# are there any decent techniques for squaring a chisel blade?



## Reggie (4 Jul 2013)

Hi all, the title didn't have enough chars to let me finish, I appreciate that you can put an edge on a chisel using a grinder but I don't have access to one, I've been given a set of chisels and none of the blade edges are square with the sides, there's about a 10deg slope. 

I have at my disposal a single largish file (triangular), a set of crummy needle files that probably cost a quid, 3 grades of wet and dry and an oilstone, what are my options here? 

Is it worth me trying to construct a small jig of some description and hoping the wet and dry will do the job or use the files?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (4 Jul 2013)

How much life have you left? Don't even think about it - buy a grinder - they're not that expensive.


----------



## Jelly (4 Jul 2013)

You can do it by hand on the oilstone (or coarse wet and dry)... it will take a while, but it's not too hard, a jig in principle is great, but in practice could apply undesirably much pressure to the point of the lower side of the edge, scoring into the stone/tearing the paper.

I would start off doing it by hand just checking frequently, and switch to a jig (if you feel it required to be dead-on 90) once the worst of the skewing is gone...


----------



## Jacob (4 Jul 2013)

I'd just ignore it but put a bit of bias into your sharpening to correct it until (years later) they are all straight. 
If you actually use them, eventually you will chip an edge and need to regrind, in which case you just present it at 90º to the wheel or whatever and true it up, before grinding a new bevel.


----------



## AndyT (4 Jul 2013)

I'm with Jacob on this one. There is no necessity to have the edge at exactly 90 degrees. Getting back nearer over time will be fine.


----------



## Reggie (4 Jul 2013)

I simply don't have the funds to invest in a real grinder at the moment although I do have a dremel that I'd forgotten about, I didn't think it would be entirely suitable given my skill level or lack of and also the grinding stone attachments iirc are smaller than the smallest chisel blade, I thought I might end up doing more harm than good.

I did think about adjusting my angle but if I'm cutting mortices then it's not really an option as I'd be digging into the side wall of the joint, won't I?


----------



## Jacob (4 Jul 2013)

Reggie":2lnzqxm0 said:


> ...
> I did think about adjusting my angle but if I'm cutting mortices then it's not really an option as I'd be digging into the side wall of the joint, won't I?


No problem as far as I can see. If it was a blind mortice the bottom of the hole might have skewed chisel marks but nobody is going to see them. Just get stuck in and use them and you will see.


----------



## G S Haydon (4 Jul 2013)

Hello Reggie,

It's up to you really. Using a dremel or file would not bee the first choice but I suppose you could try. I nice flat file could work I guess, never thought about using one. 
From my perspective I would not be too OCD but I would prefer them to appear square. I would most likely freehand grind them square. I found this website to be very good indeed on oil stone use freehand http://www.antiquetools.com/sharp/sharpholdblade.html. 
I don't know if this applies to you Reggie and forgive me if it does not, but a more experienced woodworker can work around things easier. If your tools are in reasonable shape you wont fret about the tools letting you down and can then focus on practicing woodworking.


----------



## Noggsy (4 Jul 2013)

Reggie, where in the UK are you? I'll happily square up your chisels if you're near enough and it's bothering you. That said, the experts above seem to be saying it doesn't matter. My OCD would kick in though if they were mine


----------



## undergroundhunter (4 Jul 2013)

Depending on how bad they are wet and dry will do it but it will take time if you are really obsessive then use a cheap guide (B&Q sell cheap eclipse copies or eBay) I have done it in the past and its quite tedious. If you do it on an oil stone just beware of creating a dip in the stone.

Matt


----------



## WoodMangler (4 Jul 2013)

Reggie":25szw113 said:


> I simply don't have the funds to invest in a real grinder at the moment


I got a 4-sided 'Faithful' diamond sharpening block from the local agricultural engineers, cost about £30 - it has 8"x2" faces of 200, 400, 600 and 1000 grit. Excellent for getting chisels back to smooth and square. I then hone them on an ancient very fine diamond plate I got at a show about 20 years ago


----------



## Reggie (4 Jul 2013)

Hi Guys, Noggsy, thank's for the offer but we're nowhere near each other unfortunately  

Jacob, with regard to the mortice walls, I was more thinking of the walls on a full mortice getting damaged on the outside edge.

G S Haydon, I am in no way experienced at all, I have no problems putting my hands up to that  I'm also not blaming the tools for anything, they were ground prior to being given to me and haven't seen any use from me yet, out of the 7, two are out of square, the others look reasonable enough to live with now that I've seen them in some decent light. 

However, all 7 of them have wonky bevels, it's hard to describe them but I'm going to go with multifaceted or perhaps mirror ball. I'm going to at least sort the bevels out and I'll see how I feel about the squareness after that.

The dremel was really an afterthought, the file is the closest other thing to a bench grinder that I have but it did seem a bit drastic. I don't mind putting a bit of effort into getting them to a reasonable standard and then simple maintenance after that.

The oilstone is a used 2 sided stone, it's already got a bit of a dip on the rough side, so I will also need to sort that out I expect. The smooth side is fine, no nicks in it, nice and flat.


----------



## Reggie (4 Jul 2013)

I'd also like to say thank you to everyone for taking the time to answer my questions, I'm reading a fair bit and watching videos, googling etc. before I really get going on things, so if any of my questions seem at all odd, that will be why


----------



## Jacob (4 Jul 2013)

Reggie":1aljmpnf said:


> ....Jacob, with regard to the mortice walls, I was more thinking of the walls on a full mortice getting damaged on the outside edge......


You've obviously got something in mind but I still can't see a problem. 
By "full" do you mean a through mortice? You work them from both sides to meet in the middle, not in one side and out the other, if that's what you are thinking.


----------



## Reggie (5 Jul 2013)

ha, yeah, I probably do mean a through mortice, if I'm using a 1/2" chisel to cut a 1/2" mortice then any deviation from square seems to mean the the mortice will end up wider (something has got to give) which would be the case if I tilt the chisel to compensate for the un-square edge of the blade, I do appreciate that I could be wrong here. 

You're also probably right about me needing to just get stuck in, although I did get stuck in with my only (bent) chisel before these arrived and quite frankly it wasn't pretty.


----------



## G S Haydon (5 Jul 2013)

"mirror ball" great description . Enjoy the woodworking


----------



## Richard T (5 Jul 2013)

Reggie - when morticing, it is important to keep the body of the chisel square to the direction of the mortice and square to your lines. If the edge isn't square, pretend it is. The mortice won't know. 

Otherwise it sounds like a good opportunity for some practice. On the rough side of your oil stone, put emphasis on the side that needs to be reduced and at the same time work the high areas of the stone to stop the dip increasing. 
Do you have a square? Good to have it handy to check progress.


----------



## bugbear (5 Jul 2013)

G S Haydon":123k08ys said:


> A nice flat file could work I guess, never thought about using one.



If the chisels can be worked with a file - get better chisels!

BugBear


----------



## nanscombe (5 Jul 2013)

I don't know what the quality will be like but ...

B&Q Value 3 Piece wood working chisel set £4.98

They might be enough to get you started without having to worry too much about being square.

Do you have a drill which you could use to get rid of the bulk of the wood and then just concentrate on tidying the mortices up?


----------



## Jacob (5 Jul 2013)

Richard T":332b022t said:


> Reggie - when morticing, it is important to keep the body of the chisel square to the direction of the mortice and square to your lines. If the edge isn't square, pretend it is. The mortice won't know. ....


 :lol: 
I see now - Reg imagines the skewed edge will re-direct the chisel. Not at all - Reg does the directing!


----------



## Reggie (5 Jul 2013)

Yes, I do have a drill, but no drill press, as you can probably tell, I'm not at all confident in my 'lining stuff up correctly skills', clearly these are things I have to master  I'm sure I'll be ok with these once they've at least been honed correctly.

Jacob, sort of, it was suggested that I adjust the angle of the chisel to the wood and me countering with the logic of doing that.

As for having a square, I have 3 of them, it's what got me into this in the first place, who knew a square and a sharpie could cause so much angst? and yes, the square is actually square, all 3 of them are, checked on wednesday, more angst overcome :-D

I'd been practising on the wonky chisel (the one that has a bow in the blade) before these arrived, so I'm reasonably confident about getting the honing right.


----------



## Richard T (5 Jul 2013)

Three square squares - Hooray! You could also use a couple to check the verticallitude of whatever you are boring with in absence of a drill press. 
I did this a lot when timber framing.


----------



## Reggie (5 Jul 2013)

Thanks Richard, It's really down to practice and confidence, my previous attempts at making holes in things have been done out of necessity, with less tools than I have now with mainly poor results, 2 weeks ago I hadn't picked up a chisel in nearly 30 years, now I am determined to at least teach myself the basics, it's just remembering and recognising all the transferable techniques such as using a square, I did this for a compound sliding mitre saw the other day.


----------



## nanscombe (5 Jul 2013)

I was just suggesting using a drill as it would allow you to remove a significant quantity of wood before having to use your chisels to clean up the mortices.

As for the "non-square" chisels, don't forget the blade of Madame Guillotine wasn't square either but still managed to cut straight :shock: , as long as it was suitably directed.


----------



## Noel (6 Jul 2013)

Reggie, reference an earlier post, put in your approximate location in your profile, there could well be somebody down the road that is willing to help you and/or has the proper tools to sort you out and I'm sure you'll learn a lot too.


----------



## Reggie (6 Jul 2013)

I've updated my profile with a location, sorry about that, I'm a bit shy 

So, here's the plan for later today, I've picked the 3 best looking chisels out of the 7 (there are 3 x 1", 2 x 3/4" and 2 x 1/2"), I'll give them a quick hone and see how I get on.

With regard to using a drill to get the bulk of the wood out, I don't mind doing that in the future but I'd really like to learn to use a chisel, it can't be that hard, can it?  Especially now I've had all this advice


----------



## Jacob (6 Jul 2013)

There's a neat demo of morticing without a mortice chisel here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_NXq7_TILA
Definitely stick with the chisel - drilling out doesn't speed up small mortices it makes them more difficult. Not essential but it can help with bigger ones (say 1" wide or more?) where the technique is quite different.
I've cut letter box slots with chisel alone - basically a V groove around the edge and prize out the middle in big chunks - quite different from mortice chisel morticing.


----------



## Reggie (6 Jul 2013)

Oh Jacob, you know me so well!! I have watched that particular video about 3 times now and a few of his other videos too, I find Mr. Sellers to be easy to listen to and watch, his little comment that he seems to like cracks me up too 'While I've stood here and done this, you'd still be looking for your router bit'. It also brought me back down to earth after I'd had a load of power tools donated to me and showed me that whilst power tools have their places, hand tools are equally valid, it's really all about picking the right tools for the job.

It's actually his videos that gave me the confidence to try the 'wonky' chisel and to practice honing it until the other chisels arrived.

It's interesting to note that the piece of glass and Paul's technique perfectly illustrate what I meant about having the chisel tilted sideways, either the glass would break or the mortice wall would give, not so important as you pointed out if the mortice doesn't go all the way through as the face of the mortice would be hidden.

Looking at that video again, I'm wondering whether that piece of wood was specifically chosen for this demo, it seems that the grain assists the method very well in this instance?


----------



## AndyT (6 Jul 2013)

Reggie":3d3o7wk4 said:


> Looking at that video again, I'm wondering whether that piece of wood was specifically chosen for this demo, it seems that the grain assists the method very well in this instance?



I expect it was carefully chosen. But if so, that illustrates an important point. Choosing suitable materials is not cheating; it's part of the skill of making things from wood. 
At the most basic level that will mean choosing the right species for the job but it can quite soon mean learning to cut out and orient components so that a knot can be avoided or so that the grain slopes the right way for a moulding to be planed or so that parts will only move in the same direction as each other.


----------



## Reggie (6 Jul 2013)

Indeed, it struck me fairly quickly the other day that the ease of what is happening is the flat edge is almost doing a horizontal cut and using the grain to help as he flicks his wrist.


----------



## Reggie (6 Jul 2013)

I should also mention that I made a very reasonable 1/2 inch through mortice earlier on, without re-honing anything. I clearly need more practice with that technique as I'm fairly inefficient and don't have the proper feel for the hammer blows yet but all in all I'm very happy with the result


----------



## Phil Pascoe (6 Jul 2013)

:shock: Hammer?


----------



## G S Haydon (6 Jul 2013)

Reggie, if it's a plastic handled carpenters type chisel then FWIW I use a hammer too, 20z estwing claw to be precise  (mallet on fine chisels or wooden handles). Great work on the mortice!


----------



## Reggie (6 Jul 2013)

They are plastic handled carpenters chisels, however, I should've said 'I don't have a proper feel for the lump of scrap pine blows' but I suspect the reaction would've been very similar, something like:

:shock: lump of scrap pine?

I know, I know, a proper chisel striking implement is on my list of things to get within the next week, in fact, it's the only thing, although I hadn't settled on a specific one yet.


----------



## G S Haydon (6 Jul 2013)

A hammer is a proper tool . All about context ;-)


----------



## Phil Pascoe (6 Jul 2013)

I was only joking, although I tend to use a mallet even on structural work because I find it easier.


----------



## Benchwayze (8 Jul 2013)

Jacob":1vjs3hm1 said:


> I'd just ignore it but put a bit of bias into your sharpening to correct it until (years later) they are all straight.
> If you actually use them, eventually you will chip an edge and need to regrind, in which case you just present it at 90º to the wheel or whatever and true it up, before grinding a new bevel.



I don't often agree with Jacob, but it seems to be a new habit! Unless your chisel is a great amount out of square, (In which case regrind it, or use it as a skew chisel :mrgreen then Jacob's right.


----------



## dg2000r (10 Jul 2013)

I'm reasonably new to this lark myself so can't give the expert advice that these guys can, but thought I'd just add - As useful as the internet is for learning things like this, you'll soon realise that some people on the web get very carried away by the tiny details, and it's easy to get dragged down into thinking that your tools aren't ready to use unless they are tuned to absolute perfection. Quite simply, that's not the case - your tools will naturally improve over time, as will the rest of your work, as you try things out and make little changes. You'll soon realise what difference a less than perfectly square chisel will make, and as a beginner you'll probably find it's absolutely fine as it is. There is so much to learn in woodworking, I think it helps to not get bogged down in details too early - time is far better spent on practicing your techniques, with whatever tools you have available. As long as it has a sharp edge on it, it'll be fine for a while, and you'll naturally know when you outgrow it as you'll start to notice that's it's not doing what you want it to.


----------



## Reggie (10 Jul 2013)

Actually, this wasn't anyone else that made me think that I wanted square chisels, it was plain logic, they're made square, I expected to receive them square, if I'm trying to cut to a line, a sloped blade on an upright chisel will over/undercut the mark  As I've now been told it shouldn't matter, I am happy to accept that, so it's more aesthetic now than anything else but I'm sure I'll get over that irritation in time or they'll get reground. I wasn't going to not use them because they're not square though


----------



## bugbear (11 Jul 2013)

Reggie":3agj7qvo said:


> ..it was plain logic, they're made square, I expected to receive them square, if I'm trying to cut to a line, a sloped blade on an upright chisel will over/undercut the mark



Further, I bet you've never seen a woodworking tutorial in print or on the net where the chisel isn't square. Square is a reasonable goal.

BugBear


----------



## Reggie (11 Jul 2013)

BugBear, you're correct, going one further, none of the sharpening tutorials or videos ever show a chisel that isn't square either.


----------



## David C (14 Jul 2013)

Reggie,
My chisel sharpening DVD has a specific chapter on squaring chisels.
Unlike Jacob I use specific grinding and honing angles, and a cheap far eastern copy of the Eclipse honing guide.

High finger pressure on one edge and low pressure on the other will bring a chisel towards squareness, with each stroke on a coarse stone.
It is helpful to have access to some kind of grinder. 

If so nirvana can be achieved in an afternoon.

www.davidcharlesworth.co.uk


----------



## Jacob (14 Jul 2013)

David C":1bhvcza4 said:


> ...
> Unlike Jacob I use specific grinding and honing angles, and a cheap far eastern copy of the Eclipse honing guide.


Dave I use a specific honing/grinding angle too - 30º as a rule , and <30º to 25º for grinding. What makes you think I don't?


----------



## Reggie (14 Jul 2013)

Thanks David C, I'm working on getting access to a grinder, still got to get some bits and bobs, I'm waiting for the toolshow that's relatively close to me next week to see what I can grab.


----------



## David C (14 Jul 2013)

With the Derbyshire dip I thought you never needed to grind?

David


----------



## Jacob (14 Jul 2013)

David C":2dxe8oxs said:


> With the Derbyshire dip I thought you never needed to grind?
> 
> David


It gets deferred - indefinitely for narrow chisels and plane blades, but larger chisels or damaged ones may need a touch up occasionally.


----------



## David C (14 Jul 2013)

Exactly. With two bevels the honing area can be kept very narrow. Squaring and sharpening can be done quickly.

Anyway glad I had not imagined it.

David


----------



## Jacob (14 Jul 2013)

David C":3lymw9si said:


> Exactly. With two bevels the honing area can be kept very narrow. Squaring and sharpening can be done quickly.
> 
> Anyway glad I had not imagined it.
> 
> David


Exactly what? I do one convex bevel nearly all the time (see PaulSellers video) with a regrind very occasionally - usually if chipped etc. Regrind gives 25º ground flat bevel which is then honed at 30º but dipped as you go, to get back to a rounded bevel. As you dip you catch the edge _and _the heel and effectively get three bevels, until they join up into one, many honings later. 
The 25º hollow ground with 30º "micro" bevel is lazy bad practice IMHO though it does get quick results!


----------



## bugbear (14 Jul 2013)

Jacob":ewvmw9r5 said:


> The 25º hollow ground with 30º "micro" bevel is lazy bad practice IMHO though it does get quick results!


New straw man to argue against, Jacob?

The hollow grinding technique uses the *same* angle for grind and hone, since the honing
angle is set by touching arris and edge to the stone.

You can google for details.

BugBear


----------



## G S Haydon (14 Jul 2013)

Why would it be lazy bad practice if it gave quick results?


----------



## Graham Orm (14 Jul 2013)

In my opinion it is a better option as it gets more of the chisel out of the way when working, therefore will cut marginally quicker. I hollow grind and micro bevel all my chisels.


----------



## Jacob (14 Jul 2013)

G S Haydon":i5egnn5i said:


> Why would it be lazy bad practice if it gave quick results?


You pay for this great thick blade and then set about making it thin so you can hone it easily. :roll: Might as well start with a thin blade.
Even worse hollow grinding a thin blade like a standard plane blade - just makes it fragile. Completely unnecessary.


----------



## Jacob (14 Jul 2013)

bugbear":ctnf4n3b said:


> Jacob":ctnf4n3b said:
> 
> 
> > The 25º hollow ground with 30º "micro" bevel is lazy bad practice IMHO though it does get quick results!
> ...


Oh gawd erewego :roll: 
Hollow grinding doesn't have a single angle. There is the _chord_ to the perimeter of the grinding circle, which is what you are referring to, but, approaching the edge, the angle of the ground bevel is a _tangent_ to ditto. (As a chord reduces it approaches a tangent) It can even be zero (against the plane of the face) or less than zero, depending on the diameter of the ground circle.


----------



## G S Haydon (14 Jul 2013)

Jacob":3g5ttqbw said:


> G S Haydon":3g5ttqbw said:
> 
> 
> > Why would it be lazy bad practice if it gave quick results?
> ...



Not sure the analogy of starting with a thin chisel blade makes total sense. There needs to be enough strength/thickness in the blade to prevent bending in use. I don't see why a hollow grind and hone is so bad if its quick and creates a sharp edge? From my experience the only trouble I find with the convex bevel on chisels is during bevel down work.


----------



## Jacob (14 Jul 2013)

G S Haydon":3lbbf2qh said:


> ..... From my experience the only trouble I find with the convex bevel on chisels is during bevel down work.


That's odd - carvers work bevel down most of the time and prefer convex bevels. A hollow ground bevel with a micro edge would be difficult bevel down - the convexity gives you control.


----------



## G S Haydon (14 Jul 2013)

I suppose it depends what your used to. Before making time to get back to woodworking for fun all of my planes and chisels came straight of a tormek. having got used to how this feels a convex bevel felt like a boat on the ocean. I guess I have never done carving and for joinery work the feel of a bevel being planted rather than rocking suits me better. Whatever floats your boat ;-)


----------



## David C (14 Jul 2013)

Lazy, bad practice.............., how odd. 

Such charming language, for a tradition which goes back hundreds of years. I think there is hardly a manufacturer in the whole of Uk and Europe who does not send out chisels and plane blades ground at 25 degrees.

David


----------



## Jacob (14 Jul 2013)

David C":1r82ptd5 said:


> Lazy, bad practice.............., how odd.
> 
> Such charming language, for a tradition which goes back hundreds of years. I think there is hardly a manufacturer in the whole of Uk and Europe who does not send out chisels and plane blades ground at 25 degrees.
> 
> David


Yes but not hollow ground on a small wheel. Very slightly hollow ground on a big wheel is near enough flat so doesn't count. Small bench grinders are a modern abomination!


----------



## G S Haydon (14 Jul 2013)

How modern we talking?


----------



## Jacob (14 Jul 2013)

G S Haydon":e1mta19w said:


> How modern we talking?


Modern in the sense that woodworkers now use them for sharpening. This would have been deprecated not so long ago - strictly a metal worker's tool.


----------



## G S Haydon (14 Jul 2013)

Why don't they work on woodworkers tools? Don't you use them on nicked edges or are you lucky enough to have one of the big ol' wheels?


----------



## Jacob (14 Jul 2013)

G S Haydon":3trlypjr said:


> Why don't they work on woodworkers tools?


They do but they hollow grind too much and tend to over heat too easily. It's what we used to do at school and drive the woodwork teacher mad! Bench grinders were in the workshop for the metal workers who shared it.


> Don't you use them on nicked edges or are you lucky enough to have one of the big ol' wheels?


No I use a belt sander. Or a coarse stone on smaller blades


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Jul 2013)

I use 40/60 grit stuck on a ply disc on a lathe faceplate - it works perfectly well, you need to try quite hard to burn anything.


----------



## Corneel (15 Jul 2013)

Well, theoretically a concave bevel would be weaker. But in practice, I don't get problems. Rarely do my irons chip at the edges.

Only my jap chisels do I try to keep a flat bevel, because that's the tradition. And if I would do any carving I'd probably be all over convex bevels.


----------



## wizard (15 Jul 2013)

If you do not have the skill then by the gadget simples


----------



## Jacob (15 Jul 2013)

wizard":37102fia said:


> If you do not have the skill then by the gadget simples


Avoid the gadgets and get more practice in or you will never get it right. Simples. Save the gadgets until you have given up all hope!


----------



## bugbear (15 Jul 2013)

Jacob":4e3mspug said:


> No I use a belt sander.



You said you sold the belt sander, and bought a gadget, sorry "Sorby Pro Edge".

BugBear


----------



## Sgian Dubh (15 Jul 2013)

Jacob":3ke3k2cc said:


> That's odd - carvers work bevel down most of the time and prefer convex bevels. A hollow ground bevel with a micro edge would be difficult bevel down - the convexity gives you control.


I'm another of those (generally) hollow grinder types, with a slightly higher honing angle Jacob. Back in the old days, well when I was young and learning, which I guess is old compared to quite a few here, we just didn't get very fussy about sharpening chisels and plane blades and the like. We had a simple grinding angle and honing angle thing going on -- those angles may have been 25º and 30º, but I don't know for sure as it wasn't something we measured; we simply eyeballed it for 'right'. We used whatever was to hand to create the grinding angle, e.g., bench grindstone, belt sander, linisher, one of those oil drip circular stones that ran flat, and even something like a concrete step or similar if push came to shove, etc. There seems to have been a bit of a fashion developed over the last twenty or so years for 'primary' bevels and 'secondary' bevels... and even something called a 'micro' bevel, which seems to be an additional bevel to the 'secondary' bevel. 

To be honest, and it's perhaps because I'm not very frills orientated when it comes to grinding and sharpening, I get a bit lost nowadays with all the chatter that surrounds the 'dark art' of sharpening. Anyway, to the point I was going to make about the challenge of controlling a chisel on the ground face of a hollow grind, if it's been worked up on a regular bench grinder. If need be, I simply take off some the high points at the extremities of the grind on a coarse stone creating a decent what might be called an 'interrupted' flat. It seems to work well enough for bevel down use, even though there is usually a bit of a honing angle to contend with too. I've never noticed that configuration being a problem worth getting excited about anyway. Slainte.


----------



## Jacob (15 Jul 2013)

bugbear":1seaznrj said:


> Jacob":1seaznrj said:
> 
> 
> > No I use a belt sander.
> ...


The Sorby Pro Edge _is _a belt sander but designed for sharpening..
An ordinary belt sander will do but not so conveniently and there is a fire risk due to the sparks, dust, and plastic enclosed spaces.


----------



## bugbear (15 Jul 2013)

Jacob":24cy601s said:


> bugbear":24cy601s said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":24cy601s said:
> ...



Humpty Dumpty again Jacob?

Horses mouth:

"ProEdge is a revolutionary sharpening system introduced by Robert Sorby."

http://www.robert-sorby.co.uk/proedge.htm

Pricy too, but has nice features:

"The angle setter ensures that the same angle can be achieved accurately time after time."

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (15 Jul 2013)

Can't you give it a rest BB? It's boring having you trailing after me with silly comments every time I post. I don't think anybody else is particularly entertained either.
Stop being a troll!


----------



## charvercarver (15 Jul 2013)

Jacob":1pu2q03u said:


> G S Haydon":1pu2q03u said:
> 
> 
> > ..... From my experience the only trouble I find with the convex bevel on chisels is during bevel down work.
> ...



A bit of rocker is useful, but you still need a fairly abrubt transition from the bevel to the shaft as the high pressure point burnishes the wood after you slice it. I have to say a hollow bevel sounds like a nightmare for a carving chisel, though to be fair I've never used hollow bevels for anything.


----------



## MIGNAL (15 Jul 2013)

It's surprising just how easy it is to maintain an angle when freehand sharpening. I recently bought a 6 mm palm chisel but it was ground with a double bevel. Not really what I was after. I decided to grind it down until I had the single bevel of a normal chisel. I did it freehand on a coarse Oil stone. Took a bit of time but I was surprised just how well I maintained the original angle, that bevel ended up pretty flat too. I might employ a slightly different technique to many in that I use a very short forward/backward stroke rather than the long full length strokes done by most woodworkers. I slowly make my way up and down the stone using these short strokes. Seems to work for me.


----------



## G S Haydon (15 Jul 2013)

Wow, that sorby concept is quite a thing. Good for a nice flat bevel. I tried a basic bench grinder today to square up an old woodie blade. Seemed to work out ok, made sure I was light with the pressure, cooling as I went at about 25deg the used the oilstone to put on an approx 30 deg angle. The results seemed just fine.


----------



## mqbernardo (15 Jul 2013)

David C":2ku12erb said:


> High finger pressure on one edge and low pressure on the other will bring a chisel towards squareness, with each stroke on a coarse stone.



Sorry David, but which grit do you use for that? 800 ?

thanks,
Miguel.


----------



## David C (15 Jul 2013)

Miguel,

Yes, I use King 800 as my coarse stone.

Any coarse stone grit would do, if you use a finer one it will just take a few more strokes.

David


----------



## mqbernardo (15 Jul 2013)

thanks David! That´s what i remembered from the DVD (i have it somewhere, buried under my kids´ DVDs  ) - i only have a 800 diamond stone, and was afraid of exerting too much pressure on it - but then i guess my shapton 1000 will do the trick.

Miguel.


----------



## David C (16 Jul 2013)

yes 1,000 will do fine.

David


----------



## Jacob (16 Jul 2013)

For re-shaping an edge (as per OPs question) I'd use 250 Ezelap diamond (slow) or 80 grit or coarser on a belt sander or flat emery paper - a lot quicker!


----------



## Jacob (16 Jul 2013)

G S Haydon":2s9yuxyp said:


> Wow, that sorby concept is quite a thing. .....


Dunno it's only a common or garden linisher but adapted slightly for sharpening purposes. Well made though. I only use it with coarser grits for re shaping as I find sharpening easier freehand on flat stones.


----------



## SammyQ (18 Jul 2013)

*"Can't you give it a rest BB? It's boring having you trailing after me with silly comments every time I post. I don't think anybody else is particularly entertained either.
Stop being a troll!"*

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: 


Jacob? Hoisted by your own petard? What is the world coming to?  

Sam


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2013)

I think you have missed the point Sam. Never mind, it doesn't matter!


----------



## Reggie (21 Jul 2013)

I ended up buying myself an irwin marples honing kit, it's just an eclipse honing guide, an oilstone and some honing oil, £11 all in, it was a bargain, I needed a flat rough grit stone as the stone I had been given had a little hollow on the rough side.

My reasoning for getting the honing guide is that the bevels were so shot on these chisels that it made it difficult to flatten, with a well honed bevel there's a sweet spot where you can feel that it's flat against the sharpening stone, this makes it simple to keep flat by hand, I get the feeling that I'll only have to use the honing guide once on each chisel and all subsequent sharpening of them can be done without it.

I also managed to square up the offending chisel that inspired the OP, the bevels were all over the place and the natural action of flattening it to a single bevel squared it up in the process. It did take me a while to do the first couple of chisels but I won't have to do it again so it'll be much quicker as it'll be a quick hone and done in the future.

I've just got the 1" chisel and the no.4 plane left to do.


----------



## richard56 (21 Jul 2013)

Reggie, I have the Stanley honing guide kit. I know there is a lot if skill and science behind sharpening but I thought just get on with it. The chisel seemed to cut better so I am happy. I even sharpened my old plane iron and though I say so myself there is a definite improvement so double happy.


----------



## richard56 (21 Jul 2013)

Have I imagined this, or did my old woodwork teacher tell me to make a figure of eight pattern on an oil stone when sharpening?


----------



## Reggie (22 Jul 2013)

He probably did although not with a honing guide, it's got a wheel on it to go backwards and forwards or thereabouts, the key is to make sure you cover the whole of the oilstone so you get even wear and it stays flat, so more of a W pattern than a figure of 8 would be better with a guide. As you say though, just getting on with it is the easiest way to learn.

Looking at it all a bit more there actually isn't too much science behind it, there's a lot of opinion but not much science  The only reference as to why you should have a 30 degree main bevel and a 25 degree micro-bevel that I found said that it's just easier to hone the smaller face of the micro bevel, so there's no benefit to the cut in doing a micro bevel. So personally, I didn't bother with it, no point setting up the honing guide twice for each chisel for zero benefit, the time taken to just hone it as a single bevel will really be nominal. Also, the cut angle, it needs to be within a range but being exactly 30 degrees or 25 etc. isn't critical, a repeatable flat single bevel for quick honing is more important. Some of these conclusions have come through the replies in this post and my experience so far.


----------



## Jacob (22 Jul 2013)

Reggie":3b13urv7 said:


> ...Looking at it all a bit more there actually isn't too much science behind it, there's a lot of opinion but not much science  The only reference as to why you should have a 30 degree main bevel and a 25 degree micro-bevel that I found said that it's just easier to hone the smaller face of the micro bevel, so there's no benefit to the cut in doing a micro bevel. .....


Who needs science? 30º works for most things but is also very easy to eyeball if you freehand i.e. it is a 1/2 gradient, half of an equilateral triangle corner, third of a right angle. 
The point of 25º is that it's a conveniently memorable angle sufficiently below 30º to allow you to grind with a coarse grit to speed up metal removal, reserving finer and slower grits for the hone of the 30º "micro" bevel. There is no other point to it and you can ignore it if you want to - a flat bevel is one way, a convex bevel is another.


----------



## G S Haydon (22 Jul 2013)

Good work Reggie. Looks like you have got to grips with your chisel preparation. Enjoy.


----------



## bugbear (22 Jul 2013)

Reggie":163t5mr9 said:


> The only reference as to why you should have a 30 degree main bevel and a 25 degree micro-bevel that I found said that it's just easier to hone the smaller face of the micro bevel, so there's no benefit to the cut in doing a micro bevel. So personally, I didn't bother with it, no point setting up the honing guide twice for each chisel for zero benefit, the time taken to just hone it as a single bevel will really be nominal.



The idea behind the traditional duo of grinding angle at 25, honing angle at 30 is that the 25 degree bevel is done quickly on a coarse stone, or even a grinder, and the 30 degree done on your finer stones.

Normal honing ONLY involves the 30 degree bevel which is (as you say) small, and quickly worked. As this process continues the small 30 degree bevel gets larger, until you once again hit the tool with the coarse grit at 25.

So the bulk of the "metal removal" is done with the fast process, and the bulk of the actual sharpening is done with the fine.

Other approaches to sharpening are available.

BugBear


----------



## Phil Pascoe (22 Jul 2013)

:lol: "Other approaches to sharpening are available" Nice one! Didn't you wish to attract unwanted attention? :lol:


----------



## woodbrains (22 Jul 2013)

Hello,

30 degree honing angles also came about through finding the best compromise between acuteness, for ease of pushing the tool through the wood, and. Edge holding ability. You can alter these angles slightly, depending on the wood to be worked, but 25 grinding and 30 honing is the universal best fit.

Regarding the figure of eight movement on the stone, for honing, has anyone even witnessed this being done, let alone done it themselves? Of the dozens of woodworkers I have seen sharpen, I don't recall anyone actually doing it. I'm sure it works if you do it, but was it just something some text books quoted as an idea to keep stone wear even, but no one (few?) actually did it that way. After all, there are an awful lot of dished stones out there! Perhaps it is the most popular thing, for all I know, I just haven't seen it.

Mike.


----------



## bugbear (22 Jul 2013)

woodbrains":1f325cpl said:


> Regarding the figure of eight movement on the stone, for honing, has anyone even witnessed this being done, let alone done it themselves? Of the dozens of woodworkers I have seen sharpen, I don't recall anyone actually doing it. I'm sure it works if you do it, but was it just something some text books quoted as an idea to keep stone wear even, but no one (few?) actually did it that way.



How a motion that actively avoids the "sides of the middle" of the stone is meant to render stone
wear even, I do not in any way understand. 

It actively concentrates wear in the centre of the stone.

BugBear


----------



## Reggie (22 Jul 2013)

Hey guys, thanks for all the advice, my main concern was getting a consistent bevel, if I couldn't get one of those then there was no chance at achieving a micro bevel on top. I am now in the position where I've got sharp chisels that are easy to sharpen and will be simple enough to add the micro bevel should I feel the urge in the future, only blunt chisels and time will tell if I am bothered enough by the sharpening time taken for a single bevel to bother with a micro bevel.

With regard to figure 8 on the stone, I tried it on a cruddy chisel before these turned up and it was really a bit of a novelty more than anything, back and forth in a w or straight lines is a lot less hassle. If anything the figure 8 looked like it would still achieve a hollow, just a bigger one that covered more surface area.


----------



## Jacob (22 Jul 2013)

Does "figure of eight" occur in the books? I doubt it somehow. If so it's more of a notion and shouldn't be interpreted too literally. The idea is that you spread the wear over the stone as evenly as possible, which should be obvious to most people!


----------



## GazPal (22 Jul 2013)

woodbrains":1zmke4z0 said:


> Hello,
> 
> 30 degree honing angles also came about through finding the best compromise between acuteness, for ease of pushing the tool through the wood, and. Edge holding ability. You can alter these angles slightly, depending on the wood to be worked, but 25 grinding and 30 honing is the universal best fit.
> 
> ...



Yes, I've both seen it done and use the same method myself. It was a method commonly taught and used years ago in schools/colleges, workshops and on site. The fad for wide stones is a comparatively recent one, while narrower stones - 2" wide or less - tended to see more use, as wider blades are presented to the stone diagonally and not square-on. This works especially well if you wish to even out wear on whetting stones and edges, because a diagonal edge is presented, rather than square/face-on. Dished stones tend to be ones created by enthusiast who've virtually ruined good "long cared for" stones when sharpening knives, etc., using to and fro actions and attempting to grind edges using them.

Watch the various sharpening guru as they repeatedly flatten their water stones and you'll see the familiar figure-eight motion in use and how it effectively maximises the surface area covered. The same/similar movement is used when whetting edges.

The best honing angle is the one that works best for yourself on the medium being worked. It's variable.


----------



## GazPal (22 Jul 2013)

bugbear":1fvduj1b said:


> woodbrains":1fvduj1b said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the figure of eight movement on the stone, for honing, has anyone even witnessed this being done, let alone done it themselves? Of the dozens of woodworkers I have seen sharpen, I don't recall anyone actually doing it. I'm sure it works if you do it, but was it just something some text books quoted as an idea to keep stone wear even, but no one (few?) actually did it that way.
> ...



It's a perfectly random pattern that doesn't bias wear at the centre.


----------



## GazPal (22 Jul 2013)

Jacob":2cee6cyi said:


> Does "figure of eight" occur in the books? I doubt it somehow. If so it's more of a notion and shouldn't be interpreted too literally. The idea is that you spread the wear over the stone as evenly as possible, which should be obvious to most people!




Yes, it can be found in books. One which immediately springs to mind is "Planecraft", but I've also seen it in other older publications.


----------



## bugbear (22 Jul 2013)

GazPal":3vgittyz said:


> bugbear":3vgittyz said:
> 
> 
> > *It actively concentrates wear in the centre of the stone.*
> ...




Well, that's a clear disagreement.

I've attached what I think is meant by figure of eight pattern. I'm guessing that what
you have in mind differs, somewhere along the line.







Could you expand on how the randomness you're seeing comes about?

BugBear


----------



## Graham Orm (22 Jul 2013)

*Fight! fight! fight! fight!*


----------



## Reggie (22 Jul 2013)

Bugbear, I can explain the randomness, that comes from the person doing the sharpening and to some extent the width of the blade, they/you will never hit that perfect figure 8 pattern and the width of the blade gives far more coverage to the stone than the screwdriver you used as an example for your figure 8 implies ;-)


----------



## wizard (22 Jul 2013)

Hoeing! I used to use an oil stone, then one day when I was flattening it off on wet and dry paper on a surface plate I thought why bother with the oil stone.
As for angle 25% cuts sharper but 30% will stay sharper longer.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (22 Jul 2013)

:lol: So we actually mean "all over the stone" and not "in a figure eight pattern"?


----------



## wizard (22 Jul 2013)

Grinding. I use this homemade gadget on a belt sander


----------



## wizard (22 Jul 2013)

Drill sharpening I use this


----------



## wizard (22 Jul 2013)

Chainsaw sharpening I use this


----------



## woodbrains (22 Jul 2013)

GazPal":2size0mg said:


> Yes, I've both seen it done and use the same method myself. It was a method commonly taught and used years ago in schools/colleges, workshops and on site. The fad for wide stones is a comparatively recent one, while narrower stones - 2" wide or less - tended to see more use, as wider blades are presented to the stone diagonally and not square-on. This works especially well if you wish to even out wear on whetting stones and edges, because a diagonal edge is presented, rather than square/face-on. Dished stones tend to be ones created by enthusiast who've virtually ruined good "long cared for" stones when sharpening knives, etc..




Hello,

Not a couple of threads ago, there were many that chided us for fussing about keeping our stones flat, saying that the natural camber a hollow stone gave to a plane iron was an advantage. Now amateurs are being blamed for dishing their stones. Is it just me that is confused? 

Mike.


----------



## GazPal (22 Jul 2013)

woodbrains":2nq2d74z said:


> GazPal":2nq2d74z said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I've both seen it done and use the same method myself. It was a method commonly taught and used years ago in schools/colleges, workshops and on site. The fad for wide stones is a comparatively recent one, while narrower stones - 2" wide or less - tended to see more use, as wider blades are presented to the stone diagonally and not square-on. This works especially well if you wish to even out wear on whetting stones and edges, because a diagonal edge is presented, rather than square/face-on. Dished stones tend to be ones created by enthusiast who've virtually ruined good "long cared for" stones when sharpening knives, etc..
> ...




Which couple of threads would they be? I've not read or posted here since toward the end of last May.

Perhaps you were born confused, but why the confusion? :wink: I leave it to the individual to treat his/her tools in whichever manner they deem fit, but mentioned *enthusiasts* and not *amateurs* in my last statement. Amateur was your choice of phrase/wording and not mine. Enthusiast can belong to either the amateur or professional camp, but being a professional doesn't necessarily mean you're any good at what you do - it simply means you're paid for your services. Many of the dished stones - as well as one heck of a lot of older hand tools - being toted on ebay, at boot sales, etc., have long since left the care of their original owners and suffered abuse during more recent times, all too much of the recent damage has been inflicted by over zealous enthusiasts possessing only partial skills or information - a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. 

Most whet stones direct from old timers tool kits tend to be flat and not badly dished. 

Most craftsmen take a great deal more care of workshop equipment than seems recognised/realised and primarily because we tend to value and care for our tools, but without the fuss so often displayed via tool & gadget salesmen. Tools and their use are - after all is said and done - the means by which we place food on our tables, keep rooves over our heads and cloth our children. Whilst sharpening stones can and do become dished during use, we tend to avoid dishing, because it is more difficult to remove than avoid and techniques can be adopted which minimise potential damage/wear. Hence the use of such whetting methods as the "figure 8" and lack of over frequent re-surfacing.


----------



## G S Haydon (22 Jul 2013)

Regarding fig of 8 in the books, yes I have seen it and perhaps if applied with a narrow blade with no variation you would grind a fig 8. I was also shown the fig 8 at college too. I will also confess ignorance to sharpening in general having been a tormek and use guy for a very long time. I did not see the advantage of a secondary bevel for quite a while but this tread does a good job of explaining why there is a grind and a hone bevel very clearly. Most joinery books within the sharpening section give a quick overview and are consistent with the grind and hone description here.


----------



## Reggie (22 Jul 2013)

While we're here and discussing sharpening/cutting, what does everyone use as a distance for the chip breaker tip to the blade tip on a no.4 plane and why? I'm not even sure what exactly a chip breaker is supposed to achieve, some are supposed to break chips (I thought we were shaving wood not tearing out chunks when we plane?) and some with the curved end to the breaker are apparently supposed to facilitate curling up the shavings to get them out of way, so to reduce clogging.

I read a post that chris schwarz posted about as small a distance as possible and another that questions their existence entirely.
http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodw ... tally-evil
http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpe ... ml#caprion

I'm at the stage where I have no experience of what a plane should produce for me, I get the feeling that the fact that the plane iron now has a single consistent bevel on it would produce adequate results for anyone, everything else will come with fine tuning and experience.


----------



## G S Haydon (22 Jul 2013)

Hello Reggie, 

I recently "Tuned Up" a #4 using David Charlesworth's method as a guide and did a bit of a write up on it here http://gshaydon.co.uk/blog/category/4-plane-2/. There a few posts on there, one of them having a link to the website with David's method shown.

There is a thread where this was discussed on this forum plane-mouth-fettling-t71496.html

Distance for the chip breaker for very fine work is very close to the cutting edge, move it away on less difficult timbers for easier working. I'm not totally sure but I view the chip breaker as a limiter of sorts preventing the cutter ripping in too much, it also adds stiffness to the blade as well. 

Also, like you said, you may find other methods and experimenting give you better results on your work. If you want to "Tune it up" and learn some more David's article is well worth a read http://www.rexmill.com/ click the "Tune Up" option on the right of the page and then scroll down to the bottom.


----------



## woodbrains (22 Jul 2013)

GazPal":ur8gh7ax said:


> Which couple of threads would they be? I've not read or posted here since toward the end of last May.
> 
> Perhaps you were born confused, but why the confusion? :wink: I leave it to the individual to treat his/her tools in whichever manner they deem fit, but mentioned *enthusiasts* and not *amateurs* in my last statement. Amateur was your choice of phrase/wording and not mine. Enthusiast can belong to either the amateur or professional camp, but being a professional doesn't necessarily mean you're any good at what you do - it simply means you're paid for your services. Many of the dished stones - as well as one heck of a lot of older hand tools - being toted on ebay, at boot sales, etc., have long since left the care of their original owners and suffered abuse during more recent times, all too much of the recent damage has been inflicted by over zealous enthusiasts possessing only partial skills or information - a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
> 
> ...



Hello,

I'm not disagreeing with you, I like to keep my stones flat, and people I know, who do decent work, do also. But the hollow stone producing a camber, so leave them hollow, argument, rears its head often, the last mention was only in the hand plane thread which is more or less still current. Even just mentioning flat stones here, is likely to prompt the opposite response _again #-o _.

As far as using the word amateur, I did not mean to infer something different than you meant, but the true definition of amateur is enthusiast, I use them interchangeably. You can be a professional who is also amateur, if you get my meaning. (Still loves, is enthusiastic about what he/she does even though it is paid work) .

It is refreshing that you say that old tools we come across, are not how the good craftsman has left them, but have been tampered with, to some degree, by well meaning, but not necessarily knowledgeable folk, in the intervening period. Many commenters often use old tools as evidence of how things were done and therefore the way they should be done. I have always believed that the tools in second hand shops and the like, we're most likely neglected and abused, and can teach is nothing of past good craftsmen, unless we have a provenance of some sort to prove this was how the craftsman used them.

Mike.


----------



## GazPal (22 Jul 2013)

G S Haydon":jockstfe said:


> Hello Reggie,
> 
> I recently "Tuned Up" a #4 using David Charlesworth's method as a guide and did a bit of a write up on it here http://gshaydon.co.uk/blog/category/4-plane-2/. There a few posts on there, one of them having a link to the website with David's method shown.
> 
> ...



I've added a little, but honestly think you've pretty much summed it up G S  



Reggie":jockstfe said:


> While we're here and discussing sharpening/cutting, what does everyone use as a distance for the chip breaker tip to the blade tip on a no.4 plane and why? I'm not even sure what exactly a chip breaker is supposed to achieve, some are supposed to break chips (I thought we were shaving wood not tearing out chunks when we plane?) and some with the curved end to the breaker are apparently supposed to facilitate curling up the shavings to get them out of way, so to reduce clogging.
> 
> I read a post that chris schwarz posted about as small a distance as possible and another that questions their existence entirely.
> http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodw ... tally-evil
> ...



You'll discover further refinements fall into place as your technique improves with practise and you become accustomed to working with the various timbers at your disposal. Depth of cut/shaving thickness is one variable depending on whether you're preparing materials or finishing a surface.


----------



## GazPal (22 Jul 2013)

woodbrains":35lv8ymw said:


> GazPal":35lv8ymw said:
> 
> 
> > Which couple of threads would they be? I've not read or posted here since toward the end of last May.
> ...




I think we're in agreement on virtually every point.  

The reason I mention the condition many older tools tend to be in by the time they pass into competent hands is due to the fact they meet with so many levels of abuse between leaving their original owners and reaching the likes of ourselves. An old friend passed away a number of years ago and had his tool kit inherited by his three sons, but none had taken any interest in crafting or spending time with their dad as he worked, so during the passage of time they'd collectively eventually destroyed what had been a mouth-wateringly good kit of tools that any craftsman would have been proud to use - never mind own. The "use the chisel as a screwdriver and visa versa brigade" had struck again.


----------



## Jacob (22 Jul 2013)

GazPal":36e9m1mu said:


> ...
> You'll discover further refinements fall into place as your technique improves with practise and you become accustomed to working with the various timbers at your disposal. ....


Very first practice efforts perhaps best kept to edges of thin boards. It's easiest, you get a result, you can see what's happening as you try different parts of the blade and different adjustments.


----------



## G S Haydon (22 Jul 2013)

Thank you Gazpal, Your additions are welcome and add some clarity.


----------



## Reggie (22 Jul 2013)

Gazpal, my singular experience so far has been a set of chisels and a plane that have had a single owner and been used by an enthusiast but not necessarily as well cared for as they would have been by a pro, to be fair, I don't see what I've done with the chisels and plane as being 'pro' just the right way to care for the tools given all of the information. So really, some of these 2nd hand tools you see that are battered have never had a 'good' owner, just good enough to have gotten years of decent work out of their tools.

I think that's pretty much the issue for all hobbyists just starting out vs people that do it for a trade, we have no point of reference as a base to start from, that's all I've tried to achieve here, get an even keel, now I have that I can start to practice and learn from my mistakes.


----------



## G S Haydon (22 Jul 2013)

Reggie, you sound very Zen indeed. Please keep contributing.


----------



## nanscombe (22 Jul 2013)

phil.p":1dmj99e2 said:


> :lol: So we actually mean "all over the stone" and not "in a figure eight pattern"?



Or do we mean "all over the stone" in "a figure of eight *motion*".

Surely no-one says you have to perform the figure of eight in exactly the same spot? Just move the overall motion forwards and backwards in relation to the stone.


----------



## Reggie (22 Jul 2013)

Thank you, it's been a great place to learn, I never expected the discussion to go on this long but it's all helped, even the conflicting views, as well as given me a good grounding in chisels, planes, sharpening and usage techniques, it's all helped to give me some proper perspective on hand tools and power tools in general too  Thank you all very much


----------



## richard56 (23 Jul 2013)

nanscombe":2aoqjqb0 said:


> phil.p":2aoqjqb0 said:
> 
> 
> > :lol: So we actually mean "all over the stone" and not "in a figure eight pattern"?
> ...


That is what I meant. I did not explain it very well.


----------



## MIGNAL (23 Jul 2013)

Figure of 8 is a bit silly, especially if you are teaching someone to maintain a specific angle. There's simply too much movement as it also requires the hands/arms to move sideways as well as backwards/forwards. I've no doubt that it can be mastered but there are much easier ways of maintaining an angle whilst wearing the stone in an even manner.


----------



## GazPal (23 Jul 2013)

Reggie":1lj277tw said:


> Gazpal, my singular experience so far has been a set of chisels and a plane that have had a single owner and been used by an enthusiast but not necessarily as well cared for as they would have been by a pro, to be fair, I don't see what I've done with the chisels and plane as being 'pro' just the right way to care for the tools given all of the information. So really, some of these 2nd hand tools you see that are battered have never had a 'good' owner, just good enough to have gotten years of decent work out of their tools.
> 
> I think that's pretty much the issue for all hobbyists just starting out vs people that do it for a trade, we have no point of reference as a base to start from, that's all I've tried to achieve here, get an even keel, now I have that I can start to practice and learn from my mistakes.



I agree. In all honesty, quite a large number of hobbyist take far more care of their tools than professionals ever would, whilst others may have been used up and abused to varying degrees. Price differentials between DIY and professional grade tools tended to/still often act as a form of demarcation between use and abuse, or use and respect. One seldom sees someone use a £30 chisel as a screwdriver, or a £300 hand plane as a doorstop, but it does happen.

On your point regarding the difference between professional and part time users, all too many now have/had little to go on in terms of adequate tuition in tool use and care, but I think you're starting off on the right footing by asking questions and hopefully acting upon the answers you receive. The influx of power tool popularity put paid to a great deal of freely earned knowledge that was once out there, leaving newcomers with self tuition via books, dvd and specialist courses - college or online - as their only sources of information.


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2013)

I aim to keep my stones flat by doing a variety of movements - up and down, round and round, Z, W, patterns etc etc but figure of eight doesn't really come into it specifically.
My method doesn't work too well - the oldest stones are dished end to end but fairly straight across. But I don't care at all - it has no effect on my sharpening. There's always a bit of the stone which is flat enough to take off the burr face down.


----------



## woodbrains (23 Jul 2013)

Hello,

Reggae, I can understand your confusion, when 2 seemingly conflicting accounts both seem to make sense. Re. Brent Beach vs Chris Schwartz.

The problem with Beach's article is, he makes some assumptions which are not founded, which is surprising, since much of what he says is based on good, solid, logical progression. For instance, he contends that a cap iron was never intended to break the chips, because it wasn't called a chip breaker, in the old literature he was referencing. Hmm, do we not have tear out in Britain either, because we call it 'spelching'? That is not a logical argument Brent! Also, he concludes that, since he cannot find a reference on how close exactly to set a cap iron, to have an effect, there was no acceptance that there was an effect. But it does say in the book he quotes (Hayward,I think) that for difficult timber, the cap iron should be set closer and a fine cut taken. It might not say exactly how much closer, but clearly an effect must have been evident for the advice to be given. Maybe writers in those days just weren't as prescriptive, or perhaps the readers were assumed to be more self reliant and expected to try these things until they worked, in the context of _their_ work. If it were me reading that book in the day, I would have set the cap iron, more or less, as close as the shaving thickness I was taking, that is what I would think logical. In fact I was setting my cap irons close for years before I read articles saying it is a good idea, just because it seems to make sense to me, at first, and then because the results were beneficial.

Beach is dead right about the wear bevel on plane irons being on both sides and therefore honing until they are both gone is necessary for a sharp edge. He shows us that the wear bevel on the back actually extends further back than the wear on the front, so only honing to raise a wire edge may not be enough to remove the wear at the back, which we need to do for a truly sharp edge. But saying that flattening the back is useless, because that will not remove the wear bevel, although true, is not what we do. All the honing takes place on the bevel, until we remove enough metal, that the wear bevel on the back also is removed. Back to the flat that we made that first time we prepared the blade. This is another reason a double bevel is a good thing to have. We need remove only a small amount of metal during honing of a secondary bevel to remove the wear bevel completely. This is were his argument about cap irons not being set close falls apart. If we set them close, we prevent the wear bevel on the back extending any where near as much as would be a problem. If the cap iron is set at 0.3 mm, then the wear bevel cannot be further back than that, (and in fact a bit less, the wear does not usually extend right up to the junction with the cap iron) and 0.3 mm is well within the amount we remove during normal honing of the bevel.

Mike.


----------



## GazPal (23 Jul 2013)

Jacob":375c35r3 said:


> I aim to keep my stones flat by doing a variety of movements - up and down, round and round, Z, W, patterns etc etc but figure of eight doesn't really come into it specifically.
> My method doesn't work too well - the oldest stones are dished end to end but fairly straight across. But I don't care at all - it has no effect on my sharpening. There's always a bit of the stone which is flat enough to take off the burr face down.




Nice one Jacob.  I think the primary goal is obtaining a sharp, working edge, regardless of school of thought or method.


----------



## bugbear (23 Jul 2013)

nanscombe":1amd5lk9 said:


> Surely no-one says you have to perform the figure of eight in exactly the same spot? Just move the overall motion forwards and backwards in relation to the stone.



But in that (reasonable) case, why (the heck) would anyone call it a "figure 8"?

Personally, I figure that there are enough forces acting to concentrate wear in the middle of the stone that (when possible) I emphasise the sides. Seems to work out OK.

BugBear


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 Jul 2013)

My mother used tell us when we had to hoover our rooms as children to make sure we did the edges and corners properly, and the middle would seem to get done anyway. I think the same theory applies to stones.


----------



## wizard (23 Jul 2013)

The best thing i ever did was to stop using my oilstone


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2013)

wizard":38mcl0ei said:


> The best thing i ever did was to stop using my oilstone


Funny that - only this morning I was sharpening a big chisel and thinking it wasn't going very quickly (EzeLap diamond) and went back to a double sided Norton stone. Much better! 
I've never really gone away from oil stones except to try out experimentally some of the much vaunted alternatives - but they just aren't that good.
Oilstones need refreshening with a quick pass over the surface every now and then. I use a 3M Diapad which just happens to be what I've got, but I expect other ways will work.


----------



## Richard T (23 Jul 2013)

I might have missed it - but how's the chisel squaring coming?


----------



## Reggie (23 Jul 2013)

Beach seemed overly intense and schwarz seemed almost frightened of the cap iron but neither particularly explained themselves well enough. Both seemed to have come to their conclusions but couldn't logically explain why (beach is only logical in his own mind), schwarz seemed more interested in the state of the shavings than the finish on the board. My only conclusion to draw from either are that it's the results that will count.

Beach lost me over the whole back flattening thing, suffice to say, the ruler trick is most likely to be used in future, I concluded that you only need the back wear removed to the point the chipbreaker front meets the back of the blade to the blade tip.

As for stones and flattening them or keeping them flat, it seems reasonable to me to keep them flat. I'm not sure what type of oilstone I was given initially, it's a darkish grey on the rough side, a red/brown colour on the smooth side, the rough side had a hollow, it's not deep, it was about about 1.5mm but it covers 2/3rds of the stone. 

I tried to flatten it using the concrete floor in the garage, after about an hour of intense working on it, I'd hardly made an impact, in fact, I was probably smoothing out the concrete more than I was smoothing the stone, so to get that thing up to scratch is going to take me a lot more work or I'm going to have to bite the bullet and buy a stone to dress the stone. My conclusion is that it's going to be easier to keep a stone flat from the start than it is to fix a hollow, the method you use is entirely unimportant, just as long as it gets done.

I bet there's no decent way to tell what grit an unmarked oilstone is? I think for redressing this hollow I'm going to end up with some aggressive abrasive paper glued to glass. Which kind of leads me onto my next question, I see that grits from 220 to 8000 are numbers used across the board, with at least 2 grits per person, sometimes more but nothing in the way of reasoning (apart from the obvious, low grit = more aggressive removal, higher grit = smoother finish), are there any upper and lower limits for grit? Is there such a thing as too aggressive a grit? Is there a diminishing return once you get to a certain higher grit?

Richard, the chisel squaring went brilliantly, in the process of flattening to a single bevel it squared itself up


----------



## bugbear (23 Jul 2013)

Reggie":ch81ddyl said:


> I bet there's no decent way to tell what grit an unmarked oilstone is?



Electron microscope, if you've got one handy.  

With enough experience, you can easily rub a tool on a stone (I keep an old chisel around) and see how fast the unknown stone removes
metal, and what finish it leaves, compared to other abrasives you've used.

These results are effected by more than particle size, but are the things you're actually interested in from a stone.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2013)

Reggie":hzsy5qwp said:


> ....... the ruler trick is most likely to be used in future,


easier without the ruler.You just exert more pressure towards the edge end of the face


> ....
> As for stones and flattening them or keeping them flat, it seems reasonable to me to keep them flat.


 Fair enough but that doesn't mean you need to waste your time flattening ones which are already hollow. Complete waste of time


> 'm not sure what type of oilstone I was given initially, it's a darkish grey on the rough side, a red/brown colour on the smooth side, the rough side had a hollow, it's not deep, it was about about 1.5mm but it covers 2/3rds of the stone. /


Sounds like a Norton stone and sounds pretty flat to me


> ....I'm going to have to bite the bullet and buy a stone to dress the stone.


Madness!! Buy a flat stone by all means and use it for sharpening - don't waste your time, stone (and money) flattening some old cheapo stones. They are usable anyway but if you don't like them hollow just bin them - or give them away to somebody who just wants to sharpen tools!!


> My conclusion is that it's going to be easier to keep a stone flat from the start than it is to fix a hollow,


Yes but it doesn't matter much if they go hollow


> I bet there's no decent way to tell what grit an unmarked oilstone is?


It's usually possible to arrange them in order from coarse to fine - which is all you need to know. I've no idea what the grits are on any of my stones and I don't care!


> I think for redressing this hollow I'm going to end up with some aggressive abrasive paper glued to glass.


Madness!! save the paper for tool grinding etc, don't waste time and energy on abrading stones.


> .... Is there such a thing as too aggressive a grit?


Not really if you are just grinding (reshaping etc) and not sharpening


> Is there a diminishing return once you get to a certain higher grit?


There certainly is - it gets slower and slower the finer the grit and a super sharp blade is going to be less than sharp quite quickly if you actually use (e.g. for woodwork, not just for sharpening!).

It sounds like you have a Norton double sided stone in not too bad condition. I'd just stick with that and not bother with any other bits n pieces except perhaps a 3m diapad for freshening it - it makes a big difference especially on an old neglected stone.* Another useful thing is a rare earth magnet for lifting off swarf - keeps the whole process cleaner.

*PS this isn't the same as flattening. You just need a quick pass over a stone to de-clog it. It won't go into the hollows much but that doesn't matter neither will your tools being sharpened - if you do it carefully and stick to high points/areas.


----------



## G S Haydon (23 Jul 2013)

Hi Reggie,

The light brown and dark grey does indeed sound like a Norton made "India". Not sure ongrit numbers but they are simply sold "Coarse" & "Fine". They are very good value new so depending on funds time could be better spend on purchasing a new stone. 
I think aiming to keep your stone flat is a very good idea. The India stone is quite hard wearing too which helps. I have not tried to flatten a India before but appropriate abrasive on a flat surface seems a good place to start.
I think you can go too fine, most who use waterstones (I think) stop at 8000 which is very fine indeed, and more seems a bit much, unless of course
you want or need to.
The ruler trick is indeed very good on planes, similar results it can be done using extra pressure as Jacob says.
I think the limit on the aggressive grits would soon present themselves, I don't have a figure for the coarsest practical abrasive but I'm sure someone with more knowledge on that subject will post shortly.


----------



## Graham Orm (23 Jul 2013)

Reggie":2leib41a said:


> Beach seemed overly intense and schwarz seemed almost frightened of the cap iron but neither particularly explained themselves well enough. Both seemed to have come to their conclusions but couldn't logically explain why (beach is only logical in his own mind), schwarz seemed more interested in the state of the shavings than the finish on the board. My only conclusion to draw from either are that it's the results that will count.
> 
> Beach lost me over the whole back flattening thing, suffice to say, the ruler trick is most likely to be used in future, I concluded that you only need the back wear removed to the point the chipbreaker front meets the back of the blade to the blade tip.
> 
> ...



Forget figure 8. Impossible to keep and angle or even pressure. For quick easy sharpening, use an Eclipse jig and flatten your stone every 60 strokes reversing the stone after 30 unless you want wavy blades. Take a flat stone, do 30 strokes then check it with a steel rule for flatness, you'll see why it's important to keep flattening. I get a sheet of very coarse wet and dry on a piece of melamine faced conti board. Spray it with water and give the stone 10 or so strokes over it, that will usually bring it back to flatness. (I'm talking waterstones here). I clamp the wet and dry at one edge to the board and hold the other edge with the other hand. It never slips.


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2013)

Grayorm":dvedd6my said:


> .... you'll see why it's important to keep flattening......


I guess haven't seen the light yet! I haven't flattened a stone in 40 or more years of sharpening* - with absolutely no problem so far.

*Except once as an experiment - didn't see the point of repeating it.


----------



## G S Haydon (23 Jul 2013)

Jacob":1iw7tzpe said:


> Grayorm":1iw7tzpe said:
> 
> 
> > .... you'll see why it's important to keep flattening......
> ...



I think the issue is the sharpening medium chosen. A water stone wears so quickly when compared to a an India oilstone. I think a water stone would become unuseable if not flattened, so G is right to flatten I would think.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 Jul 2013)

:roll: Wait for it - Which is why oil stones are better blah blah blah......here we bl00dy go again :roll:


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2013)

phil.p":122cucr4 said:


> :roll: Wait for it - Which is why oil stones are better blah blah blah......here we bl00dy go again :roll:


It's only an opinion you know. 
Please tell us why you think soft, fragile, expensive, waterstones which need flattening every time they are used, are superior. :lol: :lol:

PS I've never tried a waterstone. I'm open minded - I would have a go, except I've never heard a single convincing argument in favour of them.


----------



## wizard (23 Jul 2013)

i still think a sheet of wet & dry paper is best


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Jul 2013)

Well, looking on the bright side, I suppose it took ten pages before we got to Sharpening Wars, so that's an improvement on past performance!

Jacob - plenty of very fine craftsmen use waterstones, so they can't be all bad. That said, waterstone use, like oilstone use, is not compulsory.

Everybody else - when it comes to sharpening, use whatever method suits your inclination, pocket, working conditions, available equipment or mood to get the edge you need on the tools you use. If that means oilstones, ceramic stones, waterstones, diamond stones, abrasive films, doorsteps, emery cloth, moon rock, rabbit droppings, telegraph poles, sharp sand or anything else and it works for you, that's just fine!


----------



## Graham Orm (23 Jul 2013)

Jacob":6mvzsr5c said:


> Grayorm":6mvzsr5c said:
> 
> 
> > .... you'll see why it's important to keep flattening......
> ...



Each to their own Jacob. I have tried all sorts of ways, as you probably have, and have by far been more satisfied by the results from the method I described. Pointless arguing, as the other thread on 'opinions' points out, we are all right and we are all wrong.


----------



## Reggie (23 Jul 2013)

Figure 8 is long gone from my mind, can't figure 8 a 2" blade on a 2" stone so for me the method falls over on it's face. I'd rather remember one method for all 

Something I keep hearing a lot when there is one method being asserted over another 'They can't all be wrong', when the truth of the matter is that they can all be right. 

The only issue for me with the hollow was that I couldn't get a decent single bevel on the rubbish (bent) chisel I had as I didn't have a reference face to work on, it also didn't particularly lend itself to well to flattening the back either, some of that probably down to my lack of control but clearly if there's no hollow at all, the lack of fine control becomes irrelevant as there aren't points for the back of the blade to rock on as you pass it across the stone.

Jacob, you clearly have a technique that works for you, which you've been using a long time, you have the luxury of having the control and skill to use it effectively, as far as I'm concerned yours is one of many methods that work  

At the moment it looks 'wrong' to use a guide on a hollow, with the position of the wheel and the blade being on different parts of it the angle of the blade towards the stone must change unless the hollow is a perfect radius?

luckily for me, I have 4 more chisels I can have a go with, so I can test that theory out on the hollowed stone now I have a guide I can see how much of it was down to my poor control.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 Jul 2013)

Jacob":2qschhyy said:


> phil.p":2qschhyy said:
> 
> 
> > :roll: Wait for it - Which is why oil stones are better blah blah blah......here we bl00dy go again :roll:
> ...



:? You clearly are not open minded - many people here over a time have commented how and why they find them superior, yet you see fit to criticise them without ever having tried them. That is not open minded.
I find waterstones better. I used oilstones for years, and once in a while I use diamond plates. I don't try to tell others which is best, but at least I've used the others. I've not used a ceramic stone, so I'm not about to tell anyone they're rubbish.


----------



## bugbear (23 Jul 2013)

Reggie":24cko4br said:


> At the moment it looks 'wrong' to use a guide on a hollow, with the position of the wheel and the blade being on different parts of it the angle of the blade towards the stone must change unless the hollow is a perfect radius?



How big would the deviation from a uniform circle need to be for the change in bevel angle to become significant? Extra marks if you show your working.

At worst you'd find that a jig was generating Jacob's beloved convex bevel - win, win!

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2013)

phil.p":1yfa4mn8 said:


> Jacob":1yfa4mn8 said:
> 
> 
> > phil.p":1yfa4mn8 said:
> ...


It's this sort of thing below which puts me off. Graham seems to think it's normal but to me it sounds a PITA.


Grayorm":1yfa4mn8 said:


> ......
> Forget figure 8. Impossible to keep and angle or even pressure. For quick easy sharpening, use an Eclipse jig and flatten your stone every 60 strokes reversing the stone after 30 unless you want wavy blades. Take a flat stone, do 30 strokes then check it with a steel rule for flatness, you'll see why it's important to keep flattening. I get a sheet of very coarse wet and dry on a piece of melamine faced conti board. Spray it with water and give the stone 10 or so strokes over it, that will usually bring it back to flatness. (I'm talking waterstones here). I clamp the wet and dry at one edge to the board and hold the other edge with the other hand. It never slips.





> I find waterstones better. I used oilstones for years, and once in a while I use diamond plates. I don't try to tell others which is best,


Yes you do, 3 sentences back: "_I find waterstones better_". It's perfectly OK for everybody to say what they prefer this is what forums are for amongst other things.


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2013)

Reggie":22uvyi6w said:


> At the moment it looks 'wrong' to use a guide on a hollow, with the position of the wheel and the blade being on different parts of it the angle of the blade towards the stone must change unless the hollow is a perfect radius?


I think you have arrived at the crossroads. 
On the one hand - jigs don't work if stones aren't flat, but flattening stones is PITA and can involve a lot of kit. 
On the other - freehand works with flat or hollow stones (within reason) but demands a slightly higher level of hand/eye skill (not a lot, anybody can do it) but one double sided stone will do you for a lifetime.
Only you can choose!

PS water stones seem to be a Japanese concept, but they do do convex bevels and they don't use sharpening jigs. Why is this? Perhaps the underground Japanese Tool Study Group could enlighten us?


----------



## Reggie (23 Jul 2013)

No idea what the deviation would need to be but there's only one way to find out  

Jacob, these are only things that have been suggested with regard to flattening, I can only find out who is right or wrong by testing, that sounds reasonably pragmatic to me, not mad, I'm more than happy to be corrected and to change my opinion at any given time if I can see the flaw or benefit. I'm not going to rush out and buy more kit especially for this, I'll pick up some abrasive paper of some description in the course of a project. You're right of course, it is a crossroads, then again, I didn't expect to necessarily use the guide again once I'd got a single bevel to work from, although I might use it for the plane blade.

I'm not going to go nuts on buying stones at all, which was the reason for asking about grits, it seemed to me that by the replies that there were that they vary quite a bit, between the 2 stones and 4 faces I have at least 3 distinct grits, which I'll probably stick with. Dressing a stone seems to be something you probably don't need to do on the coarse india stones very often if they're being used evenly, I suspect that it's not noticable enough for it to matter as the smooth side should even things up.

This last one isn't a dig at anyone, merely an observation, I wonder if hollowed stones came about because old craftsmen just didn't care about that kind of minutae and just got on with the job in hand or whether there was a logical reason behind it? Does anyone think we're now in an age where we could actually over analyse things?

What we haven't had is a discussion of why different stones are used, that would probably go some way to explaining why people prefer them over others? For instance, weren't all the good natural stones disappearing, so other sharpening mediums became popular alternatives? and with those different mediums came different ways of caring for them?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 Jul 2013)

Jacob, no I didn't try to tell anyone which was best - I merely said I find waterstones better. It really wasn't that difficult to understand.


----------



## GazPal (23 Jul 2013)

Reggie":37nl4w70 said:


> Figure 8 is long gone from my mind, can't figure 8 a 2" blade on a 2" stone so for me the method falls over on it's face.



And yet the figure 8 method works far better with the edge worked longitudinally on the stone. This makes it possible to accurately hone edges measuring as much as double the stone's width.  

----------------

Honing should involve minimal effort, as an edge is whetted on the stone. REGARDLESS OF METHOD USED. To a point, I agree with using guides as a means of maintaining/checking grinding angles - although I don't do so myself - before moving on to hone and consolidate the final cutting edge. Many seem to make the mistake of continuing to use an edge way past the point where it needs re-touching and this then lends itself to a far greater degree of effort when re-establishing edges and angles. 

A little and often is far easier than finding yourself with a great deal more work less frequently. Consider re-whetting an edge as soon as it's initial lustre has faded. If you think an edge should last much longer, think again and re-whet long before cutting quality becomes an issue and you suddenly find yourself forcing the cut. By doing so, wear bevels no longer become problematical, because more frequent re-whetting should make them virtually obsolete, or at least so insignificant they disappear after a couple of swipes on the stone and sharpening becomes a simple matter of routine.

Sharpening is a necessary skill set that shouldn't be avoided or neglected and yet many seem to put off sharpening for longer than they should. Initially - as an apprentice - I didn't realise the importance behind regularly stropping and honing my edge tools during use, but several long sharpening sessions made me understand the need to frequently top-up edges on the move and not allow myself and my work to grind to a total stand still. Irrelevant perhaps to part-time woodworkers? I don't think so, as prolonged sharpening sessions IMHO detract from the ultimate purpose of involvement in woodworking and the enjoyment involved in crafting.

Keep your sharpening sessions short and set up simple and you'll be surprised just how quickly a seemingly daunting skill set can be mastered. :wink:


----------



## Sgian Dubh (23 Jul 2013)

Having now observed this thread develop into an almost uncontrollable monster squid I think it's time for *this hoary old chestnut* to make a reappearance, particularly as we seem to have a few new faces around here just trying to get the basics of sharpening under control. Slainte.


----------



## GazPal (23 Jul 2013)

Reggie":2604ugt3 said:


> This last one isn't a dig at anyone, merely an observation, I wonder if hollowed stones came about because old craftsmen just didn't care about that kind of minutae and just got on with the job in hand or whether there was a logical reason behind it? Does anyone think we're now in an age where we could actually over analyse things?
> 
> What we haven't had is a discussion of why different stones are used, that would probably go some way to explaining why people prefer them over others? For instance, weren't all the good natural stones disappearing, so other sharpening mediums became popular alternatives? and with those different mediums came different ways of caring for them?



Cost and the fact they're a niche market contributes more greatly to the rarity of natural stone hones than availability. Snake oil salesmen soon hit onto other "new" types of honing medium, as the wheel is re-invented when man made products hit the marketplace, or writers re-discover once obsolete methods.

Yes, there is far too much present day over-analysis. Life was far simpler when our tool kits amounted to what we actually needed, rather than what others thought we should have.

Stone types and grades and the reasons they're in use is a wide ranging topic. Primarily revolving about traditionalist, new age and those wishing to emulate crafting techniques and tools used via different nationalities. If you wish to avoid potential confusion, you're perhaps best advised to avoid internet fora, but invest in a few good woodworking books and enroll in a good class or seek the advice of an established craftsman.


----------



## Reggie (23 Jul 2013)

Sgian, that pretty much sums up my point about not caring about the minutae 

Gary, these chisels all need/needed attention, the 3 I've done so far have taken more time than I care to mention but that has been to get them to a state where little and often will be all that's required, I really do only want to spend 2 mins at a time. Stropping is something I'll consider too in the future but getting an edge to strop in the first place was more important.

as for avoiding internet forums, not a chance  There are plenty of established amateur and professional craftsmen here, with some very sound advice, why waste that opportunity to learn? I will certainly end up reading some books but there's nothing like first hand experience from the horse's mouth.


----------



## GazPal (23 Jul 2013)

Reggie":2al5pyu1 said:


> Sgian, that pretty much sums up my point about not caring about the minutae
> 
> Gary, these chisels all need/needed attention, the 3 I've done so far have taken more time than I care to mention but that has been to get them to a state where little and often will be all that's required, I really do only want to spend 2 mins at a time. Stropping is something I'll consider too in the future but getting an edge to strop in the first place was more important.
> 
> *as for avoiding internet forums, not a chance*  There are plenty of established amateur and professional craftsmen here, with some very sound advice, why waste that opportunity to learn? I will certainly end up reading some books but there's nothing like first hand experience from the horse's mouth.



Good to hear regarding you not avoiding fora.  I think the hardest part for you will be distilling information and deciding upon a singular route when advice is hurtling at you from all directions. That's why I'd mentioned avoiding them while seeking out a decent course.


----------



## Reggie (23 Jul 2013)

Actually, if anything this thread has given me a decent direction  Last week I was looking at all sorts of sharpening stones, devices and methods, now I have distilled that down to buying an £11 honing kit that contained a £2 stone  I have flat bevels to allow me to practice by hand and a honing guide close to hand if everything goes horribly wrong, the only question to answer now is 'to hollow or not to hollow?', everything else is fairly irrelevant, I'd say that was fairly well distilled.


----------



## wizard (23 Jul 2013)

Reggie":67t7tnyt said:


> Hi all, the title didn't have enough chars to let me finish, I appreciate that you can put an edge on a chisel using a grinder but I don't have access to one, I've been given a set of chisels and none of the blade edges are square with the sides, there's about a 10deg slope.
> 
> I have at my disposal a single largish file (triangular), a set of crummy needle files that probably cost a quid, 3 grades of wet and dry and an oilstone, what are my options here?
> 
> Is it worth me trying to construct a small jig of some description and hoping the wet and dry will do the job or use the files?



is there anyone in east sussex that can just square these up for him


----------



## bugbear (23 Jul 2013)

Jacob":9ue15ob0 said:


> PS water stones seem to be a Japanese concept, but they do do convex bevels and they don't use sharpening jigs. Why is this?



Normal Japanese practise is single flat bevel, maintained by hand.

Exceptions can be found to both.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (23 Jul 2013)

GazPal":3ab8n0iq said:


> If you wish to avoid potential confusion, you're perhaps best advised to avoid internet fora, but invest in a few good woodworking books and enroll in a good class or seek the advice of an established craftsman.



If you want to avoid confusion, avoid multiple sources, wether on fora, books, classes or advisors.

As long as only have one source, you'll have no contradictions to resolve.  

Of course, you might have picked the wrong source (no names, no packdrill) but you'll never know,
so you won't mind.

BugBear


----------



## Reggie (23 Jul 2013)

wizard":2n83l9m0 said:


> Reggie":2n83l9m0 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all, the title didn't have enough chars to let me finish, I appreciate that you can put an edge on a chisel using a grinder but I don't have access to one, I've been given a set of chisels and none of the blade edges are square with the sides, there's about a 10deg slope.
> ...


 Wizard, thanks but I don't need them squaring any more, I sorted it out when I flattened it to a single bevel.


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2013)

bugbear":ug0btkgf said:


> Jacob":ug0btkgf said:
> 
> 
> > PS water stones seem to be a Japanese concept, but they do do convex bevels and they don't use sharpening jigs. Why is this?
> ...


How do you know this? Jap convex bevels have been commented upon many times and there is no Japanese honing jig. In fact the honing jig was unknown to woodwork universally and is only a fairly recent novelty on the amateur woodwork scene.


----------



## G S Haydon (23 Jul 2013)

Although a convex bevel is a method that works all western text I have read says nothing about convex bevels of any kind, if anything they must be avoided. Can't comment on Japanese text though although the single flat bevel seems to ring true. That's not a diss as many find the convex bevel to be very satisfactory, just an observation from the books I have.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Jul 2013)

Reggie":bngtz037 said:


> This last one isn't a dig at anyone, merely an observation, I wonder if hollowed stones came about because old craftsmen just didn't care about that kind of minutae and just got on with the job in hand or whether there was a logical reason behind it? Does anyone think we're now in an age where we could actually over analyse things?
> 
> What we haven't had is a discussion of why different stones are used, that would probably go some way to explaining why people prefer them over others? For instance, weren't all the good natural stones disappearing, so other sharpening mediums became popular alternatives? and with those different mediums came different ways of caring for them?



I'm not sure that there's any 'right' answer to how hollowed stones came about, but a couple of thoughts that occur are these - some people are naturally more meticulous than others, and conditions of work vary for different woodworkers. For example, a millright or carpenter engaged in heavy construction work such as centering for masonry arches would need heavy tools used with a big mallet, in fairly rough working conditions, and possibly without easy access to a grindstone. So, a convex bevel and hollow stones fit the circumstances. A fine cabinetmaker or patternmaker in a well-equipped workshop may have different attitudes to tools and stones. Human nature varies too - some joiners may have been quite happy with one sort bevel, some with others. Hence the variation in the condition of old tools and stones.

On stone types, until the late 19th century, only natural stones were available. In the UK, that tended to be Turkey (imported), Charnley Forest (indigenous), Welsh Slate and a few others (Tam O'Shanter, Water of Ayr, for example). They tended to be slow cutting, and being natural, their properties could vary a bit from stone to stone. When man-made stones (Norton India and Washita) started to become available, many craftsmen switched because the new stones were in general faster cutting and generally more consistent in their qualities (Walter Rose documents this in 'The Village Carpenter'). Now, of course, we have even more options available, some of which do better in some circumstances than others - some of the modern alloy tool steels cut better on some types of stone than on others, for example.

There's a lot more highways and byways to sharpening stone history than that, of course; a googling session would no doubt throw up all sorts of info.


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2013)

Reggie":vofkqcq5 said:


> .... I wonder if hollowed stones came about because old craftsmen just didn't care about that kind of minutae and just got on with the job in hand or whether there was a logical reason behind it?


Hollow stones came about because people used them for sharpening. No need to look further! Efforts would be made to keep them flat as far as necessary, but it wasn't essential until the advent of the honing jig - at least, for those who became dependant on them


> Does anyone think we're now in an age where we could actually over analyse things?


Yes definitely. Brent Beach is yer man! Leader of the pack!
"Fine" woodworkers also would have hollow (ish) stones and convex bevels if they chose - there is no particular disadvantage - it's not just rufty tufty joiners, who know no better!


----------



## woodbrains (23 Jul 2013)

Hello,

The Japanese sharpen planes and chisels with a FLAT SINGLE bevel. Their tools need support from the softer steel back, or jigane to work properly. Anything but flat reduces the amount of jigane behind the cutting edge and is not done. It is an almost religious ritual for correct tool preparation of traditional Japanese hand tools, and doing anything else is wrong, and there is definitely right and wrong in Japanese tool use and care, unlike us Westerners, who are allowed a lot of latitude.

Mike.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (24 Jul 2013)

Cheshirechappie - Washita is a natural stone.


----------



## Jacob (24 Jul 2013)

woodbrains":3lrwfp9t said:


> Hello,
> 
> The Japanese sharpen planes and chisels with a FLAT SINGLE bevel. Their tools need support from the softer steel back, or jigane to work properly. Anything but flat reduces the amount of jigane behind the cutting edge and is not done. It is an almost religious ritual for correct tool preparation of traditional Japanese hand tools, and doing anything else is wrong, and there is definitely right and wrong in Japanese tool use and care, unlike us Westerners, who are allowed a lot of latitude.
> 
> Mike.


There may well be those who impose an arbitrary rule on themselves, much in the same way as people do here. The Japanese have a tea ceremony but they also drink tea in a non ceremonial way. The few Jap chisels I've seen in use (Japanese woodworker doing a demo) and a few I've spotted on the web - had rounded bevels. In fact one was posted up here with the poster complaining that it had been sharpened "wrongly".
So I don't believe that they all follow a rule. I'm not even sure that there is one, let alone that it is commonplace.
These rules, once voiced, seem to have a life of their own and hang around forever like a virus. 
"Westerners, who are allowed a lot of latitude" is an odd phrase. Who does the "allowing"?

One thing is certain - it wouldn't make a haporth of difference to the woodwork either way and the burbling about "jiganes" is nonsense!

PS looking for jigane http://www.nihontocraft.com/nihonto_general_terms.html what is it?
PPS Found it http://www.samuraisword.com/glossary/index.htm it means "sword steel".


----------



## bugbear (24 Jul 2013)

Jacob":129afkzi said:


> bugbear":129afkzi said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":129afkzi said:
> ...



I can recommend Japanese Woodworking Tools: Their Tradition, Spirit and Use, by Toshio Odate as a easy to read introduction, if you want to underrstand some Japanese technique.

BugBear


----------



## Graham Orm (24 Jul 2013)

I've seen several video's of Japanese woodworkers, but never any of them sharpening. I would be interested to see one if anyone has a link?

EDIT: Here we go http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv4mOMiRKyQ

EDIT 2: Don't hold your breath, no rocket science, just a bloke sharpening his chisels.


----------



## Jacob (24 Jul 2013)

bugbear":3af0zdto said:


> Jacob":3af0zdto said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":3af0zdto said:
> ...


Got it. He's fairly conventional about sharpening. Certainly not committed to "correctness" woodbrain style! 
No jigs of course.


----------



## bugbear (24 Jul 2013)

Jacob":adhcqy2a said:


> Got it. He's fairly conventional about sharpening. Certainly not committed to "correctness" woodbrain style!
> No jigs of course.



I hesitate to ask, but could you explain what you mean by *conventional*?

The low bevel angle and thick blade of Japanese tools makes sitting them on the consequent large flat bevel easy to do without jigs - tool design and technique form an integrated whole.

Despite this, even competitors at Japanese planing contests(*) have been seen using sharpening jigs, some commercial, some of their own making.

BugBear

(*) judged on the shavings - you wouldn't like them :lol:


----------



## Jacob (24 Jul 2013)

bugbear":25wuo7dv said:


> Jacob":25wuo7dv said:
> 
> 
> > Got it. He's fairly conventional about sharpening. Certainly not committed to "correctness" woodbrain style!
> ...


Flat bevel good, rounded over bevel bad, two bevels perhaps not good, hollow ground bad. Nothing I would disagree with, though he doesn't say anything about convex rounding _under_, which I expect is a default condition of most hand honed plane and chisel blades, there as here, as it's easier and works. Easier in that attempting a dead flat bevel by hand held honing is really quite difficult, but pointless anyway.


> The low bevel angle and thick blade of Japanese tools makes sitting them on the consequent large flat bevel easy to do without jigs - tool design and technique form an integrated whole.


Easy to do a thin blade without a jig. You hold it at the desired angle. Simple. I know many modern amateur woodworkers believe this to be impossible - but they are wrong.


> Despite this, even competitors at Japanese planing contests(*) have been seen using sharpening jigs, some commercial, some of their own making.


But not commonplace or traditional - though small blade holding devices are (here and there) - usually just a saw kerf in a bit of scrap. Odate has a more refined one with a wedge. 
These stupid expensive gadgets here aren't Japanese!


----------



## woodbrains (24 Jul 2013)

Grayorm":1754fv5t said:


> I've seen several video's of Japanese woodworkers, but never any of them sharpening. I would be interested to see one if anyone has a link?
> 
> EDIT: Here we go http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv4mOMiRKyQ
> 
> EDIT 2: Don't hold your breath, no rocket science, just a bloke sharpening his chisels.



Hello,

Notice in this video, how the craftsman skews the chisel to maintain a flat bevel. There is little or no danger of the chisel being lifted and lowered at the end and start of the stroke, by doing so. I have even seen advice that the chisel may be presented at 90 degrees to the stone, to eliminate any rocking whatsoever. Incidentally, a technique I have used for years when sharpening freehand.

Since Japanese chisels are made by blacksmiths who take much time and skill to forge weld a wrought iron back to the very hard face, to give it support, why would anyone in their right mind, undermine this by not maintaining a flat bevel. The chisel will fail if you don't. It is the chisel's very construction that dictates the proper way to sharpen, it is not a matter of opinion. 

There is probably more nonsense on the web than real fact. We have to use some sort of filtering system to weed out the dross from the truth, so finding contrary information does not make it true. Finding such misinformation and then using it to justify ones own methods would make that person a fool, wouldn't it?

Mike.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Jul 2013)

phil.p":1lk31bsj said:


> Cheshirechappie - Washita is a natural stone.




Phil - thank you, you're absolutely right.

According to Walter Rose in 'The Village Carpenter', the natural Washita stone was introduced to Britain in 1889, and almost immediately superceded the Charnley Forest stones then in use. Later, Norton 'India' and Carborundum man-made stones became available, in several grades, thus giving the woodworkers of the day far more choice and the ability to 'get an edge' far quicker than they had been able to with indigenous natural stones.

As an aside, Rose also mentions that he prefers a narrow stone for sharpening wide plane irons. He had a 1 3/4", and would not entertain a 2". The reason he gave is that it tends to avoid hollowing of the middle of the stone, as there is a tendency to use the middle of wider stones to sharpen narrower tools.

That's not to say that Rose's preference was followed by all craftsmen of his day, but it is the documented practice of one particular craftsman. Interesting, but not necessarily conclusive proof of general practice at the time.


----------



## bugbear (24 Jul 2013)

Jacob":ye1au9j8 said:


> Flat bevel good, rounded over bevel bad, two bevels perhaps not good, hollow ground bad. Nothing I would disagree with, though he doesn't say anything about convex rounding _under_



Of course not - it's the same as rounded over.

If a round bevel is 30 at the edge and 25 at the arris, it matters not at all if the honing stroke is starts at 25 and ends at 30 (rounding over) or starts at 30 and ends at 25 (rounding under). They both produce the same result. I've never heard anyone but you make the distinction.

Edit; I think I've found a minor tradition of people showing just how perfect their flat stones and bevels are; so perfect that capilliary action alone will stick the blade to the stone.






































BugBear


----------



## bugbear (24 Jul 2013)

Jacob":dmfxleo4 said:


> there is no Japanese honing jig.








http://www.arde.co.jp/item/1124GKT-100/

http://www.arde.co.jp/item/1124GKT-100B/

_There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. _

(I found out how to google in Japanese  )

BugBear


----------



## woodbrains (24 Jul 2013)

=D>


bugbear":1wf6h36r said:


> Jacob":1wf6h36r said:
> 
> 
> > there is no Japanese honing jig.
> ...




 =D> =D> =D> =D>  

Or is that an eccentric cam at the back for producing convex bevels? :twisted: 

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (24 Jul 2013)

bugbear":3supe1mo said:


> Jacob":3supe1mo said:
> 
> 
> > Flat bevel good, rounded over bevel bad, two bevels perhaps not good, hollow ground bad. Nothing I would disagree with, though he doesn't say anything about convex rounding _under_
> ...


It isn't the same. 
Rounding over is the deprecated process where to get a burr quickly the handle/blade is lifted a touch to increase the honing angle above (over) the desired 30º (or whatever). OK once or twice but eventually will have to be taken back to 30º
Rounding under (as I have taken to calling it) is the opposite - the handle/blade is dipped to an angle below (under) 30º as you go forwards and maintains the edge angle at 30º but takes metal off the back of the bevel instead.
I'm sure you will get it one day BB!


----------



## Jacob (24 Jul 2013)

woodbrains":31yog9kk said:


> =D>
> 
> 
> bugbear":31yog9kk said:
> ...


No it's a little oddity. Blade holders are common (essential for honing a small blade) but jigs are not (in Japan) and virtually never get a mention. The thing you show wouldn't last long at all in routine use.


----------



## bugbear (24 Jul 2013)

Jacob":2yq1o63h said:


> bugbear":2yq1o63h said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":2yq1o63h said:
> ...



Drop for the arris, raise for the edge, it's one motion run backwards or forwards. I don't "get" the distinction because there's nothing to get. It's just a rounded bevel, made by varying the handle height during the stroke.

BugBear


----------



## Harbo (24 Jul 2013)

In "The Jointer and Cabinetmaker" published in 1837, the hollowing of stones was an issue.
It was expected that the Journeymen would leave the stone flat for other users and could be fined for not doing so.
They often paid the Apprentices a penny or two to do it for them.

Rod


----------



## G S Haydon (24 Jul 2013)

Cheshirechappie":w0f3ejpk said:


> phil.p":w0f3ejpk said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie - Washita is a natural stone.
> ...



Also mentioned in Modern Practical Joinery by George Ellis 1902


----------



## bugbear (24 Jul 2013)

G S Haydon":3n4qis51 said:


> Cheshirechappie":3n4qis51 said:
> 
> 
> > phil.p":3n4qis51 said:
> ...



I've quoted Rose on this point multiple times, but not noticed it in Ellis - thanks for pointing that out.

Edit; 



Ellis said:


> [Oilstones]They should be not less than 8 in. long and from 1½ in to 1¾ wide, not more, as wider ones wear hollow quickly, and require frequent rubbing down.



BugBear


----------



## iNewbie (24 Jul 2013)

Jacob":xkaywymf said:


> These stupid expensive gadgets here aren't Japanese!



I was looking at that yesterday on another site. It says it from Hatsuhiro - _the_ famous Japanese Plane Blade maker.

Hatsuhiro


----------



## GazPal (24 Jul 2013)

Quite a few prefer/preferred using a narrower stone as a means of avoiding dishing - as I'd mentioned earlier - and typical stone widths tended to vary between 1.5" - 2.0", but the comparatively recent fashion surrounding honing guides and Japanese methods seems to have popularised the use of wider stones, as well as much finer grits.

Another tip that seems to have been neglected is where the thin edge of stones can be used to hone narrower blades/irons. This helps reduce dishing to the primary surface, as well as maximising use of the stone's available surfaces.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (24 Jul 2013)

Grayorm":3b6rpbou said:


> I've seen several video's of Japanese woodworkers, but never any of them sharpening.



How refreshing is that ?


----------

