# Not too shiny sharpening.



## dddd (26 May 2005)

Wonder if anyone can help me, I've recently purchased a hock blade for my No7, plus a couple of LN planes (All A2 blades). I've been reading the DC books as well so I thought I'd get myself some waterstones to sharpen them up on. 
So a quick call to Axminster and I am now the proud owner of 250, 400, 800, 1200, 6000 and 10,000 grit stones.
I've followed DC's instructions to the letter and all the blades now have nice flat backs (actually the LN blades were pretty much prefect to start with, although the Hock had more bend in it than my Grans new perm).
All was going well until I got to the 1200 Grit stone where I was expecting the back to start becoming shiny and mirror like, but no, nothing, they're all just as dull as ever, I've tried moving onto the 6000 and 10,000 stones but still no good. The stones are definitely removing metal as I can see it on the stone. 
Normally I just use a sheet of glass with sand paper up to 2000 Grit and this usually gives a very nice shiny back, but is a bit slow. I haven't resorted to the ruler trick yet as I'm just the sort of person that likes to have the first inch or so nice and shiny. The blade does suck onto the stone (as DC says it will), so I'm wondering if this is causing the problem.
I've also just ordered DC's sharpening DVD so I'm hoping this might shed a little light on the issue, but was wondering if anyone else has suffered from this.


----------



## Philly (26 May 2005)

dddd
Dont panic yet!
First thing-check that your stones are flat. They dont always come that way, so do that first, and flatten them on your piece of glass with wet and dry.
Try that and see if that helps.
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Shady (26 May 2005)

The other possibility is to take care to ensure that you're not carrying over swarf/muck from coarser stones onto the finer grades. Not normally a major problem, but if you're trying to eliminate possible faults, rinse/wipe off all muck before moving to the next higher grade...

Without depressing you, the jump from 1200 to 6000 is also quite 'big'. You might want a 4000 in there...HTH


----------



## Noel (26 May 2005)

Not all types of metal become shiny? Especially with A2 blades?
Just a thought.

Noel


----------



## Anonymous (26 May 2005)

dddd

Check flatness. My A2 blades come up to a decent shine on the 1000 grit waterstone (or equivalent diamond stone which i now use instead) and then a mirror on the 6000. However, waterstones become concave across length and sometimes covex across the stone very quickly indeed and you often need to flatten them every 5 minutes or so during use


----------



## Alf (26 May 2005)

dddd":2vc0vzvs said:


> I am now the proud owner of 250, 400, 800, 1200, 6000 and 10,000 grit stones.


Crikey. :shock:

There are a few thoughts here, which may help. 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## dddd (26 May 2005)

The stones are kept perfectly flat, I've got a nice large extra course DMT diamond stone to do that. I flatten them every couple of minutes, especially the low grits which do wear very quickly.


----------



## Keith Smith (27 May 2005)

Shine isn't everything in fact it means nothing IMHO.

I'm just writing an article about sharpening and I've got a digital microscope to look at the edges. Some of the stones create the most fantastic mirror finish then when I look at them with the microscope it looks like the local farmer has been ploughing them up.

On the other hand the waterstones generally give a matt sheen finish but under the microscope the surface is fine and even.

Keith


----------



## Shady (28 May 2005)

Now that's an interesting and provocative statement Keith...

I'm willing to be convinced, but in my experience, shine does equate pretty reasonably to sharpness. Sources ranging from David Charlesworth to Kingshott, and from time served mastercraftsmen to physics lecturers, regard shine on a surface (whether a cutting edge or an optical mirror), as a function of the smoothness/lack of scratches on it. This view mirrors (no pun intended!) my personal experience with cutting tools. If you're getting a 'matt sheen', then the waterstones are very unusual - at the finer grits... I get a mirror surface that will 'pop' hairs from my arm at any waterstone grit above 6000.

I would accept, as a separate and 'non-shine related' issue, that there is a different debate to be had about speed of dulling in use with regards to ultimate edges - how sharp is real world sharp enough, in other words, but I am a little surprised by your statement. :?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (29 May 2005)

> I'm willing to be convinced, but in my experience, shine does equate pretty reasonably to sharpness.



I don't quite agree, Shady. I'm with Keith here. The short answer is that if one polishes before the preceding scratches are completely removed, then these scratches remain and only the "surface" is polished. You may end up with a "sharp" edge (in a blade) or flat surface (at in blade back), but neither is uniform. The blade edge is serrated and this shows up as scratches on the timber surface, and the metal of a blade may just appear matte (depending on the number of scratches).

But the likely reason that dddd is not getting a shiny surface may have something to do with the stones he is using. Some, such as Shaptons (I am lead to believe - I have not used them), and perhaps other (ceramic ?) stones do not leave the shine that one might get with, for example, my King stones or 2000 grit sandpaper (which is equivalent to an 8000 waterstone).

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Shady (29 May 2005)

> The short answer is that if one polishes before the preceding scratches are completely removed, then these scratches remain and only the "surface" is polished



Derek, I agree that what you describe would create a matt surface, but I don't believe that this validates the idea that sharpness and shinyness are not linked. Indeed, what you are saying appears to be that incorrect sharpening technique (ie jumping too large a grit size from initial shaping to polishing, or just not staying with a particular grit for long enough before moving on), will only provide a superficial polish that does not remove all scratches from the previous grit - which is exactly what I do see if I am lazy, and as you say, it does indeed leave marks on the wood.

It might explain why a blade doesn't cut well despite looking shiny, if incorrect technique is used, but it brings me back to my original belief: a properly prepared blade will have 2 shiny faces meeting at the tip - otherwise it hasn't been properly prepared. The more I think about this, the more I may be prepared, for once in woodworking discussion, to go out on a limb and make a definitive statement: if it ain't shiny, it ain't properly sharpened and best prepared to cut wood.

This does not ignore the fact that you can cut with duller blades - but I would really suggest that proper prep will produce a mirror finish - I don't see how it can do anything else. We are talking about exposing fresh steel, and scratching it with successively finer and finer abrasives. For each abrasive, we should work the blade until all marks from the previous grade are removed. By the time it's sharp enough to use, the abrasive is in the micron grit size. If we want to get really technical, the wavelength of visible light is in the region of 0.4 to 0.7 microns. So if we can use a finishing abrasive with a 'grit' size of 0.4 microns or smaller, the blade _must_ appear mirrored, even under any (optical) microscope magnification, as we've gone below the wavelength of visible light. Note to techies - diamond abrasive paste can be bought at 0.25 microns... :wink:

(but, just to re-iterate before anyone climbs all over me, I fully accept that 'how sharp is sharp enough?' is a different and just as interesting question - my comments are purely related to the suggestion that shiny and sharp are not related.... I reckon that fundamentally, they are.)


----------



## Frank D. (29 May 2005)

Most people who have verified edges under a microscope have found that the shiniest edge is not always the sharpest. Kieth has come to the same conclusion as Brent Beach (who has done extensive tests on sharpness and edge retention), that shiny isn't always the sharpest (also see the thread from Wood Central above) My Norton finishing stones do not always leave a shiny surface on A2, not matter how much time I spend on a blade, and I don't rush through the grits either. A friend of mine also compared three stones with Japanese blades under a micrcoscope and the Honyama left the sharpest edge and the least shiny surface. So while many people affirm the shiny is sharp, as common sense would dictate, people who have investigated the question in depth have so far found no necessary link.
Frank


----------



## Noel (29 May 2005)

Frank, how do you find the Nortons compared to King or similar? Thinking about going for a 4000X and an 8000X. Bigger size much of a benefit? Extra cost worth it?

Rgds

Noel


----------



## Shady (29 May 2005)

Fascinating Frank. So if shiny isn't the sharpest, what is and how is 'the sharpest' defined? The only way I can see a less shiny surface being sharper is if it is less shiny because it's more or less uniformly serrated, so that you're getting a 'sawing' or 'bread knife' effect. I suppose it's possible that, provided the serration/scratch pattern is smooth enough, it won't leave unsightly marks on the stock being worked. I do not wish to anger/alienate anyone, but I'm gonna need a lot more than anecdotal evidence to accept this idea. It is just too counter intuitive and counter basic physics (and counter all the in-print experts I can lay my hands on at the moment) for me to really believe it at the moment.

This link:

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/blade_testing.html 

reinforces the point about the need for standardisation of definition, and does, to be fair, also make the point about 'serration-enhanced cutting' that I suggest above:


> These tests are both highly dependent on the edge alignment. However more polished edges will score better on the push cutting while the poly cutting can do better with a slightly rougher edge. Blades also show quite different rates of blunting on both tests, for example soft steels with lots of carbides can quickly lose performance on the thread due to roll, but keep much better performance on the poly



This is what I would expect: a serrated edge cuts a thick rope better. However, for 'push cutting' (like a plane's action, with minimal sideways movement), 'more polished edges will score better'...

this url: http://www.uspto.gov/go/classification/ ... efs356.htm

is for the US govt Patent and trademark office - a body who need to be absolutely sure about claims and counter-claims, I'd suggest. From the body of the text:



> CUTTING BLADE SHARPNESS
> This subclass is indented under the class definition. Subject matter including a light source for shining light on a blade edge together with optical or photoelectric means for determining the reflectivity and thus the sharpness of the blade.



Ie, the US patent office use reflectivity (aka 'degree of polishdness') as their definitive assessment of how sharp a cutting edge is... Good enough for me..


----------



## Frank D. (29 May 2005)

Hi Shady,
You certainly haven't alienated me, I'm no expert and quite Frankly was in the "shinier is better" camp until I started reading some convincing evidence to the contrary which has made me doubt. I think the evidence is more than anecdotal, but there's still not a whole lot of work that has been done on the subject. One thing we have to remember is that the type of steel is definitely a factor. Some steels commonly used for blades were not widely used even five years ago, so not all research that was done before that necessarily applies. As I mentioned, with my A2 blades a cloudy surface is very common; when I first started using A2 blades and didn't get the mirror polish that I had gotten with O1, I did everything I could to get more consistent shine (rinsing and brushing my stones, sharpening under running water, applying more pressure to the blade, applying less pressure, going back down to the previous stone, I even bought a 6000 stone to use between my 4000 and 8000), but to no avail. My experience is anecdotal, but it seems to be very common nonetheless.
And an edge is not necessarily serrated if it has a cloudy finish. One reason that I don't trust the shaving test for blades is because a serrated edge or even a rough burr will take off hair. But the advantage of checking a blade with a microscope is that the scratch pattern, comes out quite clearly, and the size and regularity of all the scratches can be easily seen as would any serrations (even more so). Serrated edges also wear much more quickly than edges with and even pattern (as I think one of your quotes mentioned), so again they are easily noticeable. 
I'm not really saying anything new here, this is about all I know. I agree that logically a shinier surface has finer scratches, but my experience with A2 steel as well as some recent findings by people who have taken the time to compare edges more methodically have made me wonder. I'm not in any "camp" though.


----------



## Frank D. (29 May 2005)

Noel,
I have some Kings as well as a few Debado and Shapton stones, but I really like my Nortons, especially the 8000. I use my #8 plane quite often, and a 112 once in a while, so the width for me is important. The Nortons don't need to be flattened as often as the Kings. I think they are worth some extra money, but I don't know how much they cost in GB. Shaptons are hard as a rock and wear even less than Nortons, but I can't compare the higher grits and frankly whether I have to take five strokes or 10 on a 4000 or an 8000 isn't of much consequence to me. I'd like to try equivalent Shaptons to see if they retain their flatness as long as the course one I have, but I'm so happy with my Nortons that it doesn't really matter. Nortons are also easily flattened. I use a diamond plate which might be worn out prematurely with shaptons.


----------



## Shady (29 May 2005)

OK Frank - thanks for the 'measured' reply... :wink: 

I was going to do some blade tests with my digital microscope earlier this year, but got waylaid by some personal stuff. You've got me interested again, and I just happen to have re-furbed the shop, and have some room and time on my hands...

Gimme a week or so, and we'll see what I can produce for the community to comment on..


----------



## Noel (29 May 2005)

Frank, thanks for taking the time to give your opinion on Norton stones. Just needed the final shove and will be ordering a 4Kx and an 8Kx this week. Will go King for the lower grits.

Rgds

Noel


----------



## Anonymous (30 May 2005)

The main thing is how do they cut!

Anywho, the better Japanese natural stones will sharpen really well, and yet they do not create a shiny finish. The prep step on the back where one uses an iron plate and carbide will miror the back like nothing else, but the sharpening process does not make it shine. A good japanese woodworker will come over and look at your tools and you see him fighting not to snear if he sees shinny surfaces. A lot of them won't use artificial stones because they do shine, and they feel they will ruin their tools. I present this just for what it is worth, there are all kinds of ways to sharpen.

BEWARE of flatening japanese stones with a diamond stone. The diamonds are hard, but the vitrious bond that holds the diamonds to the substrate is easily abraded by the mud from the stone. I ruined my first DMT that way. Maybe they have beaten that problem, but I doubt it.

To flaten them, I either go dry on paper, but I prefer to use the stone on stone system. Also, wherever I happen to live I will seak out a piece of flat concrete, and use that, real fast. The Shapton system that works great also, is nonetheless a bit of a kluge. The idea of constantly using carbide to flaten stones, cause they can't be flatened against each other is the reason I haven't bought any of their stuff, though I have used it.

The King 8000 chromes your edges, and can provide really good edges. Just by the way.


----------



## Keith Smith (30 May 2005)

Thanks to everyone for all their thoughts on this. 

I have built a sharpness measuring jig and have been trying all sorts of combinations to get a perfect edge; by measurement rather than anecdotally. So far some of the results are odd to say the very least so what should have been a few days of testing has turned into weeks. 

It is very easy to get a super shiny edge, just use honing paste on a leather strop even with the roughest edge you can get a shine. I do accept Shady's point though that when sharpening going up the grits does increase the "shinyness, but my point was that a shine per se is not an indication of sharpness. I only go up to 6000 grit with the waterstones and the finish is definately not shiny.

Keith


----------



## Chris Knight (30 May 2005)

Regardless of how a sharp edge is obtained, it will have a couple of characteristics that are easily checked.

1. You cannot see it - I use my Optivisor to check this and whilst of course a microscope would reveal it, I feel that the low power magnification of the Optivisor is enough. Any reflection, no matter how tiny, seen along any part of the edge under a strong light, indicates a blunt spot

2. When you cut a softish piece of wood across the grain, the edge should leave a perfectly smooth surface with no scratch marks evident in the cut surface behind the advancing blade. Invariably, scratch marks will be found to correspond with reflections as in (1)

It pays to keep a lump of wood to hand so that during sharpening, the edge can be checked at various stages. The difference between a sharp edge as noted above and one that is "nearly" sharp is very noticeable in terms of the effort need to push the blade through the wood. Pretty soon, one comes to recognise what remains to be done to make the edge truly sharp and this knowledge helps inform the process of maintaining a sharp edge on the tool between major grindings etc.


----------



## Noel (30 May 2005)

I find ears are a good indicator of sharpness too.

Rgds

Noel, who isn't waiting for a witty reply....


----------



## Shady (30 May 2005)

Noel that would be reported to a mod for making me ill - er, if you weren't one...


----------



## Noel (30 May 2005)

Shady, listen to the cut, with your shell-likes.

Rgds

Noel


----------



## Alf (31 May 2005)

Oh, _that's_ what you meant. #-o I thought you meant like my parrot; he tests the sharpness of his beak on my ears... :roll: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Shady (31 May 2005)

Thanks Alf -I thought it was just me being thick... :roll:


----------



## Noel (31 May 2005)

So, is listening to a blade cutting through timber cross fibres not a normal thing to do straight after sharpening? Maybe I'm a bit odd.........

Noel


----------



## trevtheturner (31 May 2005)

Of course it's normal, Noel - just like the 'swish' of a plane, isn't it?  

Cheers,

Trev.


----------



## Alf (31 May 2005)

Shady, it may well still be you being thick, but at least you have company :wink: :lol:



Noel":yt30et64 said:


> So, is listening to a blade cutting through timber cross fibres not a normal thing to do straight after sharpening?


Well the sound of the blade cutting is one factor in when I think a blade needs resharpening certainly. Straight after I've sharpened it I just assume it's sharp and don't really take much notice of the noise to be honest.



Noel":yt30et64 said:


> Maybe I'm a bit odd.........


I - _will_ - resist... :wink: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Chris Knight (31 May 2005)

Just noticed Alf's avatar change - is this skew I see before me a gloat, or simply a comparison with some exotica that is even as we speak, being reviewed for the delectation of the masses?

OTOH it may be that Rob C's dovetailing technique is being applied! The possibilities are endless - only limited by your imagination. (Terms and Conditions may apply)


----------



## Alf (31 May 2005)

waterhead37":kozdkk7u said:


> Just noticed Alf's avatar change - is this skew I see before me a gloat,


Yes. Thank you for noticing. 



waterhead37":kozdkk7u said:


> or simply a comparison with some exotica that is even as we speak, being reviewed for the delectation of the masses?


Well I did think I might give it The Treatment, if anyone's interested?



waterhead37":kozdkk7u said:


> OTOH it may be that Rob C's dovetailing technique is being applied!


Drawers loom in my future, so could be.



waterhead37":kozdkk7u said:


> The possibilities are endless - only limited by your imagination. (Terms and Conditions may apply)


Book early to avoid disappointment? :-s 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## dddd (1 Jun 2005)

Wow, seems like I've started a bit of a debate here, but thanks for all your replies, although I'm still not sure if I'm any closer to an answer. However, help arrived last weekend in the form of DC's sharpening DVD and it did make some very interesting viewing, plus I was a little sickened at the end of it when I saw how little relative effort and time he put in and got some pretty amazing results.
Anyway I digress, in the DVD DC was sharpening with exactly the same cryogenically treated A2 blade as me and using the same King 800 and 1200 grit stones as me and by the time he'd finished on the 1200 grit he had a definite shiny surface on the back of the blade. Haven't had time to try again using his exact technique yet but will be giving it a go this weekend. Will let you know how I get on. Although can't wait to here the results of the various experiments that seem to be going on at the moment. 
Thanks again guys. 

N.


----------



## Shady (1 Jun 2005)

Don't worry dddd/N - this subject is a bit like the question of pins vs tails first for dovetails: once someone's found a method that works for them, they tend to become a bit evangelical... :wink: 

Just keep trying until you find the one that works for you. The DC stuff is good for starters, because his perfectionist approach will help toward repeatability, which is the hardest thing to feel confident about initially. One day you suddenly realise you've gone from "Oh crumbs, I hope this works" to " I know this'll put my standard useable edge on" - great feeling.


----------



## Alf (1 Jun 2005)

dddd":2yrwp9n7 said:


> I was a little sickened at the end of it when I saw how little relative effort and time he put in and got some pretty amazing results.


Ah, don't worry about that. He's been doing it for a long time, so he should make it look pretty easy. Keep plugging away and one day, as Shady says, you'll tip the balance from "half an hour spent on this blade is time well spent in the long run I suppose..." to "well it's nice to have a small break from planing tha- right, all done. Back to work". :wink: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Midnight (1 Jun 2005)

> using the same King 800 and 1200 grit stones as me



you absolutely sure that 2nd stone wasn't an 8000 grit??

FWIW, I've been playing with a new stone lately, 12,000 grit; the business end is... shiny...

Cuts pretty well too.. 1 thou full width shaving, zero tear out... and that's against the grain... with the grain feels so effortless it's bordering obscene...

I gave the back of my scrub plane blade a wee polish on the 12,000 too; it went from lethal to Hell Fire..!! 

safety glasses were worn while conducting this experiment... 8) :wink:


----------



## Philly (1 Jun 2005)

Interesting Mike!
Which brand 12000?
Philly


----------



## Midnight (1 Jun 2005)

Philly... same as my others... King...


----------



## David C (6 Jun 2005)

Just a few observations for this fascinating thread. 
I find it interesting to note how my approach changes subtly over the years.

Diamond stones give a shiny but scratched surface. Therefore shinyness is not necessarily a good indicator of quality of edge.

Scary sharp, or the use of wet & dry, produces shine but usually seems to round off the edges of the flat back of the tool.

Diamond lapping paste produces an incredible perfect mirror surface if you go to 1/2 micron. The absence of scratches gives a wierd view as if looking at the surface of liquid mercury. Can't see any point in going the extra distance to get this result for normal cabinetmaking.

A2 does not seem to get particularly shiny on my waterstones, but when I look at the surfaces with a 50X stick microscope the edge is very good and the surface does not show deep scratches.

The ruler trick band which is narrow, does get quite shiny if I let the paste on the stone dry out and use more pressure as it dries (on A2). I have recently taken to the APTC 10,000 grit stone because it is better value and comes on a nice wooden base!

The ruler trick, (NEVER for chisels please), will save you a huge amount of time and effort over a lifetime. Sharpening needs to be quick and repeatable or we will put it off and struggle on with blunt tools. My method has been developed entirely for speed and certainty.

I still only use 3 stones, King 800, King 1200, and 8 or 10 thousand grit. There may be some argument for including a 4000 grit for chisel backs but I don't find it necessary. The back finish is refined with every sharpening and will improve with time.

The Norton stones are excellent though I don't like the feel of the 4000 grit and have asked them to look at the bonding matrix. I am not so keen on the price in UK.

I have not used Shaptons much because I am perfectly satisfied with the results from my King stones, their price and ease of flattening.

The main issue with sharpening is to keep the back of the tool flat or minutely concave, in the length. I see immense damage done to tools by the failure to appreciate that waterstones must be religiously flattened every few minutes. You find the same damage on old tools which were sharpened for years on hollow oil stones. I have specifically developed two techniques for keeping the edge of the tool, off the edge of the stone for 50% of the the time, to avoid the menace of hollow stones. (Movements 1 & 2 in the DVD).

best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## Noel (6 Jun 2005)

David, welcome to the site. What do you use for flatening your stones? 

Noel


----------



## David C (6 Jun 2005)

Noel,

Thank you.

Wet & dry on float glass.

240 grit, though 180 & 150 will do. Sometimes I use 320 for the super fine stones but blunt 240 does just as well.

I have also used coarse diamond stones.

best wishes,
David


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (6 Jun 2005)

> Wet & dry on float glass



Good Grief David, when are you going to start using dry wall mesh instead! It is a jolly good thing you have contacted us for advice. We have plenty of great ideas here, 220 grit dry wall mesh being just one of them  

Advantages: lies flat (unlike that curly piece of w&d you had in your sharpening video), is easily cleaned and does not clog with water or residues.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## David C (6 Jun 2005)

Derek,

Thanks, I will have to try it.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Shady (6 Jun 2005)

Derek - i've seen that mentioned on US boards. Hate to reveal my ignorance, but what exactly is 'drywall mesh'??


----------



## Anonymous (6 Jun 2005)

Shiny is certainly a nice visual marker that you've 'gotten there' although not an absolute necessity as others have pointed out.

For curiosity's sake, why don't you take the blade you have through your old sandpaper on glass routine and report back as to shine and sharpness.

I've never been revved up much about waterstones from the standpoint of the bath they have to have and keeping them flat seems a bother. A lot of folks flatten waterstones on sandpaper or some other stone which seems ridiculous to me since the logic appears to be that you have to have a sharpening system already in place to keep the waterstones flat. In other words, if you use sandpaper or abrasives on glass to keep a waterstone flat why not simply use them in the first place? The efficacy of these other methods has never been in question that I am aware of.


----------



## Shady (6 Jun 2005)

cstanford, the problem that some have reported with paper on glass etc is that you can round over the ultimate edge, unless you are very careful/lucky.

The belief is that, unlike stones, paper can 'ride up' a little, almost like a bow wave, in front of the edge, where a stone can't.

All tools need fettling for optimal efficiency, stones are no different..


----------



## Noel (6 Jun 2005)

I've been using scary sharp for some years now and would recommend it to anybody. For some it'll be sufficient for their needs, for others it's just not dynamic enough. Obviously start-up costs are minimal compared to a full set of waterstones and with the common availibility of W & D up to 2,500 grit a good polished edge can be obtained. There are a few downsides: W & D paper renewal on a regular basis, the possibility of a rounded edge due to the "bow wave" as mentioned by Shady, generally W & D paper (the regular stuff anyway) is a composition of various sized grit and this presents quite an uneven surface for the tool edge and can result in a serrated edge.
Personally I plan to go back to waterstones in the next few days as I believe a superior edge can be achieved. Soaking for the lower grits (King) will be a slight nuisance although the polishing grits (Norton) will only need a quick spray of water.

Noel


----------



## Shady (6 Jun 2005)

Noel: if you can absorb the price differential, that's probably the major advantage of the Shaptons - whatever grit, they only need misting just before use. I love them, but tend toward DC's comment - even with Shaptons, I'll flatten either before or after each use....


----------



## Midnight (6 Jun 2005)

now me.. I canna afford to look at Norton's... and Shaptons... sheesh... 

I was wairy of the Kings to start with; DC's books being my intro to them, but I figured anything would be better than the oil stone I'd been abusing up to then...
I started out with the Veritas stone pond c/w 800 and 6000 grit stones... learned how to get the most from them without making too much mess before expanding the range of stones for faster cutting or finer polishing..

The spanner in the works came when I bought the #112... blade way wider than the stones, so I've bought a few more that accomidate it. 

DC's video's have had more than a few eurika moments... reading how its done is one thing.. seeing is a different ballgame alltogether (although I'm near positive there's some fancy editing involved in getting them pencil lines on the stones to vanish so quickly...)  I'm far from perfect in as far as flattening the stones at any rate, but I'm getting there..

I've found the softness of the Kings to be an advatage in a way... mistakes happen... wouldn't be the first time I've tipped over the edge and gouged the stone... their softness makes polishing it out a breeze.. messy but forgiving at the same time... 

As for which is "best".. I'd ask.. whichever you're happy with; bottom line is the only thing that matters is the quality of the edge they produce... 

tried the ruler trick for the first time tonight... impressed.?? HELL yeaaaaaa... David... I owe you.. :wink:


----------



## Noel (6 Jun 2005)

Shapton? Took alot of advice on these and read up about them. My conclusion was that they were certainly a premium stone at a premium price. Other than the cost of the stones themselves I wasn't prepared to drop another small fortune on a lapping plate or similar. Think I'll be happy with King / Norton set up.

Noel


----------



## Jake (6 Jun 2005)

"Drywall mesh" is presumably mesh abrasive for filler/plaster, like 3M's which is available from CSM. Mesh so it doesn't clog, for it's original application. CSM's site is down, or I would have posted a link.


----------



## Midnight (6 Jun 2005)

> I wasn't prepared to drop another small fortune on a lapping plate or similar



I remember having a quick look at their finest grade stone... canna remember if it was 15 or 30 thou... one look at the price and I closed the page in a hurry... L-N's is one thing....but sheeshhhhh.....


----------



## Shady (6 Jun 2005)

Midnight, noel - I quite agree on the lapping plate and ludicrous grit stones...

I stopped at 8000 grit, and use the 'ice bear' ceramic truing stone from axminster for flattening them (cost me about 8 quid, IIRC). As I was trying to say (but obviously failing to communicate...) the real advantage is speed and neatness in use, because they don't need to soak beforehand.


----------



## Frank D. (7 Jun 2005)

I have a coarse shapton that I use for flattening backs, but I use scary sharp to flatten the stone :lol: . Actually I just glued some 80 grit wet dry on a piece of glass, and I sprinkle some coarse carborundum on it so the sandpaper actually acts like a substrate for the carborundum. I can flatten it very quickly and easy this way, and the stone stays true a very long time (I have a King 220 also... the shapton stays flat forever compared to it). It doesn't cut as quickly as my diamond plates but they aren't good for backs anyway. One day I'll be brave enough to try the ruler trick. Actually I'm even starting to give my grinder fleeting looks when I gather my blades to go sharpen in the kitchen...


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (7 Jun 2005)

Shady wrote:


> what exactly is 'drywall mesh'??



I am so used to American terminology I forget to use what is more typically used in Oz and, probably, the UK. It is used to sand down the joins in plasterboard walls. It is the size of a 1/2 sheet of sandpaper and looks like a grey small-grid mesh. 

Have a look at the following recent post here on my "waterstone board": https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5279

and more closely at http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au ... entid=8845

This picture has a close up of the mesh.

One advantage is that it lies flat and stiff (switch off those thoughts! :shock: ) and, if you fix the one side, you can lift the other to swab off the surface every now-and-then. Unlike sandpaper, it does not gunk up (technical term). 220 grit is great on all my King stones (800 - 8000).

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Anonymous (7 Jun 2005)

cstanford":2v6x7pos said:


> Shiny is certainly a nice visual marker that you've 'gotten there' although not an absolute necessity as others have pointed out.
> 
> For curiosity's sake, why don't you take the blade you have through your old sandpaper on glass routine and report back as to shine and sharpness.
> 
> I've never been revved up much about waterstones from the standpoint of the bath they have to have and keeping them flat seems a bother. A lot of folks flatten waterstones on sandpaper or some other stone which seems ridiculous to me since the logic appears to be that you have to have a sharpening system already in place to keep the waterstones flat. In other words, if you use sandpaper or abrasives on glass to keep a waterstone flat why not simply use them in the first place? The efficacy of these other methods has never been in question that I am aware of.




Not a problem. I have used jap waterstones for years and never had them standing in a bath. I soak the course ones for 10 minutes in the kitchen sink before use and the fine ones should never be immersed in water anyway; on ejust sprays them.

To flatten takes 10 seconds. I place a piece of 120 grit sandpaper on a flat surface (piece of MDF etc.) and rub the toe over it a couple of times.

Easy and quick all round.

As far as cost goes, I bought a wide dual 1000/6000 waterstone from Dieter Schmid http://www.fine-tools.com/index.htm about 3 years ago for £25 and still use it as my main sharpening stone


----------



## Alf (7 Jun 2005)

Midnight":2e7ghmmx said:


> I remember having a quick look at their finest grade stone... canna remember if it was 15 or 30 thou... one look at the price and I closed the page in a hurry... L-N's is one thing....but sheeshhhhh.....


You _could_ argue it makes more sense to drop a bundle on getting your sharpening right than dropping it on a plane... _I_ wouldn't argue that, but you _could_... :wink: :lol: 

Flattening eh? Well my oil stone gets flattened regularly, whether it needs it or not. Once every couple of months or so.... :wink: Mind you, I do seriously wonder if honing freehand doesn't help in that regard, in that I can spread the wear across the stone much more easily. Dunno, but I'm certainly not tempted to try waterstones again at the moment. :?

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Chris Knight (7 Jun 2005)

Alf":ht110w87 said:


> I'm certainly not tempted to try waterstones again at the moment.



I keep reading all this enthusiastic stuff for waterstones and periodically I do get tempted. I fill the stone pond with clean water, I soak my waterstones, flatten them and then I sharpen my blades and then I wonder why I bothered. It is a messy tiresome business and I get the feeling we've all been had..


----------



## Sharpdon (7 Jun 2005)

dddd":yn0qivg0 said:


> Normally I just use a sheet of glass with sand paper up to 2000 Grit and this usually gives a very nice shiny back, but is a bit slow.


 In my research when developing the Lap-Sharp sharpening system, I learned Silicon Carbide breaks down very quickly and then begins to burnish the tool which is why it gets shiny. The waterstones and other Aluminum Oxide grits do not break down as quickly, and keep cutting metal. This is why the tool is still dull rather than shiny as when you used wet or dry paper. Aluminum Oxide is available with PSA adhesive on thin film backing. The thin film does not compress, so will keep the backs flat and not rounded. The grit on this microfinishing film has a consistency of about 98% rather than wet or dry at 55%.
For additional information on some of this research, see:
http://www.woodartistry.com/images/Wood ... ocess2.pdf


----------



## Anonymous (7 Jun 2005)

Shady":386gw7lp said:


> cstanford, the problem that some have reported with paper on glass etc is that you can round over the ultimate edge, unless you are very careful/lucky.
> 
> The belief is that, unlike stones, paper can 'ride up' a little, almost like a bow wave, in front of the edge, where a stone can't.
> 
> All tools need fettling for optimal efficiency, stones are no different..



Simply use Elmers spraymount. Spray the back of the paper and let it set for about five minutes then press it onto the glass. I have never had a problem with buckling. Waiting five minutes makes the bond strong but not so strong that it's a major pain to remove later.

That said, I have returned to oilstones except for rough grinds where I simply lay a sheet of 60 grit on the benchtop and have at it.


----------



## Newbie_Neil (7 Jun 2005)

Hi Sharpdon

Welcome to the forum.

Cheers
Neil


----------



## Scott (7 Jun 2005)

waterhead37":2z6rywmh said:


> It is a messy tiresome business and I get the feeling we've all been had..



I'll second that!


----------



## Midnight (7 Jun 2005)

> I wouldn't argue that, but you could...



no need to.. I've both the Mk1 and the Mk 2 guides... and know how to use 'em... ;P~~~

like I said earlier... it don't really matter if you use freaky sharp, oil stones and somatics or whatever... the only thing that counts is the quality of the business end...


----------

