Have a look at this Jacob!

[woodbrains]

PS not sure why "a turning tool will have a concave bevel". I see no reason for this as they also work perfectly well with flat bevel or a convex one.

Hello,

A turning tool will work with a flat bevel, though there will be control issues with a convex one, you could do it. Since the work will be round, the bevel contact is best with a concave and easiest to do on a grinding wheel. A flat will work on a drawknife also.

This is not the point I was making, though, but that a bevel is the tool's control mechanism as with drawknife and carving gouge. The bevel on a plane is not, so using the example of the former to justify rounded bevels on planes cannot be made.

G S Haydon makes a good argument for short secodary bevels, which I prefer. Jigs are optional ( as I have always said) but can be handy in some situations. If you don't need one, al well and good. But don't say they are useless, I don't think there is another way of successfully honing, for example, a 20 degree bevel and 10 degree back bevel without one. Again, you might not want to, but those who do have good reason, so dismissing all jigs as useless or unnecessary is narrow minded.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

I'm just saying they most likely weren't that bothered and all this strict "correctness" is new.
Ellis & co weren't "documenting" they were writing instructional books. Documenting as such is rare - Sturt etc not many of them about. I've been reading "From Tree to Sea" - that is documenting. (Thanks to Bugbear for the recommendation).

 

[Jacob]

PS not sure why "a turning tool will have a concave bevel". I see no reason for this as they also work perfectly well with flat bevel or a convex one.

Hello,

A turning tool will work with a flat bevel, though there will be control issues with a convex one, you could do it. Since the work will be round, the bevel contact is best with a concave and easiest to do on a grinding wheel. ....

Logical of course but not what you experience in practice. If you sharpen on the flat (e.g. Sorby Pro edge) you won't have any problem with sharpening or control issues with turning. It's all imaginary.

This is not the point I was making, though, but that a bevel is the tool's control mechanism as with drawknife and carving gouge. The bevel on a plane is not, so using the example of the former to justify rounded bevels on planes cannot be made.

You haven't read my previous post.

G S Haydon makes a good argument for short secodary bevels, which I prefer. Jigs are optional ( as I have always said) but can be handy in some situations. If you don't need one, al well and good. But don't say they are useless, I don't think there is another way of successfully honing, for example, a 20 degree bevel and 10 degree back bevel without one.

Depends how precise you want to be but for normal purposes this simply would not be problem freehand.
Problems problems - it's all we hear! Everything is such a problem, you can't do this, that won't work, so-and-so wrote in 1934 such-and-such so it must be true, reference surfaces, control problems. I'm so glad I got away from the new sharpening madness and can actually do it without giving it much thought or effort. Head down brain off for me everyday!

 

[David C]

Not the NEW sharpening again.

When did it become new?

 

[Corneel]

Hi Graham,

I wonder, how do you maintain the primary bevel? I use a grinder, but I am not entirely happy with that. It seems Jacobs convex bevel technique is mostly about maintaining the main part of the bevel, while the actual edge is sharpened at a slightly higher angle (please correct me when I am wrong Jacob). Like you Graham, I kind of wonder how that is faster then keeping the primary bevel flat.

Sharpening a chisel straight from the grinder is indeed very simple and very fast, either using the hollow or with a secondairy bevel. But it gets more complicated in the long run, when the secondairy grows and you need to adress the wearbevel at the face of the chisel too. Like I said, I use the grinder for this, but really want more peace in my little workshop.

 

[G S Haydon]

I'm just saying they most likely weren't that bothered and all this strict "correctness" is new.
Ellis & co weren't "documenting" they were writing instructional books. Documenting as such is rare - Sturt etc not many of them about. I've been reading "From Tree to Sea" - that is documenting. (Thanks to Bugbear for the recommendation).

I don't see it as "correctness" at all Jacob, I see what's written as version of say Paul Sellers method, just a pro sharing how they got a good edge. there were doubtless variations on a theme like you rightly point out.

 

[Racers]

There is no right or wrong way to sharpen, as long as you get a sharp edge.

Simple isn't it :roll:


Pete

 

[G S Haydon]

Hi Graham,

I wonder, how do you maintain the primary bevel? I use a grinder, but I am not entirely happy with that. It seems Jacobs convex bevel technique is mostly about maintaining the main part of the bevel, while the actual edge is sharpened at a slightly higher angle (please correct me when I am wrong Jacob). Like you Graham, I kind of wonder how that is faster then keeping the primary bevel flat.

Sharpening a chisel straight from the grinder is indeed very simple and very fast, either using the hollow or with a secondairy bevel. But it gets more complicated in the long run, when the secondairy grows and you need to adress the wearbevel at the face of the chisel too. Like I said, I use the grinder for this, but really want more peace in my little workshop.

Corneel,

I too feel the noise of a grinder is a nuisance. I watched a quick Lee-Nielsen vid on redoing the Primary bevel which I thought looked quite time consuming with all of the sandpaper used although it is a perfectly decent way of doing it. So to avoid all that sandpaper I used the coarse side of an India stone with and Eclipse jig and I was pleased with how very quickly the primary bevel was redone. That said on an old fashioned wooden plane blade I found a grinder quicker. I can imagine the next comment which is well use the jig for honing too, which is completely valid and FWIW it's splitting hairs on time. I just like having a fine oil stone close which I can use at a moments notice a nice way to work and creates confidence. Other equally valid methods are available! :lol:

 

[G S Haydon]

There is no right or wrong way to sharpen, as long as you get a sharp edge.

Simple isn't it :roll:


Pete

Agreed!

 

[Jacob]

Hi Graham,

I wonder, how do you maintain the primary bevel? I use a grinder, but I am not entirely happy with that. It seems Jacobs convex bevel technique is mostly about maintaining the main part of the bevel, while the actual edge is sharpened at a slightly higher angle (please correct me when I am wrong Jacob). Like you Graham, I kind of wonder how that is faster then keeping the primary bevel flat.

Mainly because as you dip the handle you can thrust harder and put some force behind it, as you are only removing the bevel back from the edge and don't need to be cautious as you would have to be to maintain a flat bevel - all that stuff about locked elbows, stances etc. goes out of the window. Also you are maintaining the shape every time you hone/sharpen so there is no need to ever got to the grindstone to correct it until you chip it etc. The secondary doesn't grow, to use a bit of new sharpening speak!

Sharpening a chisel straight from the grinder is indeed very simple and very fast, either using the hollow or with a secondairy bevel. But it gets more complicated in the long run, when the secondairy grows and you need to adress the wearbevel at the face of the chisel too. Like I said, I use the grinder for this, but really want more peace in my little workshop.

I don't use one at all for sharpening - just for the occasional bit of metal work on damaged edges, or reshaping, if I decide I want more camber for instance.

 

[G S Haydon]

Since taking a stepping back I do now actually enjoy theses threads.

 

[Corneel]

Thanks Graham and Jacob. I'm going to experiment a bit in my shop.

 

[bugbear]

You cheeky devil :lol:. I'm not sure Ellis et al were writing for the uninformed, they were documenting I would assume common practice and the text would most likely be a companion to an apprentice. I don't imagine for one second George thought "Tell you what lads, don't tell em about the old hollow oil stone trick".

No - I see it now! the scales have fallen from my eyes.

Jacob has revealed the existence of The Traditional Sharpening Cabal (TSC), who are probably connected with the Masons (who also need to sharpen their tools - cooincidence? I think not) and the Knights Templar, as well as darker groups I will not speak of here.

This organisation is dedicated to keeping the true technique of traditional sharpening secret, and they brook no back sliding, and will stop at nothing to keep their secret.

Since traditional sharpening, as revealed by Jacob (which I shall call Butler Random Rubbing, or BRR in his honour) must be kept from the masses, all authors are either members of the TSC, or are leant on by TSC heavies. In any case, the TSC have enough leverage with publishers that no book revealing BRR has ever been published.

The conspiracy goes back a long way; even Peter Nicholson in 1831 is starting to tell the TSC big lie - he talks of grindstones, even hollow grinding, and witters on about a steeper bevel when honing than grinding (the "double bevel" system put up as a distraction by the TSC).

Charles Holtzapffel (1843) mentions a "second bevel", further concealing BRR, but attempts to bolster credibility by putting this rubbish in a massive three volume publication that is otherwise quite reasonable.

Spons mechanics companion is the first book that goes so far as attempt to throw people even further off the scent of BRR by explicting stating that the hands should not move up and down, creating a thick or rounded bevel.

After this, the TSC moves into overdrive, since the home worker was starting up in sheds up and down the land, and they might have stumbled on the secret of BRR. Therefore, guided (perhaps unknowingly, so subtle are they) by the TSC, author after author (some with great experience of both practice and instruction) distracted readers with the TSC party line, of grinding bevels, distinct and higher honing bevels, and the difficulty (and yet desirability) of not rounding the bevel.

I can only assume the true technique of BRR was passed on by members of the TSC, possible involving rolled up trouser legs and aprons.

The continuance of the power of the TSC knows no bonds. Even Joyce as late as the seventies not only mentions that avoiding round bevels is difficult (and implies that it is desirable). He goes so far as to say that a [jig] might be a "useful accessory". Some members of the TSC may have felt this simply went too far, since such absurdity might arouse suspicion.

And thus it might have continued, until Jacob Butler, that fearless teller of Truth Unto Power revealed all.

BugBear (at risk, now the secret is public)

 

[mark w]

Thank you Bugbear, I don`t believe they were or are hiding Jacobs method of sharpening from us, more like protecting us from it!

 

[Jacob]

A great deal of stuff is not particularly recorded but is not secret at all. The problem seems to be with those insist on seeing it in writing first instead of finding out for themselves. Bugbear is particularly weak on this as he doesn't believe anything he hasn't read about. See that stupid firewood trick thread. :lol: post813078.html?hilit=billhook#p813078
Most people neither need nor are given any instruction in sharpening because it is so bloody obvious how to do it. It's just got complicated with all the new boys wading in with minutely detailed prescriptions and remedies and dozens of unhelpful gadgets. Too many options and the baby thrown out with the bathwater!
Here are 2 questions:
how do you sharpen a rounded bevel mortice chisel? (which everybody seems to agree is how it should be done)
Why would this not work with any other chisel or edge?

 

[Tony Spear]

Jacob has revealed the existence of The Traditional Sharpening Cabal (TSC), who are probably connected with the Masons (who also need to sharpen their tools - cooincidence? I think not) and the Knights Templar, as well as darker groups I will not speak of here.

BugBear (at risk, now the secret is public)

Now you've really done it - letting the cat out of the bag!

The "Hellfire Club" was nothing to do with Sir Francis Dashwood and their "naughty" behaviour.

They were secret meetings of all the Wycombe chairmakers arguing about sharpening drawknives and spokeshaves!

 

[Jacob]

Had a quick look at Ellis. He doesn't say much about sharpening. No mention of grindstones, hollow grinding, no reference to angles. He does warn about rounding over, quite right too, but this doesn't preclude rounding under as per Sellers etc.
It was a lot easier in the old days! People found out how to do it by doing it and seeing the results in the actual workplace. silly person stuff really, I don't why it causes so much bother nowadays.
I think the way I sharpen is roughly how anybody work it out, if they had to without instruction. It's the instructions which cause the confusion! It's as though everybody knew (or could find) the way around but some idiots have printed out maps which are wrong - and everybody has started getting lost.

 

[Paul Chapman]

how do you sharpen a rounded bevel mortice chisel? (which everybody seems to agree is how it should be done)

You speak for yourself - I don't agree that mortice chisels should have rounded bevels.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Racers]

There are only two ways, Jacobs way and the wrong way :roll: :roll: :roll:

Pete

 

[G S Haydon]

You are right Jacob, there is not a great deal of really, really in depth writing in many of the old books. From my point of view this is potentially due to many of these books acting as a companion to an apprentice?
I can only speculate but I think P Sellers trained as a joiner? And I'm sure he learned a system from his senior tradesmen that was very effective, nothing wrong in that.
What Ellis does mention I think is the fine types of stones for honing such as Turkey, Arkansas et al. Using these to hone the whole bevel would indeed work but perhaps take longer than focusing effort on a secondary bevel. P Sellers mentions in a recent vid did use a fine india in the early days which would cut very fast and working on whole bevel would not take so long. I just like being able to focus a finer abrasive on a smaller area rather than working it on the whole bevel. There is no need to waste nice fine abrasives on metal which is a long way from the cutting edge, unless you want to of course!