# Further adventures in second hand land



## memzey (4 Aug 2014)

A few weeks ago I made my first sacrifice of a Sunday morning lie in to potter around the bric a brac of a local boot fair in pursuit of some decent, old and predominantly English made hand tools. My outcomes for that day are captured in another thread but suffice to say a bug was well and truly caught by yours truly and I haven't missed one since! Someone should have warned me I was on a slippery slope!!! Anyway I have since purchased much that I am truly please with but wanted to share the following items with my fellow board members for comment and review:

First up a really nice dovetail saw with a stamped mark of "Johnson Cast Steel"



I am not familiar with this maker - can anyone shed some light on it? It is well balanced and extremely comfortable in the hand. 

Next up some set squares. The three smaller ones are Moore and Wright while the larger (6 inch) one is Rabone Chesterman:






They are all square inside and out as far as I can tell. 

Next up is a very fine oil stone - much finer than the combi stone I picked up in my first outing. It feels almost like glass to the touch. I expertly dropped it to remove a chip from the corner thus revealing to you all the true colour of the stone:



Would anyone care to hazard a guess on the type of stone this one is? It has the hairs on my arm in quite a nervous state. 

On the topic of stones: I picked up a mixed box of small stones. One of them is of triangle profile:



Could this be used to sharpen saws?

A really nice Sorby chisel






I have a feeling it's a bit younger than some of my earlier purchases. Anyone care to guess its age?

A "fabulous?" marking knife  Again not a maker I'm aware of but would be glad to hear from someone who is. 



Mortise and bevel gauges from W Marples & Sons. These are in really good condition:







An unusual little vise which I have screwed to my work top. The threads actually run over the bench rather than under it which is a new one on me but not a problem. Cost me a fiver though so it's the priciest thing I've bought to date:




A couple of pairs of Record cramp heads (£1 each)




#4 and #5 Stanley hand planes with wooden totes and really nice, flat soles and square mouths:






The #4 has a screw missing for the back handle. Any ideas where I could get one?

From top to bottom; a wooden thing with a sharp metal bit I bought by accident, a cast steel Robt Sorby, a Marples and an awesome Ward and Payne: (I think this might be the best chisel I have bought so far)




Now for one I am really pleased even though I'm not entirely sure I know what it's for; my new/old Disston back saw:



Why, other than my regular ignorance, am I unsure what it's for? It's much bigger than any tennon saw I have seen before. It's a real lump but dead straight and well set. Is there another type of back saw that's bigger than a tennon of which I am unaware? Oh and as for why I'm particularly pleased with it; it has cleaned up an absolute treat:










Now a bit of a curiosity: I think it's a dovetail marking gauge - can anyone confirm? I think it was owner made as it has no makers mark:



So do we think there is anything in this lot that is interesting or is it all toot? Please bear in mind that apart from the vise (£5), the Disston (£2.50) and the Jack plane (also £2.50) everything was a pound or less.


----------



## Noggsy (4 Aug 2014)

Some cracking finds there memzey. The Disston saw looks lovely, with great figuring in the burr (oak?) handle. The wooden thing you mention is a spokeshave (assuming you weren't taking the mick). Paul Sellers has recently blogged quite a bit about them if you're interested in cleaning it up. Keep looking, you seem to have a knack for it - have you been taking lessons from Jimi?


----------



## hanser (4 Aug 2014)

I think you're gloating (hammer) :mrgreen: Nice finds!


----------



## memzey (4 Aug 2014)

No lessons Noggsy just pot luck I think! I must confess to knowing that the wooden thing is a spokeshave - I am just childishly reflecting on its apparent lack of usefulness to me at this point in time and the accidental way in which I came to own it (it was in a box with some chisels which i did want). I suppose in the fullness of time it may be of some use to me yet so I am keeping it for now. 

And as for gloating; how very dare you Hanser!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (4 Aug 2014)

To find that lot on our car boots you'd have to wade through 500 tons of second hand clothes, games with bits missing and Chinese tat. I sometimes look at the whole car park and think to myself that I wouldn't give £50 for everything there.


----------



## bugbear (4 Aug 2014)

memzey":blp34yn8 said:


> From top to bottom; a wooden thing with a sharp metal bit I bought by accident, a cast steel Robt Sorby, a Marples and an awesome Ward and Payne: (I think this might be the best chisel I have bought so far)



I think that Ward may be the best chisel you buy in a very long time...

BugBear


----------



## Cheshirechappie (4 Aug 2014)

bugbear":3phhsztc said:


> memzey":3phhsztc said:
> 
> 
> > From top to bottom; a wooden thing with a sharp metal bit I bought by accident, a cast steel Robt Sorby, a Marples and an awesome Ward and Payne: (I think this might be the best chisel I have bought so far)
> ...



Quite possibly - but I think one of the other chisels (the top one, just below the spokeshave) is a more interesting one. In the book 'The Tool Chest of Benjamin Seaton' on page 66 there's a chart showing the development of chisel shapes over the years. The shoulder shape, thin section and large bolster of the one in the photo correspond with a date range from that chart of early to mid 19th century. It will probably have a slight taper in it's length from shoulder, increasing in width to the cutting edge, a taper in thickness from edge to shoulder, and sides that are close to, but not quite, square to the face and back. The handle is a more recent addition - chisels didn't have ferrules until a reliable way of making seamless tube was developed in the mid 19th century, so it would originally have had a (craftsman-made, usually) octagonal handle tapered from bolster to striking end.

I think that chisel is between 150 and 200 years old. Chisels that old are not rare, but they're not all that common, either. Nice find!


----------



## jimi43 (4 Aug 2014)

Interesting observation CC and well spotted! I have looked at P66 again and concur that you have it spot on! 8) 

I hadn't got to that bit of the book yet...what a mine of information it is!

Is there such a comparison of the various handle shapes...going back to the WARD thread a minute. That barrel shaped boxwood design is significant because if we could work out the dates of the earliest examples of such a handle we might be better positioned to date that chisel.

Jimi


----------



## Cheshirechappie (4 Aug 2014)

I don't know of any historical comparison of chisel handle shapes that could be used for dating purposes (which doesn't mean there isn't one somewhere!), but I did find a catalogue page reproduction in 'Dictionary of Woodworking Tools' by Salaman (2nd edition, 1989), showing the chisel handle shapes available from (as luck would have it!) Ward and Payne in 1911 (Fig.197, page 132). The 'Best Carving Pattern Box Chisel Handle' is shown very clearly, so was certainly available commercially in 1911. I'm pretty certain it had been around for some time by then, though.


----------



## Bedrock (4 Aug 2014)

Memzey
Try G&M Tools at Ashington, or Lee Tools at Yapton, both in West Sussex for the missing screw. It may cost you a couple of pounds, but they usually have all sorts of bits and pieces like this.

Mike


----------



## memzey (4 Aug 2014)

Cheers Bedrock I will do just that! 

Just to add to the observations of my far more learned comrades above - the Sorby does feel _very_ old. Its makers mark is also markedly different to my other Sorby which is pictured further up.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (4 Aug 2014)

Tenon saws - they were in times of old made up to quite large sizes. The Benjamin Seaton toolchest mentioned above has a 191/2" tenon saw (though personally I think that's just showing off). Saws of 14" bladelength are quite common, but 16" ones turn up from time to time. I suspect that the larger ones were favoured by joiners in the 19th century for window and door work, but they fell out of favour a bit as most of that work became mechanised in the late 19th and 20th centuries. There's a website called The Disstonian Institute which gives very thorough information to allow dating of Disston saws, and all sorts of other interesting snippets.

On the Sorby mark, things could get complicated. There were at least four Sorby lines (the Sorby family being something of a Sheffield dynasty). 

First up are I Sorby (sometimes with a jester or Mr Punch trademark), being the firm founded by Isaac Sorby in the early years of the 19th century, and later absorbed into Sorby and Turner, Turner naylor and Co, and Turner Naylor and Marples. (I think the firm of William Marples ended up still using the I Sorby trademark into the 1930s.)

Then there's I&H Sorby - John Sorby and Sons (sometimes with the 'Golden Fleece' trademark device). They traded from about 1824 till about 1884.

Then there's Robert Sorby (Kangaroo trademark), who started in 1828 and are still trading - your small chisel looks to be one of theirs, maybe a 1950's or 1960's product, judging from the washer between bolster and ferrule.

Finally, there's W. Sorby. I don't have any dates for him.

There were lots of other Sorbys too; one of them became the founder of modern scientific metallurgy. Several of them served as Master Cutlers in Sheffield at various times.

(Edited to correct date of registration of Robert Sorby, which had been stated incorrectly as 1860)


----------



## memzey (4 Aug 2014)

Thanks everyone for taking the time to look at and respond to this post with their informed contributions. I have taken some more photos to see if that helps to clarify the age of any of these items. Firstly the Sorby chisel:

Cheshirechappie is quite right; there is a slight taper in the chisel from shoulder to point as depicted in the photo below:




It does also flare out to a wider point from a slightly narrower shoulder by about an eighth. Here is a picture of the extremely bold makers mark:




And a couple of the Ward marks:







I have measured the Disston and it is indeed 14" long. I have no idea what that means with regards to its age but judging the heel of the blade I'd guess it has been sharpened plenty of times:




I don't know if this was intended or done by accident by the last person to sharpen the saw but there appears to be a pattern in the teeth where some are marginally longer than others as you can see in the above photo. What do you guys think; done by accident or design?


----------



## memzey (4 Aug 2014)

I followed the advice given above and went to the Disstonian website for more information. I now think this saw is a 14" number 5 Disston backsaw made between 1918 and 1940. The original clue was the shape of the handle but the website also carries illustrations of blade etchings. Upon closer inspection I noticed there was indeed an etching buerried beneath the grime. I thought I'd take a bit of a gamble and try to clean it up with the old autosol and foil trick which I think worked ok:




On the topic of saws; does anyone care to share an opinion on whether the triangle profile stone could be used to sharpen these saws up? Although I hadn't posted it earlier I have actually picked up a few saw files along the way as well including a Tyzack with which I think it would be cute sharpen up my DT saw by the same maker:








What do we think; are these files or the earlier stone likely to be good for the task at hand?


----------



## AndyT (5 Aug 2014)

The files are what you need to sharpen a saw. Their cross section is subtle - it's not just a triangle; there are teeth across the points as well. These give neatly curved bottoms to the gullets. Sharp edged gullets would be vulnerable to cracks starting from the internal corners.Also, a file is long enough to hold consistently at the right angle while making a forward stroke - the little slipstone would be too short.

So what are little slipstones for? As far as I know they are for sharpening the shaped cutting edges found on carving tools and I think a triangular one would be useful on a V tool.

Some shapes are also useful for sharpening moulding plane irons.

Some other snippets: why a bigger saw? Just to keep it in scale to the work. Your one I would say was right for a joiner rather than a cabinetmaker, but I have a very similar saw which I like so much that I use it on small stuff as well.

You'll know from the Disstonian Institute that the handle is probably applewood, not oak. The long and short teeth are by accident not design and are sometimes called "cows and calves". 

Welcome to the world of old tools!


----------



## memzey (5 Aug 2014)

Thanks Andy - I have well and truly landed here with a bump! I took your advice given on my previous thread and mixed up a batch of restorer which I have used on some bits and bobs - very handy. Is this the right way to go with respect to restoring the older chisels above as well? I don't want to make a mess of them as their age makes them a bit special to me.


----------



## bugbear (5 Aug 2014)

AndyT":100rj2ru said:


> The long and short teeth are by accident not design and are sometimes called "cows and calves".



Yeah - I would NOT start your saw sharpening career trying to fix those teeth. That's quite a tricky job.

Find a less valuable, and better sharpened example to practise on.

BugBear


----------



## MIGNAL (5 Aug 2014)

Yep, for experienced sharpeners only!


----------



## memzey (5 Aug 2014)

Well then I am in need of some guidance from an experienced sharpener then! Anyone in the St. Albans area willing to show me how it's done? It's probably a bit less interesting but does anyone know the provenance of the Johnson DT saw? I can't quite explain why but it feels really well made. The previous owner must have thought so too as he carved his name in the foot of the handle which you might not do for a lower quality tool?


----------



## AndyT (5 Aug 2014)

memzey":36jnuwh0 said:


> Thanks Andy - I have well and truly landed here with a bump! I took your advice given on my previous thread and mixed up a batch of restorer which I have used on some bits and bobs - very handy. Is this the right way to go with respect to restoring the older chisels above as well? I don't want to make a mess of them as their age makes them a bit special to me.



I'm glad you asked that. Often, all that old tools need is a wipe over with a damp cloth to get the loose dirt off. If you over clean an old tool you get something which does not look old any more, and if age was part of the appeal, you've lost much of the pleasure of owning the tool. So it's always best to go slowly and think before doing anything irreversible.

The trouble is, wiping off loose dirt does not make a great photo essay or YouTube clip, so it's easy to get the impression that all old tools need the same full-on treatment - they don't.

In my opinion, in general, you should aim for tools which look like they have been used and cared for by a conscientious owner. Steel can be darkened / patinated / tarnished but should not have loose rust. Handles should be smooth and clean. Moving parts should move. Cutting edges, if the tool is to be used, should be sharp. A tool should not make your hands or work dirty.

(As an example of old tools in superb condition which still look their age, have a look at this recent find by Gary "Hackney Tools" - http://hackneytools.com/2014/08/good-times/)


----------



## AndyT (5 Aug 2014)

memzey":20ult3w1 said:


> Well then I am in need of some guidance from an experienced sharpener then! Anyone in the St. Albans area willing to show me how it's done? It's probably a bit less interesting but does anyone know the provenance of the Johnson DT saw? I can't quite explain why but it feels really well made. The previous owner must have thought so too as he carved his name in the foot of the handle which you might not do for a lower quality tool?



It's worth repeating that in my opinion the single most thorough YouTube guide to saw sharpening is this video by Andy (Brit) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-_MF2Mnxwc&feature=player_embedded. 

As for naming tools, apparently it was a condition of the tool insurance given by trades unions that all tools had to be marked with the owner's name - so people would have marked all their tools, not just their best ones.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (5 Aug 2014)

+1 to Andy's recommendation of the saw sharpening Youtube video. There's a lot of information about the subject on the interwebs, but that video brings it all together comprehensively and accessably. (Saw sharpening isn't really all that difficult, but it does need the gathering of a few bits of specialist kit - suitable saw vice and files, basically - and a bit of practice. It's worth starting on a rip saw with largish teeth, since there are fewer angles to worry about, then move on to larger-toothed crosscuts, and leave smaller teeth until a bit of confidence is built up. Results improve markedly after about ten saws or so, by which time the skill is embedded - you'll never forget, just get better.)
-------------

Back to Robert Sorby and his tool-making firm. A correction to information presented earlier - the firm was first registered in 1828, not 1860 as I stated. That fits nicely with the shape of the earlier Sorby chisel; it must date from a time between the registering of the firm, and their adoption of the Kangaroo trademark (a date for the registering of which I haven't tracked down yet). So the chisel is 1830's, '40's, '50's or thereabouts.

There's a long Sorby family history write-up on the Robert Sorby website - http://www.robert-sorby.co.uk/companyinfo.htm - convoluted, but interesting.


----------



## memzey (5 Aug 2014)

AndyT":1yae1thd said:


> As for naming tools, apparently it was a condition of the tool insurance given by trades unions that all tools had to be marked with the owner's name - so people would have marked all their tools, not just their best ones.


Here is another pic of the Johnson after I have cleaned it up a bit:




Can you see it has these two pins under the nuts in the handle? Do you think it would have come from the factory like that or is it a user modification? I haven't seen this feature before so am unsure?


----------



## AndyT (6 Aug 2014)

Hi Memzey, that's a really nice job on the dovetail saw. There's a useful checklist of saw makers at backsaw.net and this link should lead you to the page with several Johnsons on
http://backsaw.net/index.php?option...fabriklayout=default&Itemid=69&limitstart=500

I have no idea which of these might have made your saw, but I think you can safely describe it as "quite old".

I've never seen pins like yours has, but I've not seen many old saws. My guess is that they were an owner's clever way of fixing a loose handle without messing things up by trying to remove it - a neat idea!


----------



## Harbo (6 Aug 2014)

It's a very similar looking saw to my Mansell - made in the Wallace Steel Works, Furnival Street?

Rod


----------



## Bod (6 Aug 2014)

memzey":clh7z0zd said:


> AndyT":clh7z0zd said:
> 
> 
> > As for naming tools, apparently it was a condition of the tool insurance given by trades unions that all tools had to be marked with the owner's name - so people would have marked all their tools, not just their best ones.
> ...



I think from the position of the saw nuts, and the uncorroded area in front of the handle, that a different handle has been fitted, in the distant past. Hence the metal dowels, probably done by an engineer rather than a woodworker.

Bod


----------



## bugbear (6 Aug 2014)

Bod":1sdu5929 said:


> I think from the position of the saw nuts, and the uncorroded area in front of the handle, that a different handle has been fitted, in the distant past.
> Bod



Ooh, well spotted. Agreed. (in hindsight...)

BugBear


----------



## memzey (6 Aug 2014)

Hi Bod. Actually I think the lack of corrosion immediately before the handle is more a function of the clumsy way I cleaned the blade up rather than anything to do with the saw itself but I can see why it may appear otherwise. 

Andy - thanks for the link above. Every time I click on view against a particular manufacturer it tells me that form is not published. Do you see the same error?


----------



## Harbo (6 Aug 2014)

Here is Furnival Street in its "heyday" and as it's now












And here's my Mansell






Rod


----------



## AndyT (6 Aug 2014)

memzey":2qq9crvp said:


> Andy - thanks for the link above. Every time I click on view against a particular manufacturer it tells me that form is not published. Do you see the same error?



I always get the same and could never make the Search function work either. I guess old saws are more interesting than IT problems and are absorbing all the available effort of the handful of specialists who make that useful site available.


----------



## memzey (26 Mar 2015)

Hi everyone. I hate to drag up an old thread like this but I wanted to share this with you and ask for an opinion from one the many sages we have here. I recently de-gunked three old oil stones I picked up at boot fairs using the old soak overnight in some petrol trick and one of them (the one I chipped) came up a markedly different colour to the others:





Would anyone care to hazard a guess to what type of stone it is? It is a light brownish/orangey affair in the flesh, the same grit both sides and by orders of magnitude smoother/finer than the finer sides of either of the two combination stones I also have. As I previously mentioned it is almost glass like.


----------



## G S Haydon (26 Mar 2015)

I'd say it's a fine India.


----------



## memzey (26 Mar 2015)

Thanks GS. Whenever I have used it I've noticed that the oil kind of beads on top of it rather than penetrating in if you know what I mean. Is that consistent with a fine India stone?


----------



## MIGNAL (26 Mar 2015)

Don't know. I have an Orange Norton stone but I don't think the Oil beads up. They must come in various colours because I have a double sided one that is more of a sandy/brown colour - on the finer side.


----------



## matthewwh (26 Mar 2015)

That gorgeous boxwood spokeshave may come into its own if you decide to make new handles for any of the chisels.


----------



## adrspach (26 Mar 2015)

The chipped oils tone is Norton India most likely made in Welwyn Garden City (Next to B&Q). Commonly the grit is in medium to fine range of woodworkers sharpening.


----------



## memzey (27 Mar 2015)

Thanks adr. WGC is quite close to where I live so that's a coincidence. I don't have too much experience of oil stones but I'd be very surprised if this was not at the very fine end of the spectrum especially given how it compares with the other stones' fine sides. Does anyone have any tips on trueing these stones up? I have tried rubbing on 80g and 120g paper glued to a flat mdf board but it is slow going. If I had a belt sander I'd probably use that but I don't. I do have a ROS and a finishing sander though. Would that work?


----------



## Racers (27 Mar 2015)

Sand on a paving stone is the usually recommended method.

Pete


----------



## bugbear (27 Mar 2015)

Racers":15zma1wm said:


> Sand on a paving stone is the usually recommended method.
> 
> Pete



Along with a very great deal of labour!

BugBear


----------



## memzey (27 Mar 2015)

It's the labour I'm trying to avoid! Is there a quicker method people can recommend?


----------



## Racers (27 Mar 2015)

You are trying to ware down a hard thing, its likely to ware you down first.

Buy a coarse diamond plate http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dmt-Diamond-Sha ... B0001WP1L0 if you want speed.

Pete


----------



## Jacob (27 Mar 2015)

memzey":kkb38k0a said:


> It's the labour I'm trying to avoid! Is there a quicker method people can recommend?


3M Diapad. £5 or so on ebay. Last forever. 
I wouldn't bother "truing them up" (pointless waste of a lot of time) but they do need the surface refreshing every now and then - just a few quick swipes will do it and being bendy a 3M Diapad will follow the contours.


----------



## memzey (27 Mar 2015)

Cheers Jacob. My only concern is that this stone has a bit of a hollow to it where the previous owner concentrated his/her honing efforts. I really just want to flatten it out so I can control the contours of my sharpening rather than have them dictated to me by the irregular shape of the stone. 

Peter; The diamond plate would probably work well but as it costs quite a bit more than a set of replacement stones and I doubt I will have any other use for it I think I will try something else. Thanks for the suggestion though!


----------



## Racers (27 Mar 2015)

Makes the sand and elbow grease look attractive doesn't it.

 

Pete


----------



## memzey (27 Mar 2015)

Definitely appealing to my wallet (my elbow is less sure about it though)


----------



## worn thumbs (27 Mar 2015)

I have done the job with sharp sand and lots of water on a piece of glass,another fellow I knew preferred grinding paste on glass.It does take time though.it will be worth doing if the shine mentioned has been caused by the stone glazing and needing to have fresh grit exposed.Having cleaned the stone I would recommend using paraffin rather than oil as it allows the stone to cut while providing some resistance to clogging the pores.I know several people who have adopted paraffin and they all say that they can feel the stone cutting more effectively.Makes sense really as oil is intended to reduce friction and you actually need some friction to take the steel away from the blunt edge.


----------



## Jacob (27 Mar 2015)

memzey":jpftrta3 said:


> Cheers Jacob. My only concern is that this stone has a bit of a hollow to it where the previous owner concentrated his/her honing efforts. I really just want to flatten it out so I can control the contours of my sharpening rather than have them dictated to me by the irregular shape of the stone. .....


I'd try to get used to the stone as it is (within reason) instead of setting off in pursuit of flatness. You flatten in use, putting more effort into the high points, rather than wasting a lot of effort before you've even begun too sharpen anything.


----------



## adrspach (27 Mar 2015)

To be honest with you unless this stone has a sentimental value for you it is not worth truly flattening it. You spend a lot of time and if you use wet/dry paper also money for something what is not difficult to buy as new. before you spend money just try a splash of water on concrete paving slab (watch out as your hone can make it polished and slippery for future use) and try to flatten it on it. If it is not too much out it could do the trick. Some hone dealers I know do use linishers for flattening hones but they are naturals as well as they still are not tru flat afterwards they only get rid of bulk of the damaged surface. Additionaly even good belts wil go fast and new India stone could be cheaper than your new belt.
If you looking to have true flat hone I would suggest to purchase a japanese waterhone something like King which is easy to re flatten and decent to sharpen with you just have to be carefull with pressure especialy on small gauges.
As about what to use with your India I would also go towards kerosene as they do like to clog up. Some of them supposed to be prefilled with some kind of wax/oil which also suppose to lube them but I think is not as effective as I would like.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (27 Mar 2015)

I'm not convinced it's an India - compared to the other two, it looks a bit longer and a bit wider. If the others are 8" x 2", then it's an odd size for an India. Also, even a fine India has a definite slight roughness to it when a finger is passed over it - it doesn't feel like glass or marble.

Probably the best way to check it's properties is to sharpen something with it. Try something like a 1/2" chisel. If it takes ages to produce a secondary bevel, it's a fine stone. Also,try putting a secondary bevel on with the fine side of one of the coarser stones, then paring a piece of pine endgrain. Then polish the cutting edge on the orange stone (maybe using the edge to avoid any glazing there may be on the face), and pare the pine endgrain again. That should give a fair indication of the stone's grade.

I think it's no bad idea to try and get it as flat as reasonably practicable. I've never had to do this with an oilstone (if it is an oilstone - might be worth a try with a drop of water and a drop of oil to see which it responds best to), but the method I'd seen reccommended is the one Worn Thumbs mentioned - sharp sand (it must be sharp sand, not builder's sand or beach sand) used on a flat surface with water. Slow, but the stone doesn't look too badly worn, so it may be a quicker job than you think. Once it's flat, take care to use the whole surface so that subsequent wear is as even as possible, and it won't need re-flattening very often.

It would be a good idea to make a box for it if it turns out to be a fine polishing stone. Do the same for one of the combination stones, and you'll be set up with sharpening stones for life!


----------



## bugbear (27 Mar 2015)

Jacob":33nynbh0 said:


> You flatten in use, putting more effort into the high points,



Interesting theory.

Where do hollowed stones come from, if use causes flattening? Are they made hollow at the factory, and if so, why?

BugBear


----------



## G S Haydon (27 Mar 2015)

Looking at it again I think CC is most likely right. However, I'm none the wiser as to what type of stone it could be!


----------



## Jacob (28 Mar 2015)

bugbear":2nrao45f said:


> Jacob":2nrao45f said:
> 
> 
> > You flatten in use, putting more effort into the high points,
> ...


Good question. 
Here are two more:
Why are nearly all the old (used) stones you come across never perfectly flat? 
Why are nearly all the old (used) chisels and plane blades also never perfectly flat on the face and have rounded bevels?

Is it that earlier woodworkers had no idea how to do things properly?

Or is it that the modern sharpening obsession with flatness is (almost) completely pointless?


----------



## bugbear (28 Mar 2015)

Jacob":1ipp0ifo said:


> Why are nearly all the old (used) stones you come across never perfectly flat?



"Someone said" that use makes stones flatter, so it's quite a mystery.

There are (as you correctly say) so many hollowed stones out there, and the old catalogues show them being sold flat.

Could it be that use actually hollows them, despite what "someone said"?

Mysteries, mysteries.

BugBear


----------



## Cheshirechappie (28 Mar 2015)

Jacob":3pbfaeyr said:


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




In any walk of life, there are always some who take great pride in what they do; won't allow sub-standard work, go the extra mile when extra hours are required to finish something properly, look after their tools and equipment to a very high standard, and always do their best. There are some who are capable of the best work, but sometimes cut corners, and there are some who can't really be bothered.

'The books' usually set out best practice. The books usually tell the worker to keep their sharpening stones flat and in good condition. Not everybody followed best practice.

I'm not sure that all the old honing stones are hollowed. I've seen plenty that appear in better condition than that.

Paul Sellers wrote several blogs about hollowed oilstones a couple of months ago; he'd bought some real shockers off Ebay (I went looking for them, out of interest, and couldn't find many, though to be fair I didn't search very long and hard. However, there seemed to be more in decent, including new and boxed, condition than shockers.) At the end of his 'investigation', he didn't seem to reach any sort of convincing conclusion, except that some people had hollowed stones and their tools might well have fitted their stones. It seemed pertinent that he now uses (nice, flat) diamond plates for his sharpening, though.

I really don't think there's a 'right' answer; for me, best practice is keeping sharpening stones pretty flat, but some people obviosly get by with out-of-flat ones. Good luck to them, but I'll stick with flat - for me, it just makes life easier in the end.


----------



## Jacob (28 Mar 2015)

bugbear":3a05355c said:


> Jacob":3a05355c said:
> 
> 
> > Why are nearly all the old (used) stones you come across never perfectly flat?
> ...


I do't think you'll get it but I'll attempt to explain. 
It goes like this: 
1 If you use a stone casually in the ordinary way it starts flat but tends to get hollowed.
2 Then as you use it you tend to spend more time and effort on the high points, as though flattening it.
3 The result usually is a steady state of fixed hollowness to suit yourself and your tools.
4 Sometimes the corrective effort results in a convexity, but that's OK you can work it out (or work with it)
and so on, and on.

The one thing to avoid is to stupidly waste effort, time and stone deliberately flattening it, other than by sharpening with it.


----------



## woodbrains (28 Mar 2015)

Hello,

It begs the question, 'why are they manufactured flat' if flatness is unnecessary? It would take a lot of effort and extra expense to make a stone truly flat, and in modern days, any unnecessary manufacturing process would be omitted if there was no real benefit.

As usual, Jacob is making the argument that does not exist and then telling us how ridiculous it is. No one is obsessed with flatness in their tools, but sharpening the flat side of a tool is more easily done with a flat stone, so introducing flatness to the tool is an inevitable and desirable consequence, not a goal. We could all make our tools extremely sharp with double bevels, like carvers skews, but bench chisels would be almost useless and uncontrollable for their intended purpose and cap irons could not be fitted to plane irons. 

Mike.


----------



## memzey (28 Mar 2015)

Thanks for the comments everyone. 

CC; I have actually sharpened a number of edges with it and it produces a wickedly sharp edge. I sorted out the old number 5 shown on the first page of this post and went through rough, medium then fine grits starting with a combination stone and ending with the funny coloured number we are discussing now before a quick strop on a piece of leather glued to some wood. I didn't bother with any back bevels or any other complexities. Once I'd put it back together and dialled it in it consistently produced shavings like the ones below:



I'm sure many of you would aim for better but for me, bearing in mind that this is the first bench plane I have ever worked, I'm pretty pleased with those results. I havent taken any WIP pics as I didn't do any beautifying of the tool just getting it working to my satisfaction. I think if the shavings are fine enough to read through that's probably ok for an amateur of my (poor) level of skill. 

With regards to the flatness of the stone I think I'm leaning towards Jacob's thinking. It's flat enough (ish), I'm getting good results and I'm as likely to make it worse as better by further interference. As I sharpen free-hand I can compensate for the hollow and control which parts of the stone I use hopefully managing the convexity over time. if there was a quick, cheap and easy way of flattening it I probably would do so but as there doesn't appear to be I shall carry on using it as is.


----------



## G S Haydon (28 Mar 2015)

Great results memzey! Mike, a cap iron can fit irons that are not flat. Sure a flat stone is fine but it's not difficult to make a cap iron fit a less than perfect iron.


----------



## AndyT (28 Mar 2015)

Nice one Memzey. Results like that are what matter so if you are getting them you must be doing it right.


----------



## CStanford (28 Mar 2015)

Mind the ends and the corners and the middle will take care of itself. Maurice Fraser in his sharpening with oilstones video put it best -- use the whole stone, that's what you paid for. Case the stone with run-off blocks at the end that allow to use the stone all the way to the ends.

Stones with end to end grooves were intentional -- for gouges and such. When one of these is found the opposing side will often be found to be dead flat. A stone with a swale in the middle not so much, not a best practice as CC points out. Just because these exist doesn't mean they are a goal.

Memzey -- your results are fine. There is no need to add any additional complexities, as you've discovered quite naturally. If your stone has a swale in the middle you can back off a burr, but do it with short strokes. If you back off by going end-to-end through the swale you will not like what will naturally result over time.

Old knife-edge tools certainly exist, where bevels of some degree or another meet at the cutting edge rather than a bevel meeting a flat face. These can be seen on old chisels and plane irons. Again, not necessarily a goal to strive for. The standard is still a bevel of a suitable degree meeting a flat face at the cutting edge, except for carving tools where ease and a graceful exit from a cut are as important as absolute sharpness. It does no good to get into a cut beautifully and not be able to get out of it at an exact point without making a wreck of things. This isn't an issue with straight bench planing and in the majority of simple paring cuts to layout lines as in cabinetmaking. 

Treat the flat face of a tool as a playground for experimentation at your own risk. I hope you'll avoid it altogether. You'll rarely if ever be disappointed with 'flat and polished' as so many craftsman/writers have emphasized over the last 150 years or so.


----------



## woodbrains (28 Mar 2015)

G S Haydon":1qn05big said:


> Great results memzey! Mike, a cap iron can fit irons that are not flat. Sure a flat stone is fine but it's not difficult to make a cap iron fit a less than perfect iron.



Hello,

I said an iron sharpened like a carvers skew could be extremely sharp, but could not have a cap iron fit. Don't find argument where there are none #-o 

The rest, I talked about not being obsessive about flatness, so I'm not seeing you make any point I didn't. Tool back flatness is a desirable ancillary benefit to sharpening the flat side, which has to be done as well as the bevel. The argument about obsessive flatness among 'modern' woodworkers is a red herring.

Mike.


----------



## G S Haydon (28 Mar 2015)

:Mike, no argument from me , don't assume everything is combative. If we can't ask, question and reflect on posts what's the point of having a forum to discuss things? I value what you write and find it informative and interesting. Looking at your post again I see what you were aiming at sorry for not reading it properly!


----------



## woodbrains (28 Mar 2015)

Hello,

Graham, I didn't mean to sound offended, and I agree with you. Cap irons can be fitted to plane irons out of flat. But flat is often easier, despite the objections of some here. There is an interesting commentary on the processes incolved in designing things in David pye's books. For example, timber is made for purchase at a fair expense, flat square and cut to standard widths, because it is much cheaper in the long run, even if those standard sizes are not optimal for the job. It would not be done so otherwise, but it has been found that it is the most efficient process overall. I suppose it is similar that keeping flat sides of tools better than not, as custom fitting cap irons to planes is more long winded in the end.

Mike.


----------



## G S Haydon (28 Mar 2015)

No worries Mike, bloody text makes things seem off. And don't get me wrong I want a stone to be flat enough, much like CC said. I think it makes perfect sense. I've been on the lookout for a Washita stone and as mentioned also by CC it's actually rare to see really grim stones on ebay. I have and will continue to use all the surface of the stone I bought, not just the middle. Peace


----------



## adrspach (29 Mar 2015)

Just out of curiosity. Why are you interested in a Washita? They are just marginally easier to flatten and slower for simmilar grade SiC stone.


----------

