Honing Guides

[woodbloke]

I had a PM from a forum member t'other day about honing and sharpening in general which got me round to thinking about different sorts of honing guides. I had a quick dip into the Rutlands book o'words over brekky this morning and there were several in there...Richard Kells (various sorts) the Veritas MkII, Eclipse (clone) etc. I use one of the latter which suits me, suitably modified as per Mr C's instructions in F&C (very early edition) but I wonder if any of these posher guides will do a better job than my current one :? and if they will, which one? - Rob

 

[Oryxdesign]

I've got the Veritas Mk2. I like it, it gives me good repeatability and is easy to use once you get the hang of it. If you do site work it's bulky to carry around and there's lots of little bits to vibrate undone and get lost if you're not careful.
Whether it's better for you is another question, if you have a system that works well why change?
Hope that helps. Simon

 

[wizer]

I also have the MkII and like it but probably not qualified to tell you if it's superior to your own method. I believe quite a few members have it, including gidon. Alf did a review a few years back.

 

[bugbear]

thinking about different sorts of honing guides.

Crash hats on, chaps!

BugBear

 

[woodbloke]

thinking about different sorts of honing guides.

Crash hats on, chaps!

BugBear

BB - don't forget the flack jackets as well :lol: - Rob

 

[frugal]

I have the Veritas guide which I really like. I was convinced after seeing Mike demonstrate them at Yandles.

However it was an upgrade from the cheap and nasty Stanley guide I was using with two blocks of wood screwed together as a depth guage so pretty much anything would have been better

 

[dunbarhamlin]

Though I have a Kell and a Veritas MkII, my favourite feels just like an extension of my arms.

It works well for all bevel angles (up to 90°) and all blade lengths and widths, handles strange shapes (eg router bits); can work at any skew angle (from perpendicular like the Veritas/Kell/Eclipse jigs to parallel like the Harrisson side sharpening jig) and produce flat bevels, microbevels and rounded heels according to application.
The same jig can be used for flattening plane and chisel faces.

One great feature is that once mastered, the same tool holder, USING THE SAME TECHNIQUES can be used for both grinding, sharpening, honing AND for presenting a chisel to the workpiece.

Original concept by Mr and Mrs Hamlin around 45 years ago, it took around nine months to develop, and nearly 43 years before I reaised its worth.
(Yes tongue in cheek - but it really is the best universal jig. )

Of the inorganic jigs, I think all have their forte's, depending on blade length, depth, width and profile. I use Kell/Veritas when I want to do initial or remedial shaping (especially when I want to create/remove a skewed bezel,) as I can sit and curse the telly while I do it. Kell particularly good for short blades or oddly profiled backs (will just about take a RI OBMC for bezel truing) , Veritas good quite good for mindlessly grinding away at a fixed angle/skew. But (I think) I get a better edge with more control when I freehand.

Cheers
Steve Hamlin

 

[Paul Chapman]

I've recently gone over to using the Veritas Mk2 for most honing. Used to use mainly the Eclipse but found that the edges of my blades were gradually getting too much out of shape because of the narrow roller. Might be because I never grind them (don't have a Tormek and don't like to risk burning them on the high speed grinder).

I like to have my blades either dead straight or just a hint of a camber and I find that I can get better results (for me) with the Veritas with the wide, straight roller.

I also use the cambered roller a lot. Don't have any machinery so I use three planes as scrubs and find that the cambered roller is excellent for honing the steep cambers on these planes (after first grinding the steep camber).

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[bugbear]

Used to use mainly the Eclipse but found that the edges of my blades were gradually getting too much out of shape because of the narrow roller.

Can you expand on "out of shape" ? I don't follow.

The Eclipse is my main guide, and my blades are as I want them, and seem to be staying that way.

I do use the "magic gauge" though

One of the best cost/benefit projects ever, that is.

BugBear

 

[Paul Chapman]

Hi BB,

Yes, I also used the "magic gauges" - pinched the idea from you

Suppose I can best describe it by saying I was getting too much camber and finding it difficult to get back to less camber or a straight blade. The bottom line is that since using the Veritas Mk2 my blades are as I want them so I haven't bothered analysing it too much, but I put it down to the Veritas having a wide roller.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[bugbear]

Hi BB,

Yes, I also used the "magic gauges" - pinched the idea from you

Suppose I can best describe it by saying I was getting too much camber and finding it difficult to get back to less camber or a straight blade. The bottom line is that since using the Veritas Mk2 my blades are as I want them so I haven't bothered analysing it too much, but I put it down to the Veritas having a wide roller.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

Sounds as if you're letting (or hoping) the guide keep the edge flat on the stone, as opposed to letting the edge "self-register". I find any blade over 1/2" will sit quite nicely on a stone, if you let it. But it's important to put pressure on the edge, not the roller.

Very narrow chisels (IMO) do require external assistance, e.g. a wide roller.

BugBear

 

[woodbloke]

What I'm finding is that using the Eclipse a decent camber can be achieved quite easily but over time this camber becomes 'lop-sided'. in other words if a square is placed across the edge, the centre of the camber is not in the middle of the blade and considerable honing pressure needs to be done with a coarser stone to bring back the crown of the camber back to the centre. This is caused by unequal finger pressure each side as the blade is move back and forth and I wondered if other more sophisticated guides got round this problem - Rob

 

[Paul Chapman]

over time this camber becomes 'lop-sided'. in other words if a square is placed across the edge, the centre of the camber is not in the middle of the blade and considerable honing pressure needs to be done with a coarser stone to bring back the crown of the camber back to the centre.

Yes, Rob, I was getting that as well - which is partly what I meant by the edge getting out of shape. Going over to the Veritas Mk2 seems to have cured that problem.

Whatever the theories, I'm now getting the results I want

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Harbo]

Many moons (years) ago I used a Stanley but the cheap plastic wheels are a problem. I then moved to the Eclipse but found it waddled too much (I now know that is considered an advantage).
I use a Krell II (I think?) for short and wide Japanese chisels and the Veritas II for my other stuff. I occasionally go freehand for a quick hone.
I also have a cheapo Dick one (which is quite wide) - bought originally for sharpening knives, but it is not that well made - the brass wheel which is fairly wide is not a good fit on it's bearing rod.

Rod

 

[Paul Chapman]

Rob,

Another change I've made since moving to the Veritas Mk2 is that I now hone a single bevel of 30 degrees then use the excellent feature on the Veritas of altering the roller to give a 2 degree micro bevel. I find that less of a faff than honing a 25 degree and 30 degree bevel.

If you look at that excellent Jim Kingshott book you have, Jim shows the honing guide he used, which was his own design - very similar to the Veritas in both the wide roller and the blade clamping arrangement.

I think, however, that the Eclipse honing guide, modified as yours is along the lines suggested by David Charlesworth, is probably still better for chisels in that the clamping arrangement is better. I haven't tried the Veritas yet with chisels.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[tnimble]

Happy to post (after a day with an broken internet connection at work, grrr...) what I use.

Used:
Veritas MKI (not so often anymore)
Veritas MKII (have both rollers)
Arms, Hands and Fingers v1.0
Tormek SE76
Some shop made bits and odds for really small blades, intrigate shapes etc.

Wishlist:
Veritas MKII skew setup block
Ecclipse
Arms, Hands and Fingers v2.0


What I have found out if using multiple jigs is to check your blades. Not all blade have parrallel sides. The jigs do not register all at the same side(s) or point. Its very confusing if you just ground your primary bevel and then place it in for instance the veritas MKII and you see the left of the blade in contact with the stone and the right floating about 2mm above the stone. :shock: Take a square and compare the sides to the edge and find out what to correct: one of the jigs, the edge or one or two of the sides of the iron/chisel.

 

[Anonymous]

_____

 

[Anonymous]

Rob

I used the eclipse clone for years (possibly over 10) and bought the veritas mkII wen they came out.

As a jig it is debatable if it is really 'superior' in use, although the extra functionality such as the cam arrangement on the roller which allows micro bevels to be easily and repeatably cut and the setting guide that ensures repeatable blade protrusions and ensures squareness in the jig. I am very impressed with this too

Needless to say that the eclipse is in a drawer, and hasn't seen the light of day since.

I think the veritas is worth the money - get the cambered roller too

 

[bugbear]

Many moons (years) ago I used a Stanley but the cheap plastic wheels are a problem.

Yes; because they're small diameter, they pick up abrasive, which wears the inner surface of the wheel AND the axle!

The one advantage of this jig is the low (and upside down) construction, allowing short projection, allowing (at last) the sharpening of short blades.

AFAIK the Veritas mk II is the only other "upside down" jig.

Apart from my monster, of course...

BugBear

 

[bugbear]

What I have found out if using multiple jigs is to check your blades. Not all blade have parrallel sides. The jigs do not register all at the same side(s) or point. Its very confusing if you just ground your primary bevel and then place it in for instance the veritas MKII and you see the left of the blade in contact with the stone and the right floating about 2mm above the stone. :shock: Take a square and compare the sides to the edge and find out what to correct: one of the jigs, the edge or one or two of the sides of the iron/chisel.

Some blades cannot be sharpened square; either (as you say) the sides are not parallel (common in old woody blades, which taper in width as well as thickness from edge to top), and (worse) in planes with machining errors in the bed/frog, and insufficient lateral adjust, you must have a slightly skewed edge w.r.t. the blade to get a parallel blade projection.

Some blade demonstrate both issues - I have a #78 blade like this.

BugBear