# Never by hand



## newt (22 Jan 2013)

With this months F&C is an attachment called essential workshop guide. I think it is aimed at folk with limited woodwork experience. However there is a statement in the section on chisels, tip number 4 states and I quote " Always use a honing guide - never try to sharpen cutting edges by hand holding alone". Even though I tend to use a honing guide I still find this statement surprising, perhaps it is related to safety, sign of the times I guess.


----------



## AndyT (22 Jan 2013)

For those of us who don't have a copy, can you see if there is a named author for this 'tip'?


----------



## newt (22 Jan 2013)

AndyT":a3zisk55 said:


> For those of us who don't have a copy, can you see if there is a named author for this 'tip'?



Yes, Anthony Bailey.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (22 Jan 2013)

Tip 7 - When chopping a mortice, mark it out exactly and clearly, indent a cut all round using a broad chisel for the long sides and a narrow one matched to the mortice width. Then do a series of spaced cuts all the way along the surface, encourage the broken surface out with the narrow chisel and repeat the chopping process to final depth.

Tip 8 - Now pare down both sides and ends of the mortice; take care to keep the internal straight sided and not tapering in or out, in depth.

(There is a photograph showing a piece of stock timber with a mortice marked out on it, the mortice being about half the stock width or a bit more; it also shows a wide B/E chisel, a narrow B/E chisel about 2/3 the mortice width, and the head of a claw hammer.)

My suspicion is that despite Anthony Bailey's name being emblazoned on the article ("Anthony Bailey provides his top tips on getting the best from various chisels in the IRWIN Marples range"), this was written by a marketing bod with only the loosest experience of carpentry or joinery. If GMC publications made a few bob by taking the advertising revenue, good luck to them, but it's arguably not the best introduction to good technique.


----------



## Alex H (22 Jan 2013)

Perhaps less frustration with sharpening if you can maintain the correct angle with a guide?


----------



## AndyT (22 Jan 2013)

I see. As far as I know Irwin don't make any mortice chisels.
It sounds like an advert presented as editorial.
I think I will just ignore it.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (22 Jan 2013)

AndyT":1obnvrpb said:


> I see. As far as I know Irwin don't make any mortice chisels.
> It sounds like an advert presented as editorial.
> I think I will just ignore it.




Wise move.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (22 Jan 2013)

Alex H":2j6bixq5 said:


> Perhaps less frustration with sharpening if you can maintain the correct angle with a guide?




There's absolutely nothing wrong with using a honing guide if you prefer to do so. Equally, there's absolutely nothing wrong with sharpening freehand if you prefer that method. Both methods have been proved by long experience to work, and work well. Both methods need a bit of practice to become really proficient at - but then, don't most things in life?


----------



## newt (22 Jan 2013)

My only issue was with the word NEVER.


----------



## Harbo (22 Jan 2013)

Pete - a typo in your heading - "by" not "buy" 
The feature is a plug for Irwin without a doubt.

Rod


----------



## newt (22 Jan 2013)

Harbo":1kkczvv8 said:


> Pete - a typo in your heading - "by" not "buy"
> The feature is a plug for Irwin without a doubt.
> 
> Rod



Well spotted Rod


----------



## Tierney (22 Jan 2013)

I scanned through a few pages of that supplement, before deciding it was basically just marketing and binned it. Maybe it's just me but anything that starts with 'The Essential Guide to ....' tends to bring out the sceptic in me.

DT


----------



## promhandicam (22 Jan 2013)

The whole thing was just a series of adverts and advertorials. The 'tips' for the Festool TS55 were nothing more than a list of the saws features and not tips at all. Presumably Derek Jones got paid for his contribution so he'll be happy, but for subscribers a complete waste of time.


----------



## Richard T (22 Jan 2013)

Never by* woodwork magazines.


* buy.


----------



## dj3d (23 Jan 2013)

promhandicam":30sdopfx said:


> Presumably Derek Jones got paid for his contribution so he'll be happy, but for subscribers a complete waste of time.



Oh I wish that were the case.
The TS55 with all its accessories is an excellent combination of useful features with a bias towards safe handling. These are important qualities that can't be repeated enough if they are relevant and of benefit to the reader. Yes there's no escaping the fact that the EWG is a marketing tool, but that will be the case for any additional material bagged to a magazine or anything else shoved through your letterbox, whether it be a catalogue, a lipstick or jigsaw blade. 

As a consumer I'd rather they didn't exist but the marketplace is a fiercely competitive environment so we shouldn't be surprised when some brands seek to gain an edge in this way. That aside I would concede that the EWG has less of an appeal to the readers of F&C than perhaps other titles. But then that's not clear cut either. We have readers who have just bought their first set of chisels and those who work on the tools for living. The middle ground is somewhere in between and we don't always manage to hit the spot. What this thread doesn't address is when the bar is raised in the other direction. I can assure you the reaction is equally as vociferous.

Coming back to AB's recommendation for 'Never' sharpen free-hand it might have included 'until you have gained sufficient experience' but with so many excellent honing guides out there I wonder why you would want to, especially if you are starting out which is the general theme of the Guide. I'll admit to giving the odd blade a tickle free hand now and then if I'm in a hurry but nearly always regret it next time I come to sharpen it. I use a couple of Richard Kell's guides for nearly all of my honing and apart from being beautiful objects in their own right they're so quick to use. They're also on the shelf behind me burning a hole in the back of my head as I do so.



Richard T":30sdopfx said:


> Never by* woodwork magazines.
> 
> 
> * buy.



I'm sure this was meant tongue in cheek but the advice might be a little short sighted. I do buy woodworking magazines and even though I don't learn something new on every page I do gain an insight in to how other woodworkers are approaching certain tasks. At the end of the read I'm generally better informed than when I was at the beginning. 

On a positive note, the opinions of a minority are every bit as valid as those of the majority - they help to shape the magazines, so keep us informed.

Derek
Ed F&C


----------



## Jacob (23 Jan 2013)

dj3d":1uyv08an said:


> ..........
> Coming back to AB's recommendation for 'Never' sharpen free-hand it might have included 'until you have gained sufficient experience'


Takes twenty minutes or so for the average beginner to get the hang of it. If you don't start on the path you may never gain sufficient experience.


> but with so many excellent honing guides out there I wonder why you would want to,


Honing guides make it more difficult, not less so. This is why sharpening is such an endlessly discussed issue - guides seem such a logical idea but people struggle away, especially if they have been brainwashed into thinking freehand is difficult. 
I suppose the main problem with guides is the need for flat stones, which raises a whole set of other complications, not least being the difficulty of getting a bit of a camber, which in turn hinders the actual plane performance.
My advice to a beginner would be to get the hang of freehand right away and ignore all the negative publicity and the shiny gadgets for sale.


----------



## Carl P (23 Jan 2013)

I've occasionally sharpened freehand but have never seen anyone else doing it or had personal advice - any tips or recomended links?

Cheers,

Carl


----------



## AndyT (23 Jan 2013)

Hi Carl

I see that you are new here - welcome!

This forum has been going for ten years and in that time there have been very many discussions about sharpening, some of them quite "lively". Some of us would be reluctant to start a new one, as there are so many different ways to sharpen, each with its own supporters. 

I suggest that you have a look back at some of the information and opinions using the search facility - this may help: https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/search...q1y&cof=FORID:11&q=sharpen+freehand&sa=Search


----------



## ColeyS1 (23 Jan 2013)

Not my idea but I saw something similar and thought it would be usefull. I only use to do freehand but was surprised how much difference there was from one chisel honing angle to the next. I can flip this down for reference which should speed up sharpening....... maybe :lol:

The old chap where I use to work taped a piece of cardboard tightly around my wrist. Apparently when I tried sharpening my wrist would flex all over the place- once that was fixed it was just a case of dropping my elbows to roughly the right angle- it kind of helped ;-)


----------



## dj3d (23 Jan 2013)

And there was me thinking that the golf swing was the most complex technique of all to master. Learning to co-ordinate fingers, thumbs, wrists, elbows, shoulders etc. to within a thou or there abouts is really quite impressive. Perhaps you free hand guys could give Rory McIlroy a run for his money. :wink: 

A piece of float glass and some 3m films does the trick for me.

Derek


----------



## Jacob (23 Jan 2013)

dj3d":50ezzvuy said:


> And there was me thinking that the golf swing was the most complex technique of all to master. Learning to co-ordinate fingers, thumbs, wrists, elbows, shoulders etc. to within a thou or there abouts is really quite impressive. Perhaps you free hand guys could give Rory McIlroy a run for his money. :wink:
> 
> A piece of float glass and some 3m films does the trick for me.
> 
> Derek


Freehand sharpening is about as difficult as sharpening a pencil. A good golf swing is much harder! 
Most people perform many more difficult manual tasks compared to sharpening. Think of playing the piano, hitting the darts board, driving a car.
I don't understand how the 'difficult' myth has evolved. It was never a problem years ago - everybody could do it


----------



## Carl P (23 Jan 2013)

Thanks for that - I've started going through the old posts, there's a lot there! Also, people seem remarkably robust in their opinions, almost as if it was a disputed facet of religion...

Really I need to see video evidence, so I can see how someone performs the actions of freehand sharpening - I shall trawl youtube. I have used an eclipse honing guide to date, which works well, but there are limitations, especially for gouges and I have alas, found myself sliding down the increasingly slippery slope of moulding planes (I don't understand the attraction - I rarely need one, yet the desire....)

Hey ho, must practice sharpening it seems,

Thanks,

Carl


----------



## ColeyS1 (23 Jan 2013)

I think it also depends on how coarse your stone is. For years I used a medium stone and if it was slightly too high or too low to the previous honing angle it wouldnt matter as much cause it would remove the metal and give a new edge. Its only now ive moved onto a finer stone I notice I have to pay a little more attention to what parts being honed :???:


----------



## Jacob (23 Jan 2013)

Here's a video http://paulsellers.com/2012/01/sharpeni ... ro-bevels/
He's a bit over-thorough IMHO. A little and often is better.
The key essential detail with whatever method you use is to bring up a burr _which you can feel over the whole width _of the edge especially the middle. It's quite easy to sharpen and make a little improvement where you could do better by raising the 100% burr. I think people do this a lot and probably never get to a really good edge, irrespective of the method.


----------



## Jacob (23 Jan 2013)

Manual dexterity, accuracy etc. 
The outer ring of a dart board subtends an angle of about 4.25º at the ocky. Almost everybody can hit the board every time.
The bulls eye ditto is 0.32º. Quite difficult but possible. Everybody does it now and then.
The precision needed for hitting a sharpening angle is in between; just a bit more accurate than hitting the board would be good, but if you go over it'll still be OK most likely, and you can put it right next time!

"Learning to co-ordinate fingers, thumbs, wrists, elbows, shoulders etc" isn't really necessary. 
I imagine the muscular coordination in picking one's nose would be quite complex but _without any learning process_ we can do it! 
Well I can, I don't know about you.


----------



## Racers (23 Jan 2013)

Just remember the best method is the one you are comfortable with, everybody is different, so are there sharpening methods.
One size doesn't fit all.

Pete


----------



## Dangermouse (23 Jan 2013)

I can and do, sometimes sharpen by hand, I find it just suits me more to use a jig. there's not much difference in time to set it up. I have several jigs, but prefer my Veritas. Other's no doubt prefer other types. This could be an endless discussion, just like religion !!!!!! :shock: (hammer)


----------



## Lons (23 Jan 2013)

Carl P":3q9ae3a3 said:


> people seem remarkably robust in their opinions, almost as if it was a disputed facet of religion...Carl



Not everyone - only a very few "preachers" on here: :lol: 

Most members are happy to ad"minister" their own practice and "beliefs" without delivering "sermons" to everyone else :wink: 

Just look at all the options, try whatever methods appeal to you and go with the ones you are comfortable with and produces the best results FOR YOU! Keep an open mind and don't get sucked in to the "my way is best" argument.

cheers

Bob


----------



## promhandicam (23 Jan 2013)

dj3d":1twztbkm said:


> Oh I wish that were the case



Thanks for the clarification. Seems that even fewer people than I first thought were happy with the EWG if the contributors weren't paid.

If you are after comments for F&C, a letters page or two would be a welcome addition - other than that - keep up the good work!

Steve


----------



## dj3d (23 Jan 2013)

Jacob
You sound like a sporting chap so you probably know what's coming next - 1600 words, a dozen pictures and a few drawings. How about it? Let's see if we can get you a few converts.
Derek


----------



## Paul Chapman (23 Jan 2013)

dj3d":ejp2pvzk said:


> 1600 words, a dozen pictures and a few drawings. How about it? Let's see if we can get you a few converts.



Don't encourage him, Derek - he never stops banging on about it :lol: And he's already done what you suggest on his website http://owdman.co.uk/howto/howto.htm

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## newt (23 Jan 2013)

dj3d":3lyee2z5 said:


> Jacob
> You sound like a sporting chap so you probably know what's coming next - 1600 words, a dozen pictures and a few drawings. How about it? Let's see if we can get you a few converts.
> Derek



Derek, interesting suggestion. Keep up the good work with F&C


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Jan 2013)

Hmmm.....David Charlesworth and Jacob Butler with consecutive articles on sharpening technique in F&C.....

The magazine would self-combust.....


----------



## Jacob (23 Jan 2013)

:lol: 
Wossit worth? I'll say anything for money.

I might get around to reviving my website one day but I haven't much to add to what's already there. I've got to add a link to Paul Sellers excellent videos. I got the three diamond plates the same as his but somehow I still prefer the oil stones.
I still use an Eclipse jig every now and then - it's handy for putting a nice bit of tell-tale clean bevel on something rough and neglected so you can then see the damage better.


----------



## Jacob (24 Jan 2013)

Here's Terry Connolly doing an absolutely basic demo of freehand honing. 
This is what everybody learned, early on, as first sharpening experience in the old days 
This method is good enough for most purposes, but you could go sharper by doing exactly the same again but with a finer stone and then a strop.
That's about all there is to it.
One little refinement he doesn't show is the convex bevel. Doesn't do to impart too much information too soon and people do have a problem understanding it! This is produced by dipping the handle a touch. It has no value in itself but helps to make the process quicker (i.e. you can put more force into it) and avoids rounding over.

Doesn't really need "1600 words, a dozen pictures and a few drawings"


----------



## bugbear (24 Jan 2013)

dj3d":27lft28p said:


> Jacob
> You sound like a sporting chap so you probably know what's coming next - 1600 words, a dozen pictures and a few drawings. How about it? Let's see if we can get you a few converts.
> Derek



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_My_Bluff

:lol: :lol: :lol: 

BugBear


----------



## dj3d (24 Jan 2013)

Jacob
Had a look at your site and really very interesting. Appreciate this knowledge is already out there and easy to access but we could still have some fun putting an article together. Direct comparisons with other methods aren't really necessary but some drawings to explain the more subtle aspects would, I'm sure, be of interest. 

The one thing I've noticed while doing this is that there are a heck of a lot chaps out there with loads of experience who perhaps aren't aware just how much they know. There's a tendency to take what we do on auto-pilot most of the time, for granted. Maybe 1600 words is a bit top heavy but give it some thought. You might have bored the pants off these guys by the sound of it but I'm all all ears and yes there's money involved.

That's an open invitation btw if there are members out there who would like to contribute.

Derek


----------



## Jacob (24 Jan 2013)

OK Derek I'll think on.


----------



## Paul Chapman (24 Jan 2013)

dj3d":2fqy8esi said:


> Jacob
> Had a look at your site and really very interesting. Appreciate this knowledge is already out there and easy to access but we could still have some fun putting an article together. Direct comparisons with other methods aren't really necessary but some drawings to explain the more subtle aspects would, I'm sure, be of interest.



I can't believe I just read that. Has F&C gone into self-destruct mode :? 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Lons (24 Jan 2013)

Paul Chapman":f54n4c0f said:


> I can't believe I just read that. Has F&C gone into self-destruct mode :? Cheers :wink: Paul



Not on my shopping list in future :lol:


----------



## Lons (24 Jan 2013)

NO, on second thoughts it won't, indeed can't happen, pigs might fly first surely.
F&C is a decent publication and the management not naive enough to start on a downward spiral.

In the highly unlikely event they did, how easily do back copies burn? :wink: 

Bob


----------



## Jacob (24 Jan 2013)

:lol: :lol: I think I'm warming to the idea!


----------



## Lons (24 Jan 2013)

Now be charitable Jacob, 
Don't try brainwashing those poor newbies who might buy the mag. thinking they might to learn something useful :wink:  

Bob


----------



## Jacob (24 Jan 2013)

Lons":3e89eb94 said:


> Now be charitable Jacob,
> Don't try brainwashing those poor newbies who might buy the mag. thinking they might to learn something useful :wink:
> 
> Bob


It's more a question of de-brainwashing the gullible of all ages who have had their heads filled with nonsense.
Seriously - I'm really interested in the way that almost a whole generation of woodworkers have become so bewildered about such a simple issue.


----------



## bobbybirds (25 Jan 2013)

Jacob":128e5rtd said:


> Lons":128e5rtd said:
> 
> 
> > Now be charitable Jacob,
> ...



You know what Jacob? I always roll my eyes when you start praising the convex bevel sharpening method and just shut my ears to it because I feel like I have heard it over and over blah, blah blah, BUT, I have just come to realize that I haven't tried it so how can I be critical of it?

I have a cheap set of Narex chisels that I used before buying my BS chisels, and I think I am going to give it a genuine try and see what kind of results I get. I KNOW I already get fabulous results with the method I use now, and I have no frustration with it at all, but I guess I am saying I am no longer going to be critical without experiencing it myself, and I am going to do so with an open mind and give a valiant effort...

Your constant nagging is having an effect! :wink: (hammer)


----------



## Lons (25 Jan 2013)

i understand what you're saying but I'm certainly not one of those "bewildered" Jacob and neither are any of the guys I come into contact with. We all have various ways and use those which suit us best. I don't know anyone who loses sleep over the subject of whether to use an oil stone, diamond plate or a machine.

I've already stated my position but I use diferent methods for my general chisels as opposed to my carving tools and when I owned a lathe, my edges were straight off the grinding wheel. I take less care with my "site" chisels which are abused and used by more than myself. I'm perfectly happy with my set up but keep an open mind and take on board what others do - I just don't see a need for dogmatism! 
I spent many years using only oilstones / slipstones but find other methods better for my purpose in many cases.

Different strokes and all that.

Anyway, what are you doing up at this time of night - you have a magazine article to write do you not? :wink: 

cheers

Bob


----------



## bugbear (25 Jan 2013)

Jacob":1kiqnm1p said:


> Lons":1kiqnm1p said:
> 
> 
> > Now be charitable Jacob,
> ...



You should extend your knowledge of history. You started as a joiner in the 198o's, I believe?

I've read a rather large amount of historic material, including magazines and journals from before 1890.

Sharpening was a perennial topic then too.

The quest for a longer lasting, finer edge, achieved quicker, is as old as tool use.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (25 Jan 2013)

bugbear":10q023bs said:


> ......
> 
> You should extend your knowledge of history. You started as a joiner in the 198o's, I believe?


I started as a woodworker in the 60s. Didn't get in to joinery until the 80s


> I've read a rather large amount of historic material, including magazines and journals from before 1890.
> 
> Sharpening was a perennial topic then too.


Not like it is now. Amateur woodworkers were starting to turn their attention to honing guides but the simple method as shown in Terry Connolly's video above, was standard for everybody.
I got stuck with guides too. They make logical sense but in fact aren't always that practical. My sharpening got much better and easier as soon as I stopped using them.


----------



## bugbear (25 Jan 2013)

Jacob":2ob8shhv said:


> bugbear":2ob8shhv said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



Interesting. Is this based on anything other than your gut feel about what must have been? I would (truly) welcome evidence or knowledge.

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (25 Jan 2013)

I've never worked as a professional woodworker and doubt that I have read as much old material as BB but would just like to mention one other aspect of sharpening which I think has not seen so much discussion. (Disclaimer: I've not read every word of every sharpening thread!)

At school in the 70s, we were shown how to sharpen on an oilstone - quick and easy, just like in the video Jacob linked to. All the tools in the woodwork shop were sharp. We used to bring penknives in to sharpen on the oilstone and Mr Jackson would do his magic with a few figure of eight swipes. That's what I thought tool sharpening was.

When I came back to woodwork in middle age, things seemed to have moved on. The Axminster and Rutlands catalogues had big sections with a bewildering variety of kit. Oilstones were still there, but alongside waterstones, ceramic stones, diamond stones, diamond paste, honing compounds, abrasive papers - all in a range of grits, sizes and brands. Some of these items cost hundreds of pounds. I was left with a nagging feeling that there must have been some progress made in the development of new kit and that other people judged it worthwhile to pay quite a lot of money for it. I now know (from discussions on here) that every bit of that kit will have its enthusiastic supporters somewhere. I also know I did not need to buy one of everything!

So what might be more use in a magazine article than just a jig/no jig discussion would be a chart showing each sort of sharpening medium rated against criteria such as: 

- purchase price
- usable life time
- tools / steels that can't be sharpened with it
- fineness of edge achievable
- speed of use
- compatibility with guides
- cleanliness of use
- portability
- space requirement.


----------



## Jacob (25 Jan 2013)

bugbear":g0x1hu5b said:


> Jacob":g0x1hu5b said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":g0x1hu5b said:
> ...


I was there, in the 50/60s at least. AndyT was there. Do you think we are making things up?


----------



## Racers (25 Jan 2013)

Wow Jacob you where around in the 1890s, so you are what 150 years old. :wink: 

Pete


----------



## Lons (25 Jan 2013)

> I was there. AndyT was there. Do you think we are making things up?



I was there as well Jacob and can relate to Andys experience as we had our own version of Mr Jackson but that doesn't mean things haven't moved on. Oldest isn't always best and the variety of edged tools seems to have grown as well. (or at least the availability of them to everyone has).

Andy.

That's a great idea and something I would certainly be interested in reading.

cheers

Bob


----------



## Jacob (25 Jan 2013)

AndyT":2yfbdku1 said:


> ......
> - tools / steels that can't be sharpened with it.......


My only experience of known to be different steel is several A2 blades which are absolutely no problem freehand on oil stones.


----------



## riclepp (25 Jan 2013)

Surley, sharpening is down to the end user and how they want to go about it?? I use scary sharp system and a honing guide, and sometime when I can't be bothered to get all that stuff out I use an oil stone.


----------



## Jacob (25 Jan 2013)

riclepp":1mvvkgts said:


> Surley, sharpening is down to the end user and how they want to go about it?? I use scary sharp system and a honing guide, and sometime when I can't be bothered to get all that stuff out I use an oil stone.


Yes of course you can do what you like.


----------



## dj3d (27 Jan 2013)

[/quote]You know what Jacob? I always roll my eyes when you start praising the convex bevel sharpening method and just shut my ears to it because I feel like I have heard it over and over blah, blah blah, BUT, I have just come to realize that I haven't tried it so how can I be critical of it?

I have a cheap set of Narex chisels that I used before buying my BS chisels, and I think I am going to give it a genuine try and see what kind of results I get. I KNOW I already get fabulous results with the method I use now, and I have no frustration with it at all, but I guess I am saying I am no longer going to be critical without experiencing it myself, and I am going to do so with an open mind and give a valiant effort...

Your constant nagging is having an effect! :wink: (hammer)[/quote]

That's a great idea. It would save me few quid and Jacob the hassle of putting pen to paper. Two birds with one stone, I like it. It's that convex bevel that sits uncomfortably with me. I'm assuming you wont be keeping your findings to yourself :lol: 
Derek


----------



## Jacob (27 Jan 2013)

dj3d":1g69ngzv said:


> > You know what Jacob? I always roll my eyes when you start praising the convex bevel sharpening method and just shut my ears to it because I feel like I have heard it over and over blah, blah blah, BUT, I have just come to realize that I haven't tried it so how can I be critical of it?
> >
> > I have a cheap set of Narex chisels that I used before buying my BS chisels, and I think I am going to give it a genuine try and see what kind of results I get. I KNOW I already get fabulous results with the method I use now, and I have no frustration with it at all, but I guess I am saying I am no longer going to be critical without experiencing it myself, and I am going to do so with an open mind and give a valiant effort...
> >
> ...


I wish someone could explain to me what is wrong with the convex bevel. It obviously worries people but nobody can explain why. There's no logical objection to it, and it works in practice. What is the problem?


----------



## richarnold (27 Jan 2013)

Jacob":zy9awl0f said:


> dj3d":zy9awl0f said:
> 
> 
> > > You know what Jacob? I always roll my eyes when you start praising the convex bevel sharpening method and just shut my ears to it because I feel like I have heard it over and over blah, blah blah, BUT, I have just come to realize that I haven't tried it so how can I be critical of it?
> ...



I cannot explain what is "wrong with a convex bevel, all I can do is explain why it doesn't suit my own particular needs. As a full time proffesional woodworker I'm constantly sharpening chisels, and plane irons. This means I have to do it as quickly and efficiently as possible. I earn my living working wood, not sharpening tools. Its been over 30 years ago since "old Arthur" taught me to shapen my tools and I'm still using the same method today. Incidently Arthur was taught by my grandfather so the tradition proberbly go's back well over 100 years. In our workshop a convex bevel was considered sloppy workmanship. Chisels and irons were hollow ground on the old wolf bench grinder. Incidently this was done freehand with no use of a tool rest. you learned the angle from instinct. Arthur always told me that if you used a rest you could use to much pressure and burn the steel to easily. The hollow grind always gives you two reference surfaces when you place the blade on your chosen stone. This allows you to "feel" the bevel as you hone. This for me is what makes the sharpening process so quick and efficient. I can usually repeat this honing thee or four times before the bevel becomes flat, After this I lose the ability to "feel" the bevel, and it's back to the grinder. One other thing sharpening stones that were not flat were considered to be a sign of a shoddy tradesman and "old Arthur" would not have tolerated that!.


----------



## AndyT (27 Jan 2013)

Jacob":thc8mxv4 said:


> I wish someone could explain to me what is wrong with the convex bevel. It obviously worries people but nobody can explain why. There's no logical objection to it, and it works in practice. What is the problem?



Ok, strictly in the interest of peace and goodwill to all readers, let's have a little try at explaining.

I suspect that in some of these discussions, we are not all talking about the same things, so let's try some pictures and work out what Jacob means by a rounded bevel and why some people might think it's a bad thing. When I first read about rounded bevels on here, I think I got the wrong end of the stick, but I now think I might understand what is meant.

Have a look at my first diagram. It's a cross section of a chisel. The black line is the short of sharpening you might get with a jig - it's ground at 25° and then honed at 30°, so you get two angles where flat surfaces intersect, at X and Y.

I've then superimposed an orange line, showing what I think a rounded bevel is. The difference is that the sharp intersections at X and Y have been rubbed away _below the places where they would have been._

Taking away that extra bit of metal - which was never going to cut anything - is the 'rounding'. I really can't see anything wrong with it.
Down at the tip, the cutting edge is much the same, even if we're measuring the angle of a tangent to the curve instead of the angle of a flat surface. It's still sharp.







So why the apparent objections?

My guess is that at first glance, people might be imagining that this is a rounded bevel:






That is a chisel with the flat side rounded where it shouldn't be, and is not going to cut in the way that we need a chisel to cut.

So, Jacob and everyone, are my diagrams helpful?


----------



## Jacob (27 Jan 2013)

AndyT":3g3r5j6o said:


> .....
> So, Jacob and everyone, are my diagrams helpful?


I've done that first diagram myself but they still didn't get it! As you say, if the edge is the same (30º or whatever) it'll cut the same, whatever goes on with the bevel (within reason - some hollow ground edges can be a bit fragile IMHO).

And richarnold still hasn't said what is _wrong_ with a convex bevel other than that it doesn't fit his sharpening regime. NB we are not talking about 'rounded over' bevels.


----------



## Paul Chapman (27 Jan 2013)

Jacob":mal9z3jm said:


> if the edge is the same (30º or whatever) it'll cut the same, whatever goes on with the bevel



So why do you keep banging on about it, year after year, after year...... :? 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (27 Jan 2013)

Paul Chapman":2wnkad0t said:


> Jacob":2wnkad0t said:
> 
> 
> > if the edge is the same (30º or whatever) it'll cut the same, whatever goes on with the bevel
> ...


Because it makes for easy sharpening and I'm just trying to spread the good news for other lazy pippers like me.


----------



## Oryxdesign (27 Jan 2013)

Amount of material you need to remove?







http://flic.kr/p/dQ8s6u


----------



## Jacob (27 Jan 2013)

Oryxdesign":397wys5x said:


> Amount of material you need to remove?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No. You have already removed a large amount from the 2 bevel example so you aren't comparing like with like. In fact the amount of metal removed would be the same, if you were preserving the same shape of bevel (whatever it is) and advancing the same distance up the face/flat side.


----------



## Oryxdesign (27 Jan 2013)

But if I'd removed less I'd have less to remove. You don't hone the primary


----------



## bobbybirds (27 Jan 2013)

Jacob":2g5idm5h said:


> I wish someone could explain to me what is wrong with the convex bevel. It obviously worries people but nobody can explain why. There's no logical objection to it, and it works in practice. What is the problem?


I don't think anyone has an issue with the convex bevel being sharp and effective at cutting as much as being told they need to change the systems they have already learned and use that work very well for them, and I include myself in that camp, BUT, I am serious that I am going to throw aside my pride that tells me I already have figured it all out and I don't need to listen to anyone (sounds like someone else??? Haha!) and truly give the convex bevel method a fair an honest go and try and use it exclusively for this season, which for me means I am lucky if I have a shop to use from April/May until Sept/Oct before old man winter turns it sub-zero (I am talking as much as -50 degrees C sub-zero). I really want to be fair in my assessment and I will...


----------



## woodbrains (27 Jan 2013)

AndyT":wp8uwn7n said:


> Ok, strictly in the interest of peace and goodwill to all readers, let's have a little try at explaining.
> 
> I suspect that in some of these discussions, we are not all talking about the same things, so let's try some pictures and work out what Jacob means by a rounded bevel and why some people might think it's a bad thing. When I first read about rounded bevels on here, I think I got the wrong end of the stick, but I now think I might understand what is meant.
> 
> ...



But if you look closely at the diagram, a tangent drawn from the tip of the rounded bevel is nothing like the angle of the flat secondary bevel; it is FAR less acute, which is why rounded bevels are no good. To have a tangent to an arc which approximates that 30 deg secondary bevel, the arc has to be backed off a great deal more than is shown in this diagram. This requires lots more time removing lots more metal. If the stone you use is too coarse, then this would appear to mitigate the problem, but then you do not have as sharp an edge as you would want. When a fine enough stone is used, the rounding method takes too long, compared to a similarly fine stone used to produce a small secondary bevel. This has all been said before, but people choose to ignore the explaination, to keep the myth that rounding over is better. The truth is, it just circumvents the task of freehand honing a flat bevel (either single or double bevels) because it is not so easy to do this (although not insurmountable, obviously). Those who decry the use of honing guides only have a point if the freehand method they use acheives the same end. If I want a flat bevel and can't do it freehand, then I might choose to use a jig to achieve it; I would not abandon my aims and do something else entirely then persuade myself they are the same thing. They are not.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (27 Jan 2013)

woodbrains":3i859nle said:


> ......
> But if you look closely at the diagram, a tangent drawn from the tip of the rounded bevel is nothing like the angle of the flat secondary bevel; it is FAR less acute, which is why rounded bevels are no good. ....


Well it's not that neatly drawn. An edge formed by a tangent at 30º to the flat is going to be exactly the same as a single flat bevel edge at 30º, and the red line would combine with the black asymptotically (if that's the right term).
I'm beginning to see why there is so much confusion!


----------



## woodbrains (27 Jan 2013)

Jacob":1k9ok6sj said:


> woodbrains":1k9ok6sj said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



No it wouldn't, it would depend entirely on the radius of the circle the arc was taken from. To have a tangent to the arc giving a 30 deg angle at the same point as a 30 deg triangle, the radius of the circle would have to be infinitely large, i.e. the arc would be a straight line. As soon as the arc becomes part of a smaller radiused circle, this angle must increase. Hence the arc must be backed off a great deal to enable the arc to be taken from a bigger (flatter) circle. You really just should learn how to hone with a flat and have done with it.

Mike.


----------



## Dangermouse (27 Jan 2013)

This is getting very very very monotonous, boring and verging on stupid. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what or how or when you sharpen a blade. If it cuts the wood to the satisfaction of the woodworker. :evil:


----------



## Jacob (27 Jan 2013)

Dangermouse":7lcuw9dr said:


> This is getting very very very monotonous, boring and verging on stupid. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what or how or when you sharpen a blade. If it cuts the wood to the satisfaction of the woodworker. :evil:


I agree but I'm just interested in why some people don't get it. I've got the answer - some people (e.g. Woodbrains above) just get confused by the geometry.
I'll stop here I promise!


----------



## woodbrains (27 Jan 2013)

Hello, 

Top drawing shows the arc must have a higher tangential angle to cut through the same points a flat bevel describes.
Middle drawing, the same arc, but with a tangential angle of 30deg is impossible to achieve.
Bottom drawing, increase the arc's radius to achieve 30deg tangent. Does anyone really back the arc off by so much, or do they cheat and bias it a bit to the front to get a 'sharp' edge quicker? Disaster, because the angle will become bigger than 30deg. Once it gets into the higher 30's a bevel down plane will function badly, as there is insufficient relief angle behind the blade
As you can see, some arcs are impossible to attain a tangent at the same angle as the bevel. An arc that is too tight can have a tangential angle so high that a bevel down plane will not function. (How do we know we havn't done this in reality, there is no meaningful way to measure this. Another disadvantage of honing an arc) Increase the radius and the arc has to be backed off by quite a margin to attain the required tangential angle. Increase the radius further and the arc is so close to a straight line, you may as well just shoot for honing flat and finish with the pretence that an arc has any benefit whatsoever. I understand the geometry quite well, thank you.

Incidentally, to back off the arc in the bottom drawing, the blade would be as low as 9 deg to the surface of the stone. Sore thumbs, meethinks.

Mike.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (27 Jan 2013)

Coming back to the original point - using honing guides - this geometry makes a guide seem good sense for the inexperienced (or uncoordinated !). If you raise your hand inadvertently, a stroke or two removes enough metal from the thin edge of the blade to raise the cutting angle. But if you drop your hand a tad, you can take many strokes without making any significant difference to the edge - you are just rounding the unimportant part of the bevel. So if you are wont to flap about a bit whilst honing, it is far more likely to result in a steep, rounded over cutting edge than a thin fragile one. One of my planes (a #4), when I acquired it, had a rounded edge like that and simply would not cut however adjusted.


----------



## Tom K (27 Jan 2013)

Why try to quantify a non event? Jacobs answer to his freehand sharpening dubbing over problem Ta dah drop your wrist at the end of each stroke. End result edge at 30 ish degrees, sharp and easily repeatable ish. Precise? No. Measurable? No. Provide an improved cutting edge? No.


----------



## Dodge (28 Jan 2013)

Hi folks,

I believe this topic has probably reached the point that we must all agree that everyone has their own way of sharpening and the ability to decide what is their own favoured method of sharpening. 

What works for one person may not work for another - now lets get on with using our tools and get posting some of your completed projects and WIPs

Rog


----------

