# WTB - Eclipse 36 honing guide



## Handrubbed (14 Jul 2009)

I'm venturing (virtually) across the pond in search of an Eclipse #36 honing guide for a woodworking friend of mine. These are virtually non-existent here and I would like anyone's assistance in locating one in the UK. It would be much appreciated.


----------



## Dave S (14 Jul 2009)

Are you after an original? 

Non-original copies are widely available over here, on Axminster, for example.

Dave


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 Jul 2009)

Some of the Eclipse clones are better in that they take wider blades (eg blades from scraper planes). However, some are not made so well so you need to be careful if buying one of the clones. Most (even the Eclipse) need some work with a file to make them work really well - it was interesting to see that Deneb Puchalski of Lie Nielsen, who was demonstrating at the recent Classic Hand Tools event at West Dean, had modified his with a file quite a lot.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Ironballs (14 Jul 2009)

Just a quick question, why have you removed the Veritas from your shortlist? Freely available over there and comparable in performance to the eclipse - better in some ways, not as good in others

Cheers

Damian


----------



## Handrubbed (14 Jul 2009)

Quite honestly, I feel that the Eclipse (original) is still the best all around honing guide ever made. The clones are OK if you manage to get a decent copy. This friend of mine just happens to want an original. He has the Veritas and some others, but just has a craving for this one. Thanks.
When Lie-Nielsen's jig is released, you will find it to be a much-improved Eclipse. Who knows when that will be?


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (15 Jul 2009)

I picked up a genuine Eclipse at the spring Patina sale in Damascus, MD. Cost me all of $2.00 and it is far better made than the Chinese knock-off I also have.


----------



## woodbloke (15 Jul 2009)

Handrubbed":3ihz3z47 said:


> When Lie-Nielsen's jig is released, you will find it to be a much-improved Eclipse. Who knows when that will be?


We heard a little rumour at West Dean about this (and possibly a new saw set) so I'm looking forward to seeing what LN come up with - Rob


----------



## bugbear (15 Jul 2009)

Handrubbed":jq767rwu said:


> When Lie-Nielsen's jig is released, you will find it to be a much-improved Eclipse. Who knows when that will be?



I'm sort of intrigued by this - the (original) Eclipse is already made (materials + machining) a good deal better than it needs to be, given its design.

For example, since one jaw is convex, the screw mechnism that closes the body does not need to be immune to racking - clamping is assured.

And precision is (in general) absurd, given that final bevel angle is set byt projection, which is defined by the user's interaction with the guide, and is not part of the guide at all.

Adding fit + finish will make a nicer intrinsic object, but not (as far as I can judge) a better honing guide.

BugBear


----------



## Paul Chapman (15 Jul 2009)

bugbear":i8ynyepi said:


> Adding fit + finish will make a nicer intrinsic object, but not (as far as I can judge) a better honing guide.



Sometimes the bed on the Eclipse-style guides is not flat - the two halves can be at different levels or they can ride up when the guide is tightened up. This can be cured with a little work with a file. Also, the slots used to hold bevel-edge chisels can cause problems because of the variability of chisels.

When used for chisels, the tool is normally gripped like this







A better arrangement can be had by modifying the guide so that the chisel registers off the flat side, like this






For chisels, I now use the Trend guide, which registers off the flat side of the chisel like this (excuse the state of the chisel - it's new and I'm still flattening and polishing the back)






It also has a much wider roller than the Eclipse






I found that while the narrow Eclipse roller is good for honing cambers on plane blades, it can cause problems when honing chisels. If I didn't concentrate hard I found that I was often honing a skew shape on the chisel. With the wide Trend roller just hone away and the end comes out dead square  

The Trend guide isn't perfect, though. Pig sticker chisels are too deep to fit in it and even some bevel-edge chisels (the largest of the Lie Nielsen's, for example,) are too deep to fit. Overall, though, for chisels I'm finding it the best of the guides.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## bugbear (15 Jul 2009)

Paul Chapman":2lgc0sw9 said:


> bugbear":2lgc0sw9 said:
> 
> 
> > Adding fit + finish will make a nicer intrinsic object, but not (as far as I can judge) a better honing guide.
> ...



Yes - all agreed. However...

The Eclipse guide only controls the bevel angle; the roller is too narrow to do anything else. Indeed, one could make the roller domed, and the guide would still work as well as ever.


Given this, it doesn't actually matter wether the blade is "yawed" or "rolled" within the jig. The jig only controls "pitch"

(handy diagram for jargon)






The flip side of this is that the end of the blade must be kept square (if that's what you want) by the user taking care to keep the edge "self-registered" on the abrasive.

If the roller were wide enough to control the "roll" of the jig, it would then (and only then...) be neccessary to have the tool accurately fixed for roll in the jig.

In practise, it comes down to this: either the "roll" of the tool is controlled by the edge of the tool, or the roller of the jig.

Here's the Marples 7418;

This guide has nor only a domed roller, but LOUSY control of skew.






It still works fine (I use it for skewed blades!)

BugBear


----------



## Handrubbed (15 Jul 2009)

Thanks to all who have replied so far. To Bugbear, I understand your question about LN "gilding the lilly" and I believe it was fairly answered in the post about the Trend guide, one that I was not familiar with. The Lie-Nielsen guide, from what has leaked out, will have a positive holding design for chisels and some way of accurately registering the bevel (or bezel, if you prefer) so that the thickness of the blade will not alter the angle. The Eclipse wheel is a tad too narrow for chisel work, as someone pointed out. The Kell jig addresses that issue rather well, but I just can't decide just how one is to hold that tool when that guide is clamped just 1/2 inch from the stone. That gets very tricky when the chisel is a 12 inch long socketed paring chisel. :roll:

At any rate I have now got myself off-topic. I'm still hopeful that the elusive Eclipse 36 will surface from one of you good folk.


----------



## Paul Chapman (15 Jul 2009)

Handrubbed":gok0cg20 said:


> I'm still hopeful that the elusive Eclipse 36 will surface from one of you good folk.



Have a look around second-hand shops or car boot sales - there are plenty of them about. One of mine ( a genuine Eclipse that was very old but in excellent condition) was bought in a second-hand tool shop for a couple of quid. No you can't have it [-( 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Handrubbed (15 Jul 2009)

Bugbear, why must the sharpened surface be "self registered" with the sharpening medium? Isn't the purpose of the jig to provide the registration so that undesired pitch. roll and yaw do not occur? This is why jigs like the Veritas I & II and any top clamping jig are so limited. They can't control the yaw / skew.


----------



## bugbear (15 Jul 2009)

Handrubbed":1s69xj9y said:


> Bugbear, why must the sharpened surface be "self registered" with the sharpening medium? Isn't the purpose of the jig to provide the registration so that undesired pitch. roll and yaw do not occur?



Ah - there lies the question. What is the purpose of the jig...

I find that for wide edged blades, the only parameter I can't control by hand to my satisfaction is "pitch", and the Eclipse controls only pitch. It thus suits me well (for wide edge blades).

When a chisel is narrow, say under 3/8", I do find controlling "roll" to be an issue, and I use a different jig (Veritas mkII)

When a tool is complex, I use a very different jig.

http://www.geocities.com/plybench/tour. ... pening_jig

BugBear


----------



## TrimTheKing (15 Jul 2009)

There are always a couple of eclipse guides on uk ebay, that's where I got mine, for under a fiver.

And there seem to be a few on there now...Here

Simples


----------



## Handrubbed (15 Jul 2009)

eBay UK....now that's what I'm talking about! Thanks, Mark. I will tell my friend to get bidding. He can ask them if they will ship to the U.S.


----------



## lurker (15 Jul 2009)

Some of them on the bay look like clones to me.

I'm on the look out for an original.
Will find one at a car boot eventually

I have two clones one from Proops Bros which is really good once I'd scraped off the paint from the registering surfaces.
And another from Wickes which is absolute rubbish


----------



## Ironballs (16 Jul 2009)

I've still not found a sharpening job that the Veritas can't do and do well


----------



## bugbear (16 Jul 2009)

Ironballs":2ghoma5b said:


> I've still not found a sharpening job that the Veritas can't do and do well



Did you see my tank cutter? Admittedly, it's not a common tool, and (further) it cuts well enough straight of the grinder, but the (in the words of the great Tim Lehrer) "the idea's the important thing".

BugBear


----------



## David C (16 Jul 2009)

I originally suggested / requested the honing guide modification to Thomas back in about 2001 when we were shooting the plane sharpening video.

The idea was to have plane blade holding jaws similar to the chisel holding jaws. This would mean that the honing angle would be the same for differing blade thicknesses at a particular projection.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Handrubbed (16 Jul 2009)

woodbloke":dzhbtrmk said:


> Handrubbed":dzhbtrmk said:
> 
> 
> > When Lie-Nielsen's jig is released, you will find it to be a much-improved Eclipse. Who knows when that will be?
> ...



Well it appears that David's input back in '01 has got legs and maybe something is in the offing from L-N.


----------



## bugbear (17 Jul 2009)

David C":3scijsmj said:


> I originally suggested / requested the honing guide modification to Thomas back in about 2001 when we were shooting the plane sharpening video.
> 
> The idea was to have plane blade holding jaws similar to the chisel holding jaws. This would mean that the honing angle would be the same for differing blade thicknesses at a particular projection.
> 
> David Charlesworth



Well...

it is clearly a mathematical fact that different blade thickness will result in different angles for a given projection, in an Eclipse style jig.

However, a thread a while ago actually tabulated the permutations, intended (I think) to allow accurate setting of bevel angles.

However, reading the table, I came to an almost opposite conclusion.

Given that the required projections for typical angles are large compared to the thickness variation in the blades, the table says that while the bevel angle for a given projection does indeed vary with blade thickness, it _doesn't vary by much_.

Further, minor variations in bevel angle are not a big deal; even when using a bevel up plane, where the EP controls tearout, I've not heard anyone claim that angle changes of 1-2 degrees are significant; angular changes are normally quoted in multiples of 5.

Consistency between sharpenings is (IMHO) super important, since it has a direct influence on the amount of honing work to be done, and amount of precious tool steel ground away. A constant projection gives this, even if the angle is more nominal than accurate.

(thread referenced:
https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/view ... ess#309130
)

There is sometimes another reason for wanting to clamp the "back face" though; I've had some mortise chisels where the front face was cambered, and even the apex wasn't symmetrical w.r.t. the back. Clamping w.r.t. the back was the only way to clamp at all.

BugBear


----------



## dunbarhamlin (18 Jul 2009)

BB - you've missed the point. Were plane blades _held the same way as chisels are_ in David's modified eclipse, the reference surface would always be the same height above the pivot point, and so blade thickness would not be a factor.


----------



## woodbloke (18 Jul 2009)

David C":vuz2f5yi said:


> I originally suggested / requested the honing guide modification to Thomas back in about 2001 when we were shooting the plane sharpening video.
> 
> The idea was to have plane blade holding jaws similar to the chisel holding jaws. This would mean that the honing angle would be the same for differing blade thicknesses at a particular projection.
> 
> David Charlesworth


David - nice to see you back on the forum...welcome - Rob


----------



## David C (18 Jul 2009)

Thank you Rob,

David


----------



## bugbear (20 Jul 2009)

dunbarhamlin":30k2jskf said:


> BB - you've missed the point. Were plane blades _held the same way as chisels are_ in David's modified eclipse, the reference surface would always be the same height above the pivot point, and so blade thickness would not be a factor.



Yes - I understood all that, in detail, with the maths and everything.

What I'm saying is that this (avoiding angle changes due to blade thickness) is not an important design goal, wether it's achieved or not.

BugBear


----------



## David C (26 Jul 2009)

Whilst agreeing that consistency of sharpening is one of the most important issues, plane blade thickness does have an effect in the Eclipse type jigs.

I just did a simple experiment and came up with these results.

Thin Stanley blade (2mm thick), 38mm projection, 30 degrees
L-N No. 9 blade (4.3mm thick), 43mm projection, 30 degrees

Stanley 50mm projection, 25 degrees
L-N No 9 57mm projection, 25 degrees

Clearly the most extreme difference of thickness was selected!
best wishes,
David


----------



## Vann (26 Jul 2009)

David C":3hopgm2f said:


> Clearly the most extreme difference of thickness was selected!


Not quite. I have several Stanley (and 1 Record) irons around 1.9mm thick so...


David C":3hopgm2f said:


> ...Thin Stanley blade (2mm thick)...


 ...I would call 2mm a *thick* Stanley blade. :lol: 

Cheers, Vann


----------



## bugbear (27 Jul 2009)

David C":1rfojg9i said:


> Whilst agreeing that consistency of sharpening is one of the most important issues, plane blade thickness does have an effect in the Eclipse type jigs.



Yes - that was never in dispute.

The page I linked to _*tabulated the actual differences*_. 

BugBear


----------



## ydb1md (27 Jul 2009)

Handrubbed":eb9806a6 said:


> I'm venturing (virtually) across the pond in search of an Eclipse #36 honing guide for a woodworking friend of mine. These are virtually non-existent here and I would like anyone's assistance in locating one in the UK. It would be much appreciated.



Be patient. LN is releasing their own (side clamp style) honing guides shortly.


----------



## David C (27 Jul 2009)

BugBear,

it was the "doesn't vary by much" that I was quibbling about in a no doubt over pedantic manner......

best wishes,

David Charlesworth


----------



## woodbloke (28 Jul 2009)

ydb1md":268dg70v said:


> Handrubbed":268dg70v said:
> 
> 
> > I'm venturing (virtually) across the pond in search of an Eclipse #36 honing guide for a woodworking friend of mine. These are virtually non-existent here and I would like anyone's assistance in locating one in the UK. It would be much appreciated.
> ...


I've heard whisperings about this fabled beast...any idea when? - Rob


----------



## PaulO (28 Jul 2009)

Here is the diagram I did to show the trigonometry






We are trying to work out P (projection) to achieve a honing angle (alpha + beta). For plane blades H is a combination of honing guide design and blade thickness.

So based on a 2mm and 4.3mm blade I get the following results:





I have to admit I set all of my plane blades (except scrapers) to 37mm for primary and 35mm for secondary bevel. My range of blade thicknesses isn't as great as this, but even if it was I think the variation would only be of the order of 1.5 degrees. Probably not worth worrying about. 

Despite that, I'll probably end up getting the LN guide if it looks like a better mousetrap.


----------



## ydb1md (28 Jul 2009)

woodbloke":tq0605p3 said:


> I've heard whisperings about this fabled beast...any idea when? - Rob



According to TLN, they're "next." 8)


----------



## bugbear (28 Jul 2009)

David C":27uqccpz said:


> BugBear,
> 
> it was the "doesn't vary by much" that I was quibbling about in a no doubt over pedantic manner......
> 
> ...



I guess the key question here is what is an acceptable error (for want of a better word) in bevel angle.

The smallest designed change in bevel angle I know is 2 1/2 degrees, the increment between common and Norris pitch, and then Norris and York pitch.

So, as an initial suggestion;

Honing jig "quirks" that result in bevel changes less than 2 degrees should be considered negligible.

From the helpful graph PaulO supplies, if one builds a 40mm projection fixture, targeting a 30 degree angle with a 2mm (thin) blade, even changing to a 4.3mm (rather thick) blade only takes us to 31 1/2 degrees, nicely within my proposed definition of negligible.

BugBear


----------



## woodbloke (28 Jul 2009)

ydb1md":2r08xxnt said:


> woodbloke":2r08xxnt said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard whisperings about this fabled beast...any idea when? - Rob
> ...


Good stuff. I'll be very intrigued to see what the new gauge from TLN is like and how it differs from the original Eclipse. I just hope they haven't re-invented the wheel and it's simply another 'E'clone wrapped up in a LN sticker with an appropriate price tag  - Rob


----------



## PaulO (28 Jul 2009)

woodbloke":2uw1oo8l said:


> and it's simply another 'E'clone wrapped up in a LN sticker with an appropriate price tag  - Rob



The one on their website looks distinctly secondhand and they have the blade fitted the wrong way round:
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=jig
(yes I know it isn't the new one)


----------



## Ironballs (28 Jul 2009)

I know I may sound like a stuck record, but I look at all these graphs and diagrams and calculations and I have to ask for the vast majority of our sharpening needs, how is that better than my Mk 2 Veritas? And does it compete for speed and accuracy when I can nip out to the garage now, pick any chisel/plane off the shelf, chuck it in and have it seriously sharp in no time at all.

I go into the garage to get away from all that as I have enough of it in the day job


----------



## ydb1md (28 Jul 2009)

PaulO":3k8zz2l8 said:


> woodbloke":3k8zz2l8 said:
> 
> 
> > and it's simply another 'E'clone wrapped up in a LN sticker with an appropriate price tag  - Rob
> ...



The new one is not on their website.

Not many people inside LN know about this new guide.


----------



## woodbloke (29 Jul 2009)

[-( [-(  (hammer) - Rob


----------



## bugbear (29 Jul 2009)

Ironballs":20o5b75d said:


> I know I may sound like a stuck record, but I look at all these graphs and diagrams and calculations and I have to ask for the vast majority of our sharpening needs, how is that better than my Mk 2 Veritas?



For some (common) kinds of blades, an Eclipse is faster to set up, and lighter to handle.

OTOH, taken overall, the Veritas mk II is the best jig available IMHO.

Oh, the joy of not having to choose 

BugBear (with "some" sharpening jigs)


----------

