
> I've been reading about them - it's a new interest for me -I need something louder as my hearing goes!



Not a lot? Quite a lot actually, Jacob - I used to work for the UK Distributor of 'em. Some of 'em were plywood...

The Strat/Tele were top-of-the-line for Fender back then and are, now. They're their main model(s), so hardly a bottom level product.... 

I think you'll find (if you read a bit more) the Custom Shop models are as about top-of-the-line as it goes for the original companies product... 

Your rosewood to maple assumption is pure opinion touted like its a fact. LOL!

Edit: they also did a Veneered rosewood board than the slab.


----------



## Jacob (10 Sep 2013)

iNewbie":1y4xahij said:


> Jacob":1y4xahij said:
> 
> 
> > Not a lot, and the materials perhaps the least important detail. In fact the rosewood finger boards on later (and cheaper) ones are arguably better than the one piece maple of the originals. They weren't top of the line then and aren't now - they are just a very good value working instrument, well made, well designed but with few frills (except as optional extras of course) - sometimes referred to as "the working mans guitar". They made some posh ones too but more cosmetic then useful.
> ...



I'm just going by what I read. Could be wrong, I'm finding out as I go! It seems the one piece neck was intended to be disposable as heavy steel strings ( a newish concept in the 50s) would warp a normal neck and 2nd hand strats were noted for bent necks. 
They were top of the Fender line yes but much cheaper than many alternative posh guitars.
Hendrix had a bog standard shop bought model which he kept (and played) all his life it says here, and played at Woodstock. Doesn't say he didn't play other guitars though.


----------



## MIGNAL (10 Sep 2013)

mark w":28vttuih said:


> I said I wasn`t going to post again but I don`t want to leave David Charlesworth on his own and besides that I would like to help make this the longest thread ever (how long is that?)
> *Mignal*, I won`t be taking my engineers straight edge to Cressing Temple, I`m sure the top craftsmen there will have their own. I didn`t call Paul Sellers manic, I said he is manic in everything he does referring to his work method, you are right though I was happy to say it and the bench flattening is laughable. Calling me an silly person is probably a sign you are losing the debate.



Not so clever are you? I didn't call you an silly person. I said 'stop being such an silly person'. As in stop acting like one.
That's a bit like calling someone 'manic in everything he does' and then later saying that you were just referring to his work method. Pretty derisory comments (laughable, manic) and obviously shows no respect for the man. He's using a 'craftsman technique', sometimes called 'feel'. Not engineering precision but it's good enough for him, it's also good enough for me. Maybe you should learn to have a bit more respect and humility for someone who displays those type of skills. You clearly don't have any respect at the moment.


----------



## iNewbie (10 Sep 2013)

Jacob":1ffr6719 said:


> I'm just going by what I read. Could be wrong, I'm finding out as I go! It seems the one piece neck was intended to be disposable as heavy steel strings ( a newish concept in the 50s) would warp a normal neck and 2nd hand strats were noted for bent necks.
> They were top of the Fender line yes but much cheaper than many alternative posh guitars.
> Hendrix had a bog standard shop bought model which he kept (and played) all his life it says here, and played at Woodstock. Doesn't say he didn't play other guitars though.



I don't think Leo's intention was to replace every neck though - serviceable in the field compared to a set-neck, sure. They were built to a budget, but they were a Pro-level guitar none-the-less. 

Hendrix's were a stock model - but it weren't no chinese squire! 


Back to the regular schedule of anarchy. :mrgreen:


----------



## Jacob (10 Sep 2013)

The books I'm reading are Hayne's Fender Strat Manual by Paul Balmer, _with forward by Hank Marvin !!_ :shock: and The Guitar Handbook by Ralph Denyer - which is very good and packed with info including masses of well presented stuff about theory - which I now see was my weakest link; I wish I'd had this book years ago I coulda been a famous rock star! Bert Weedon's "Play in a Day" just not good enough. It's several thousand days now and nobody has thrown their knickers at me (yet).

Yes mines a chinese Squier but it seems pretty good and they get a good write up. Quansheng equivalent perhaps. I have a few chinese items and they all seem to be pretty good - it's Japanese motors all over again.


----------



## iNewbie (10 Sep 2013)

The Denyer book is excellent - a 10 ten book Imho.


----------



## Carl P (10 Sep 2013)

As a musician I'd just like to say that I've heard some fantastic musicians make poor instruments sound wonderful, also some beginners make fantastic instruments sound like s**t. I believe there may be some parallels with woodwork here, sharp top class tools, super flat benches, accurate gauges etc are great, but.... it's not only about the tools you know.....

Cheerio,

Carl


----------



## mark w (10 Sep 2013)

Back from my workshop now, still not in my armchair!
*Jacob *the time saving bit is, you just change the blade, sharpening three blades at a time is time saving, doing most tasks in batch form is time saving, I think industry bears this out. Earlier I thought you said you were fed up with people quoting from the scriptures, excluding guitar history obviously!
*Mignal*, Mignal, Mignal, calm down or you may wet yourself, why should I respect "the man", I`ve never met him, as far as I`m concerned he`s come from nowhere and is now the self proclaimed savior of hand tool woodworking, he`s quite quick off the mark to put people down when he wants to.
Humility, I think you are going over the top now, this is a woodworking forum, I`m not about to go out and gun him down. You said something about a 'craftsman technique' called `feel`, I`ve been trying to look it up, Lie-Nielsen doesn`t have it for sale, nor Veritas, so yes I`m totally lacking!
A couple of other laugh out loud Paul Sellers things, his poetry!! and the trailer for his DVDs http://youtu.be/6Bj_QjUxv20, "techniques that have been lost for centuries", well maybe, if you`ve buried your head in Wales and have never heard of Alan Peters, James Krenov, Ernest Joyce, Robert Wearing, David Charlesworth, Robert Ingham, Tom Kealy and quite a few others. As I said "self proclaimed." 
By the way Paul Sellers told me he has never heard of David Charlesworth, says it all to me, far to insular.


----------



## Jacob (10 Sep 2013)

mark w":3t9lt6wv said:


> .......Alan Peters, James Krenov, Ernest Joyce, Robert Wearing, David Charlesworth, Robert Ingham, Tom Kealy a........


An odd list. There's a lot more to the world of design and woodwork than this list of names - familiar mainly to woodwork magazine readers, but not that well known elsewhere I think. 
I think you should get out more!


----------



## Jacob (10 Sep 2013)

mark w":h16tfbd2 said:


> ........
> *Jacob *the time saving bit is, you just change the blade, sharpening three blades at a time is time saving, doing most tasks in batch form is time saving, I think industry bears this out. ......


Wouldn't save me any time at all, I can only do one at a time. Do they have a jig to hold 3 blades or something? Can't see the point. In fact I like the sharpening break - it's just a natural part of the process.


----------



## MIGNAL (10 Sep 2013)

You do derision pretty good don't you Mark W. Manic, laughable and now people wetting themselves.
I know what the Mark is. I've also got a pretty good idea of what the W stands for!


----------



## G S Haydon (10 Sep 2013)

That's an interesting link Mark. I had not seen any advertising yet. Looks like serious money and time has been invested in the advert. Are the training videos presented in the same way?


----------



## mark w (10 Sep 2013)

Please enlighten me Mignal.
Odd list! for magazine readers only! Jacob you always ignore the point and come out with something like that, quite pointless.
A jig for three blades, mmm, an email to Veritas on its way.


----------



## mark w (10 Sep 2013)

I`m not sure GS I have not purchased them. I wonder who directed the trailer.


----------



## mark w (10 Sep 2013)

I just re-read your post Jacob, Alan Peters, James Krenov, not well known, clearly you need to get out more.
Let me try out a few more on you Jacob, David Barron, Tom Fidgen, Rob Cosman, John Makepeace, Chippy Minton do any of these names ring a bell?


----------



## woodbrains (10 Sep 2013)

mark w":he0jziz9 said:


> I just re-read your post Jacob, Alan Peters, James Krenov, not well known, clearly you need to get out more.



Hello,

Careful with lists like that, it brings the worst out of Jacob. He knows who they are full well, I mentioned them a couple of times and invoked the wrath of the trolls. Especially Krenov, who Jacob knows was my teacher, but still tells me what he does and how he worked. Now if that isn't armchair theorising in the shadow of someone who knew the man a little bit, I don't know what is?
Mike.


----------



## mark w (10 Sep 2013)

Woodbrains, you mean Jacob was only acting ignorant, fetch him an Oscar.
Krenov was your teacher, please tell me more. How did you get to be taught by him?


----------



## Cottonwood (10 Sep 2013)

mark w":1vnzzuec said:


> By the way Paul Sellers told me he has never heard of David Charlesworth, says it all to me, far to insular.



"Far too insular" LOL _the woodworking media industry _is too insular, too narrow, increasingly predictable...
I bet P Follansbee would freak you out Mark! too messy too rough too imperfect But-_his_ work has tons of character....which I dont see in much of the allegedly "high end" cabinet stuff-which most folk cant afford anyway..And just because someone is technically proficient, doesnt guarantee they are inspired. Too many of these self appointed designer-makers dont seem to have much of a clue about_ forms_ (except possibly J Krenov, he is GOOD in that respect) Thats why they rely on "precision", exotics, metals, fancy efx weird stuff etc to create a sensation. LOL Giimson and the barnsleys, tried to elevate vernacular peasant forms into high art, sets the stage for the post ww2 scandinavian "design boom", then ultimately ikea.... :lol:


----------



## CStanford (10 Sep 2013)

mark w":1tz36b1h said:


> Krenov was your teacher, please tell me more. How did you get to be taught by him?



He taught hundreds of people: http://new.crfinefurniture.com/james-krenov/


----------



## mark w (10 Sep 2013)

Thanks for that CS, =D>


----------



## iNewbie (10 Sep 2013)

G S Haydon":3byghur6 said:


> That's an interesting link Mark. I had not seen any advertising yet. Looks like serious money and time has been invested in the advert. Are the training videos presented in the same way?



He got it out at 4 mins in - call the sock police...

Judas!


----------



## Jacob (10 Sep 2013)

mark w":26nymvur said:


> I just re-read your post Jacob, Alan Peters, James Krenov, not well known, clearly you need to get out more.
> Let me try out a few more on you Jacob, David Barron, Tom Fidgen, Rob Cosman, John Makepeace, Chippy Minton do any of these names ring a bell?


Certainly do - part of that same axis of the closed world of the woodwork media fashion circus, except for Chippy Minton :roll: . Does Cosman make things I thought he was just a demonstrator?*
Makepeace is better known outside the mags and might _just_ make it into histories of design. 
It's odd reading your stuff - you seem to have your finger on all the buttons of that peculiar scene, including fashionable tool makers Lie neilsen, Veritas. 
Like it or not it has a strong identity. Are they all freemasons or something? I might make a note of your lists for future reference!

You need to get out more methinks.

PS *come to think does Charlesworth make things? I don't recall seeing anything anywhere.


----------



## woodbrains (10 Sep 2013)

Cottonwood":3ek94axz said:


> LOL Giimson and the barnsleys, tried to elevate vernacular peasant forms into high art, sets the stage for the post ww2 scandinavian "design boom", then ultimately ikea.... :lol:



Hello,

A spurious speculation leading to nonsensical inferences, I'm afraid. The English Arts and Crafts movement was a move away from Victorian mass produced tat, but neither was it Victorian high style. It was pure honest craftsmanship and simple functional design. Only hindsight made this design movement high art; the Barnsleys et al, were just honest craftsmen making their way.

What is historical fact, however, is that Karl Malmsten, James Krenov's teacher, saw an exhibition of English Arts and Crafts furniture when it travelled Europe. Malmsten was so taken with the movement ( before it found acceptance in Britain, incidentally) it influenced the way he worked and ultimately taught his students, including Krenov. It is not too much to speculate that English Arts and Crafts actually had an influential effect on the American crafts movement from the 1960s till present, since Krenov was an important exponent in America when he moved to live there. Modern American art furniture actually has indirect links with Gibson, Barnsley etc.

Ikea's provenance has more to do with Bauhaus and the modernist movement and industrialism; nothing to do with Arts and Crafts, whatsoever. 

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (10 Sep 2013)

woodbrains":197ai1y1 said:


> .....
> Ikea's provenance has more to do with Bauhaus and the modernist movement and industrialism; nothing to do with Arts and Crafts, whatsoever.
> 
> Mike.


Not so. The Bauhaus was highly influenced by the English arts n crafts movement. Arguably they took it forwards from the rather static, closed, gentrified and romantic movement which it was in Britain (and still is!). By being open to, and trying to integrate all the arts, architecture, crafts, and industry, it turned into a design power house and was highly influential in the modern movement and modern design as we know it (including IKEA). The english arts n crafts stayed still, tweedy gents wittering about dovetails etc contributing nothing to modern design in Britain which came instead from industry (Brunel, Paxton et al) or from abroad (Mackintosh, art nouveau etc).



> he Barnsleys et al, were just honest craftsmen making their way.


No they weren't they were "gentry" dabbling in vernacular and unable to recognise the quality of the real vernacular art and craft which surrounded them at the time. The continental movements were far more radical, progressive, democratic and inclusive.


----------



## woodbrains (10 Sep 2013)

Jacob":xu6dcfid said:


> woodbrains":xu6dcfid said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



Hello,

You have just agreed with me, haven't you? Arts and Crafts, by nature, cannot use industrial processes, Bauhaus relied on it.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (10 Sep 2013)

woodbrains":2qebjhd3 said:


> Jacob":2qebjhd3 said:
> 
> 
> > woodbrains":2qebjhd3 said:
> ...


The Bauhaus didn't distinguish between craft processes and industrial processes and expected them to feed from one another - this was their strength and was an astonishing success. It only flourished for 13 years or so but was perhaps the greatest single influence on modern design.
The arts n crafts was always a bit blind to production processes and had a romantic view of craft processes as somehow different and special - this is it weakness. 
NB they are _all_ industrial processes and craft traditions extend throughout industry and other institutions in many ways.


----------



## Cottonwood (10 Sep 2013)

Woodbrain, can I ask, what do you mean by Tat, or even victorian Tat? Is it a good or bad thing?

LOL its ironic dont you think, some of the designers with the best feel for sound form have NOT been the designer maker handicraft ones, but those who made designs to be mass produced (even if in small exclusive batches) by machines. Eg Eames, Aalto, Wegner, etc Look at the Barecelona chair-a modern classic & borrows the essence of its form from the greek klismos...And even in the modern present day, have you checked out the wogg 50 chair, its an awesome cnc form, as is Konstantin Grcic's Medici chair. What about the Norma chairs from "unto this last" in London, essentially derived from Egyptian forms. The power of these pieces is in their form, no need for exotics, inlay, gold/silver/platinum etc etc. Just sound classic forms executed in ordinary woods....makes some of the stuff from some of the makers listed above look positively tired, banal and attention seeking!


----------



## woodbrains (10 Sep 2013)

Jacob":1tkr7m5l said:


> ]Not so. The Bauhaus was highly influenced by the English arts n crafts movement. Arguably they took it forwards from the rather static, closed, gentrified and romantic movement which it was in Britain (and still is!). By being open to, and trying to integrate all the arts, architecture, crafts, and industry, it turned into a design power house and was highly influential in the modern movement and modern design as we know it (including IKEA). The english arts n crafts stayed still, tweedy gents wittering about dovetails etc contributing nothing to modern design in Britain which came instead from industry (Brunel, Paxton et al) or from abroad (Mackintosh, art nouveau etc).
> 
> The Bauhaus didn't distinguish between craft processes and industrial processes and expected them to feed from one another - this was their strength and was an astonishing success. It only flourished for 13 years or so but was perhaps the greatest single influence on modern design.
> The arts n crafts was always a bit blind to production processes and had a romantic view of craft processes as somehow different and special - this is it weakness.
> NB they are _all_ industrial processes and craft traditions extend throughout industry and other institutions in many ways.



Hello,

Thanks, but I don't need a treatise on Bauhaus. And you are still agreeing with my original statement. Except for the bit where you say they are all industrial processes. Arts and Crafts wasn't and isn't at it's core. This is a fundamental difference and the reason why they are both distinct and different design movements. The clue is in the different names they have! 

Mike.


----------



## G S Haydon (10 Sep 2013)

iNewbie":d99i23bq said:


> G S Haydon":d99i23bq said:
> 
> 
> > That's an interesting link Mark. I had not seen any advertising yet. Looks like serious money and time has been invested in the advert. Are the training videos presented in the same way?
> ...



Thanks for the link. I'm surprised by the production. It starts off a bit like Torchwood. The graphics and zooming in and out and spinning seem make me feel a bit dizzy. Not that I'm in the market but if I was I think I would find this kind of presentation off putting. Just me though, I'm sure many really like it.


----------



## David C (10 Sep 2013)

Possibly Jacob has not seen any of the furniture which I made, because he has failed to look at any of my books.

He has also failed to visit any of my clients.

Another stupid and pointless comment. Demonstrating his propensity for writing baseless rubbish.

Oi veh

David


----------



## woodbrains (10 Sep 2013)

Cottonwood":skdj72dh said:


> LOL its ironic dont you think, some of the designers with the best feel for sound form have NOT been the designer maker handicraft ones, but those who made designs to be mass produced (even if in small exclusive batches) by machines. Eg Eames, Aalto, Wegner, etc Look at the Barecelona chair-a modern classic & borrows the essence of its form from the greek klismos...And even in the modern present day, have you checked out the wogg 50 chair, its an awesome cnc form, as is Konstantin Grcic's Medici chair. What about the Norma chairs from "unto this last" in London, essentially derived from Egyptian forms. The power of these pieces is in their form, no need for exotics, inlay, gold/silver/platinum etc etc. Just sound classic forms executed in ordinary woods....makes some of the stuff from some of the makers listed above look positively tired, banal and attention seeking!



No sense of irony at all. You are talking about taste, and that is subjective. Some iconic designs in the modernist movement may be superb, but they are good designs not because of industrial processes, but because the designers were good. The industrial process was the means by which the designs were made real. Some are left cold by modernism and will have some other favoured design movement that suits their taste and there will be iconic designs for them too. If you do not like the inclusion of precious metals, surface decoration, exotic materials, then fair enough, but do not confuse elaboration with poor design, it is just different taste and thankfully there are lots of different tastes.

Victorian tat was a bad thing, obviously. Poorly made things in nasty sweatshops for profiteering industrialists. Children working under looms and up chimneys and down holes. This was what the Arts and Crafts railed about. Failed in its ideals of honest purposeful work for craftsmen, of course, but this is what it stood for. Try reading Ruskin.

Mike.


----------



## Cottonwood (10 Sep 2013)

woodbrains":3i02cqom said:


> Cottonwood":3i02cqom said:
> 
> 
> > LOL its ironic dont you think, some of the designers with the best feel for sound form have NOT been the designer maker handicraft ones, but those who made designs to be mass produced (even if in small exclusive batches) by machines. Eg Eames, Aalto, Wegner, etc Look at the Barecelona chair-a modern classic & borrows the essence of its form from the greek klismos...And even in the modern present day, have you checked out the wogg 50 chair, its an awesome cnc form, as is Konstantin Grcic's Medici chair. What about the Norma chairs from "unto this last" in London, essentially derived from Egyptian forms. The power of these pieces is in their form, no need for exotics, inlay, gold/silver/platinum etc etc. Just sound classic forms executed in ordinary woods....makes some of the stuff from some of the makers listed above look positively tired, banal and attention seeking!
> ...



I guess "subjective" applies to the differing ways that people approach woodworking too...evidently your and my "taste" in benches, sharpening and other things , is different :?: .

"but because the _designers_ were good" exactly the point I was making. Their furniture would of been just as good (maybe even "better") if they had made it themselves by hand. But the western world was psyched up with the idea of "good furniture for the masses" especially post WW2, and a talented designer in partnership with a firm such as knoll, offered the way to acheieve this. Ironic, isnt it, that now even the "best" modernist furniture is only affordable by the wealthiest sort of people.
Why waste time reading ruskin ? I did try once, long ago. The man tried to theorise and spiritualise ordinary mundane work.
What about the host of other "honest craftsmen" (other than gimson & the barnsey's) of the 18th or 19th centuries, there was lots of joiners and cabinet makerrs-not all working for high class clients admittedly. Was their work tat-ty too? I mean like the folk who created what is now bought and sold as "country furniture" or "primitive furniture" EG Irish gibson chairs, hedgerow chairs, famine chairs, welsh back stools, cricket tables, pine dressers, chests, settles and cupboards etc-IE the actual GENUINE vernacular furniture? I look at one of those pathhetic, weedy looking gimsonesque ladderback chairs, then a solid bold welsh back stool-theres no comparison, but, as you say thats my taste, just as valid as yours, or any one elses


----------



## Richard T (11 Sep 2013)

'Chippy Minton?' Some would say that he was manipulated.


----------



## Jacob (11 Sep 2013)

woodbrains":1yd98odc said:


> [.....
> 
> You have just agreed with me, haven't you? Arts and Crafts, by nature, cannot use industrial processes, Bauhaus relied on it.
> 
> Mike.


Could you expand on this - what is the defining difference between "industrial" and the other (non-industrial?) processes ?


----------



## mark w (11 Sep 2013)

Totally agree with David C, as regard the history lessons, I think you are getting out of your depth again Jacob. I`m waiting for the post where you say you were there to witness the industrial revolution. :wink:


----------



## Jacob (11 Sep 2013)

David C":2o93cnon said:


> Possibly Jacob has not seen any of the furniture which I made, because he has failed to look at any of my books.
> 
> He has also failed to visit any of my clients.
> 
> ...


No need to get huffy I only asked! And I'm still non the wiser. It seems I've got to buy a book! :roll:


----------



## Racers (11 Sep 2013)

LOL

Pete


----------



## iNewbie (11 Sep 2013)

G S Haydon":16lowdf4 said:


> iNewbie":16lowdf4 said:
> 
> 
> > G S Haydon":16lowdf4 said:
> ...



I'm sure they do - I even considered buying it... 

And though Jacob has his issues with other industry people (take the stake out of Dave's heart, J) - from a Guru selling point, I find Sellers no different in his own way. Its business. Well, apart from the cheesiness of the presentation and giving-up, "_secrets_" ans here's what I made for a President. :roll: Still, one mans meat is another mans, selling angle...


----------



## Jacob (11 Sep 2013)

Somewhat tacky presentation I agree. His designs aren't too hot either. Doesn't alter the fact that his basic teaching methods are very good - which is what he is selling after all. There's no shame in not being good at bullsh|t!
I got his book and I think it's one of the best, in terms of clear and simple explanations of how to get things done effectively.

R Denyer - I'm on page 105 mostly - scale practice.
Learning music is not unlike learning woodwork - can seem impossible, everybody else seems to have natural talent, nothing seems to work too well. Then weeks (or years) later you suddenly realise that you are getting slightly better at it!

PS practice practice!!


----------



## iNewbie (11 Sep 2013)

I'm not against others methods. I like to learn. I'm just not so rabid. :wink: 

Denyer, etc - I'm years into playing. Not my natural instrument by any means (its my nemesis in life) and I'm still, shy_ _... I must be the exception. :mrgreen:


----------



## G S Haydon (11 Sep 2013)

It would be nice to find a more balanced DVD approach, not one that makes you potentially sleepy nor one that looks like it was produced by Skynet. Anyone seen a Chris Schwarz DVD and can compare it to others they have seen?


----------



## Jacob (11 Sep 2013)

Jacob":3higa2wl said:


> woodbrains":3higa2wl said:
> 
> 
> > [.....
> ...


Bumped this up. 
The reason I ask this question is that I think the answers would be very different and dependent on many points of view. It's not an easy one as there is no obvious answer. Hand-made _with_ or _without_ tools would seem to be the only clear line, which isn't very helpful!
The second point is - the Arts n Crafts movement was based on one very simple logical mistake. 
Yes they reacted against Victorian tat - particularly at the Great Exhibition where there was a lot of it. 
But they made the mistake of blaming industrialisation and the manufacturing process. 
In fact the blame was entirely with the designers - GIGO; garbage in, garbage out. 
Better machines are only better tools and should improve the end product (as we are told over and over on this forum!). But not if the design is garbage to start with.
The Bauhaus recognised this and tried (very successfully) to bring together the arts, crafts, industry, to get a better input to the industrial process. This resulted in a great leap forwards still going on. Bauhaus stuff still looks amazingly up to date and includes some beautiful craft work (low tec and high tec).
In the meantime the arts n crafts movement remains stuck up it's own arts hole, to this very day! :lol:


----------



## woodbrains (11 Sep 2013)

Hello,

This is your opinion Jacob, but none the less, they were both seperate and distinct design movements with their own reasons for being. It is a matter of taste as to what makes good design and there were certainly good and bad from both movements. It is all about how the individuals involved wanted to work and how they wanted to produce the things. I do not design for CNC because I do not own one big enough to make furniture on. I also prefer a certain amount of hand work and I like to work the material directly and spontaneously. So what I design and make has links to the Arts and Crafts. But I do not design 1900's things, I have moved on. This is the same for most designer craftsmen working today. they are just designing and making things in the materials and with the equipment available to the.

What do you suggest I do; spend a million on plant and machinery so I can mass produce my designs, or sell off all my tools, forget my skills and just design stuff for some Far Eastern sweatshop to mass produce. I don't think so. There is nothing to do with being lost in the past, labouring over dovetails or any romantic notions about how things used to be. I work in the now, design stuff that modern people want and am ispired by lots of stimulae; be it Bauhaus, Greek urns, 20th century modern, whatever tickles me. And I am not going to produce Egyptian inspired things the same way King Tut's slaves did, nor am I going to use CNC to make post modern inspired stuff. No 'up ones own behind' about it, it is just what I can do.

Incidentally, are you still making those old fashioned, inefficient wooden windows and stairs. I have heared there is PVC and aluminium extrusions these days? Or do you work in the media available to you too and even find advantages in that ancient stuff called wood, and perhaps enjoy making the things too.

Mike.


----------



## woodbrains (11 Sep 2013)

Hello,

Just seen the Sellers vid. Wow, I knew he uses a Veritas LA jack on a shooting board, but did you see how many Lie Niesen and Veritas planes and spokeshaves he has? I'll bet a pound to a pinch he doesn't use that awful method of convexing the soles of those tools. Didn't see too much evidence of Aldi chisels either. It might be just a little bit about the tools then. 

Mike.


----------



## mark w (11 Sep 2013)

Well spotted Mike, I must admit I missed all of that back ground stuff in the Sellers Vid`s, I was to busy watching him dent those Pine dovetails with his hammer.


----------



## iNewbie (11 Sep 2013)

woodbrains":3dcyq2da said:


> Didn't see too much evidence of Aldi chisels either. It might be just a little bit about the tools then.
> 
> Mike.



Oh he has a mass of tools - one video has Blue Handle Stanleys. Another has Robert Sorby's


----------



## woodbrains (11 Sep 2013)

mark w":jsmvl10s said:


> Woodbrains, you mean Jacob was only acting ignorant, fetch him an Oscar.
> Krenov was your teacher, please tell me more. How did you get to be taught by him?



Hello,

Re. Krenov;

I attended the College of the Redwoods in 2003. TBH is was already a fairly well formed woodworker by then and had been a professional maker for 8 years or so. I had to quit my workshop at the time, so thought i would go and visit the US. I did not go as a beginner, as some do, and already had my own ways. The college was a good place to experiment and refine some techniques that might get passed over in a commercial workshop.

Krenov had actually retired from the school (read 'got the sack') the year or so before. This did not stop him coming in several times a week to do his own work and give impromptu lectures. I visited his house and his little workshop in Forest Drive there. he was very inspirational and very much misunderstood by those who have not met him. he wanted to work in his own way and was a stickler for his own standards in the way he worked. He wanted others to work with his own sensibilities, but not in his style, necessarily; which people seem to think he was rigid about. He liked many different styles of working but he hated things that were carelessly done, or done without due reverence to the materials. He liked to see people do their best and not take short cuts or use sloppy methods. He was all at once cantakerous, generous and inspiring. he was also rude and opinionated, but would take time to encourage anyone who showed an interest and who was working sensitively. I couldn't help but like him immensely, despite him annoying the heck out of a few students there at the time, even though he officially had retired. He was wicked sometimes. I'm lucky enough to have made a piece of furniture from a plank of rippled, spalted maple, which was just gorgeous and then found out he was working on a cabinet from the next sequential board. Sadly, the piece was left with a friend who lives in Vermont, so I don't see it often, but the memory is a nice one.

Mike.


----------



## mark w (11 Sep 2013)

Very interesting Mike, I have the book with his students work in it, looking at that most of it is of lookalike work, I thought by that he must have imposed his style on his students, its good to hear that was not the case. Looking at the websites of some of his other past students it seems it was obligatory to make a wooden hand plane in his style, was that the case? May I ask why he was sacked.

Mark


----------



## Cottonwood (11 Sep 2013)

woodbrains":tj8gjati said:


> Incidentally, are you still making those old fashioned, inefficient wooden windows and stairs. I have heared there is PVC and aluminium extrusions these days? Or do you work in the media available to you too and even find advantages in that ancient stuff called wood, and perhaps enjoy making the things too.
> 
> Mike.



LOL I wasted about 5 years of my life paying the motrgage while working in a factory that produced UPVC windows and doors. If you think they are efficient, you are misinformed. The plastic used to make the frames is cheap and usually cut with wax, which means that after a few short years, the material strength is reduced as it goes brittle in the sun and rain, so that it then only tales a minor knock to break the plastic, which cannot be repaired. So what do you do? Phone everest and buy another frame of course, BOGOF.... Either that or wise up and get decent wood units. I have heard of window frames, made of pitch pine and regulalry maintained, lasting over 100 years or more. No upvc will last anything like that, 10 years if your lucky. Jacob will know better, perhaps wooden frames can last longer than 100 years? And unlike a crappy piece of german plastic, they can be repaired if they do get knocked and damaged. As a result of my time in the plastic factory, I refuse to have any house "that benefits from upvc double glazing" (according to the rubbish that the estate agents come out with). The sealed units themselves however _are_ a good improvement on the past, they just need to sit in good quality wooden frames, which is what I have now. Its no hardship to do them on a 2 year rotation, half this year, the other half next year, and so forth, especially with nice paint and a purdy brush
cheers Jonathan


----------



## mark w (11 Sep 2013)

The UPVC windows in my house are 15 years old and show no sign of going brittle, the sealed units are good too, I guess I must be lucky.


----------



## woodbrains (11 Sep 2013)

Hello,

it was part of the program to make at least 2 Krenov planes, a smoother and a try. I had actually made one before I went, so was familliar with them and made 2 additional ones, a round and a rocker to suit the work I was doing. i did the lot in 2 days, and we worked 6 days a week, so not a lot in the overall scheme of things. I seemed to get the job of tuning up some of the other students planes, who were not quite as deft at doing them. I also made a shoulder plane for another student as a bit of an aside, when other things were at a standstill. There is a lot to learn about how a tool operated and how to get the best out of them, when you make your own, which was the reasoning behind having to do them. Also, many students did not have too many tools, so it was a good way of getting superb performing planes at a bargain price. Ron Hock lives just down the road, so the irons were readily available. That said, there were lots of other tools to try out, some LN LV , vintage Stanleys of USA origins some Steve Knight exotic things, there was lots of experimentation. There was on guy who lived in a place called Albion, who had the biggest plane collection I have ever seen. 3 Barn sized buildings filled to the rafters. There must have been 10 000.

That book 'With Wakened Hands' I have with a dedication from Krenov in it. There is a fair bit of Krenovian stuff, but I suppose all the students went there because they liked Krenov; those who went to North Bennet Street would all do American Chippendale, it is just par for the course. However, all the students designed their own with no biassed input from the instructors. Obviously there was lots discussed about timber selection, proportion, function etc. and there were lessons on dovetailing, fitting drawers, mortice and tenons etc. but everyone designed what they liked. In fact, if you look at the book closely, there are many chairs, something Krenov did not do (note the Carl Malmsten copy, English Arts and Crafts done by a Swede and as fresh today as you like) musical instrumeents, marquetry.. look at 'Slacken Pair' two side tables that have nothing in common with JK, Dan Stalzer's ladderback chairs-American vernacular, (I rented that guys house) the prismatic parquetry cabinets, Look at the Vilkiman (sp?) stuff or Brian Newel, or Yeung Chans things (both the latter gave lectures there) I think you will find quite a diversity of stuff


----------



## woodbrains (11 Sep 2013)

Cottonwood":2z2eylm9 said:


> woodbrains":2z2eylm9 said:
> 
> 
> > Incidentally, are you still making those old fashioned, inefficient wooden windows and stairs. I have heared there is PVC and aluminium extrusions these days? Or do you work in the media available to you too and even find advantages in that ancient stuff called wood, and perhaps enjoy making the things too.
> ...



Hello,

I was being sarcastic to prove a point, don't quite know how you missed that. I'm not having a go at Jacob for making wooden joinery, just drawing a parallel with the things I do, but get bated over.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (11 Sep 2013)

"With Wakened Hands" - hideously pretentious title, which at the same time fails to impress - it brings to mind some sort of Steven King novel - "Return of the Zombie Paedophiles" or some such. The woodwork gives me the creeps too.

_the things I do, but get bated over_ - well you do ask for it, endlessly moralising, tut-tutting about tools, "correcting" and disapproving! Keep me amused however. :lol: 
It seems to be a feature of A&C, that assumption of some sort of moral superiority and general disapproval of everything else. Public school attitudes?


----------



## woodbrains (11 Sep 2013)

Hello,

DH Lawrence quotation;

'Things men have made with wakened hands, and put life into
Are awake through years with transferred touch and go on glowing
For long years
And for this reason, some old things are lovely
Warm still with the life of forgotten men who made them.'

Nuff said.

Mike


----------



## Cottonwood (11 Sep 2013)

woodbrains":1y7oxk9b said:


> Hello,
> 
> DH Lawrence quotation;
> 
> ...



Those who can, get on and do it. Those who cant, write endless platitudes and theory about it..something like that any way (homer)


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (12 Sep 2013)

I wonder if maybe/possibly/perhaps this thread has run out of energy??? (tip...please)


----------



## mark w (12 Sep 2013)

No its still going strong and is a bit better now that some of insults have lessened.
I still have a few Krenov questions for Mike.


----------



## Racers (12 Sep 2013)

My Dad has a second house/mobile home in Fort Brag, when I went over last (2007) I dragged everybody with me to meet Ron Hock but didn't want to bother them with seeing JK so I never got to meet him, something I regret.

Pete


----------



## Jacob (12 Sep 2013)

woodbrains":28utr2th said:


> Hello,
> 
> DH Lawrence quotation;
> 
> ...


Lawrence had a thing for the working man and his traditions and you can be sure that the above refers to ordinary stuff made by "anon" strictly in the vernacular tradition.
I think he'd be a bit scathing about Arts n Crafts of his day - a slightly effete gentrified thing* such as Clifford Chatterley might get up to in his shed, whilst his Mrs was fiddling about in the undergrowth!
He was into Ruskin and Morris - but more the texts than the artifacts, I'd guess.
* then , as now.


----------



## woodbrains (12 Sep 2013)

Racers":2f0yp4vx said:


> My Dad has a second house/mobile home in Fort Brag, when I went over last (2007) I dragged everybody with me to meet Ron Hock but didn't want to bother them with seeing JK so I never got to meet him, something I regret.
> 
> Pete



Hello,

I don't think JK would have been up to visitors in 2007 anyway, sadly. He was ailing by then and couldn't see well if at all. His final piece of furniture was finished by someone else (David Finck) when his eyesight failed. I don't think you missed an opportunity. He passed in 2009.

Ron Hock is a nice bloke.


Jacob":2f0yp4vx said:


> woodbrains":2f0yp4vx said:
> 
> 
> > Hello,
> ...



Of all the baseless, wild assumptions, this, even for you is possibly the most unfounded tripe I have ever read.

I know you only do it for a wind up, but for pity's sake, try to get one arguable fact in amongst the fantasy.

Mike.


----------



## mark w (12 Sep 2013)

Bad luck Pete, I would be happy to see one of cabinets in the flesh, I would be interested to know what one of them would have sold for and what one is worth now after his death, I have never seen one come up for sale, any ideas anyone?
Mike, I have looked at your profile, there are no clues as to what you do now are you still a furniture maker? By the way that was quite some put down for Jacob.


----------



## mark w (12 Sep 2013)

Another thank you to David Charlesworth, through reading your books I discovered Krenov, seemingly a long time after everybody else going by the other posts.


----------



## Racers (12 Sep 2013)

Hi Mike 

Ron is a good chap he said I should give JK a ring! I met Rons wife in her book shop and got talking to her until my stepped in and took me away!


We also went in to The Spunky Skunk toyshop http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8570118795/


Pete


----------



## woodbrains (12 Sep 2013)

Hello Pete,

Sorry you missed JK then, if he was still up to visitors at that point. He had a few pieces of his early furniture at his house and they looked amazing, the books don't do them enough justice. The 'bits of maple' wall cabinet, which was never one of my favourites from the books, was actually very nice indeed. He was getting less able during the latter years, and his work was not as fine as it once was, but heck did he still know how to use wood. He was 83 then and to all intents and purposes looked like Yoda. He had arms like an orang utan though, still amazingly strong. He had the habit of coaching himself as he worked. I'm not sure that he realised it, but if you were in the machine shop at the same time he was working you could quite plainly hear him chiding and coaxing himself. 'C,mon Krenov, you silly old fool' he would tell himself. 

The Dean of the college asked him to leave after he offended a couple of students about the quality of their work. He didn't pull any punches, you just had to have a sense of humour about his comments. These students were a bit precious, obviously, and complained to the Dean, so he got the push.

This has gone so far off topic now, it doesn't matter I guess, but did you ever visit Mendocino? The gallery there showed the students work and the town was so quaint it is untrue. I vaguely remember the toy shop in Fort Bragg, we used to babysit one of the students little girl and obviously bought her something from there. This might seem an irrelevant bit of info, but the student, her dad, was a very good maker. You might want to do a google search on Kent Townsend. He has won awards for his Ruhlmann style furnitutreout in Collerado.

I will have to make a return visit to Fort Bragg soon, it was a great time.
Mike.


----------



## Jacob (12 Sep 2013)

mark w":3j4xvof8 said:


> ... By the way that was quite some put down for Jacob.


Unscathed! You can't put people down by just huffing and puffing. :roll: 
He doesn't know much about D H Lawrence, or the Bauhaus, or design in general. Keep trying to point the way out of the A&C hole but he obviously feels safe in there, worshipping at the shrine of St Jim :lol: 
Though come to think old Jimbo wouldn't have been too hot on design history either. Blind leading the blind.


----------



## woodbrains (12 Sep 2013)

Hello,

Jacob,

In fact JK was extremely well read. Interested in Japanese, Chinese, European and American art and craft history and literature. he lived in many of these countries; born in Siberia, Russia, was well travelled due to his fathers work. i think lived in China at some point. But then you know nothing about a lot of the subjects you somehow feel qualified to lecture on. But perhaps another of D H Lawrence's fictitious characters will have something to tell you about what we all think.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (13 Sep 2013)

Is it true he could he walk on water?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Sep 2013)

You didn't meet him out there at any time?


----------



## mark w (13 Sep 2013)

Wrong again then Jacob or are you still only "acting" ignorant, first the guitars now James Krenov, do you think shortening peoples names (Dave, David Charlesworth, Jimbo, James Krenov), demeans them, I don`t think it does.
I`m off to work now Jake, I suppose you are still stuck in your armchair.


----------



## Carl P (14 Sep 2013)

The ideal tool for how this thread has ended up:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VINTAGE-B...lectable_ToolsHasdware_RL&hash=item4859c4a1fe


Cheerio,

Carl


----------

