Mock ye not !!

[woodbrains]

....
However, there is a subtle but important difference between carving tools and plane irons/bench chisels. Carving chisels are double beveled, to some extent, so stropping of both meeting planes takes place: a regular strop on the bevel and a slip strop on the inside bevel. This will not work on planes unless you want a back bevel and is to be avoided at all costs on chisels. ..

Why? What's the difference?

Hello.

If you actually read the above, it explains that it would introduce a back bevel to the blade. You know full well why a back bevel on a bench chisel is not a good thing. On planes it might be useful, but only if you intend it, otherwise it will just make sharpening unlikely to produce the sharp edge you expect.

Mike.

 

[matthewwh]

A subtle but important point is that anything involving rubbing the back of a blade on a larger flat surface will move it in the direction of convexity (as opposed to causing convexity). If your chisel back is ever so slightly concave to begin with, both stropping and backing off will always be making things flatter.

Should you pass beyond flat, convexity becomes self perpetuating until the back is re-ground to restore the slight concavity.

 

[Corneel]

Each and every old chisel I find is convex, some with pretty pronounced bellies. Until recently this worried me a lot and I would go to great lengths to remove this belly. But I'm not so sure anymore if it matters. When you are talking about steering a chisel in a cut, a belly might be beneficial, it gives you a fulcrum. Pressing down with the handle steers the edge upwards and vice versa. I learned this technique from an oldtimer in regards drawing knifes.

When restoring old chisels I now only worry about the dropped corners and pitting. This can be hard enough to remove without worrying what happens further up the chisel face.

 

[woodbrains]

A subtle but important point is that anything involving rubbing the back of a blade on a larger flat surface will move it in the direction of convexity (as opposed to causing convexity). If your chisel back is ever so slightly concave to begin with, both stropping and backing off will always be making things flatter.

Should you pass beyond flat, convexity becomes self perpetuating until the back is re-ground to restore the slight concavity.

Hello,

Wasn't actually talking about stropping the flat as such, but stropping a back bevel, as you would find on carving tools. The wear bevel on a plane or bench chisel needs to be removed for it to be sharp, whereas a carving tool the wear bevel can be stropped into the honed bevel, since they are honed with bevels on both sides. There is a distinction between how the tools are used and this makes differences in how they are sharpened.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

Each and every old chisel I find is convex, some with pretty pronounced bellies. Until recently this worried me a lot and I would go to great lengths to remove this belly. But I'm not so sure anymore if it matters. When you are talking about steering a chisel in a cut, a belly might be beneficial, it gives you a fulcrum. Pressing down with the handle steers the edge upwards and vice versa. I learned this technique from an oldtimer in regards drawing knifes.

When restoring old chisels I now only worry about the dropped corners and pitting. This can be hard enough to remove without worrying what happens further up the chisel face.

Agree. Perhaps there are circumstances when a dead flat chisel face is useful but it's hard to see when or why. Flattish is fine, even including a trace of back bevel due to pressing down to remove the burr (a.k.a. the ruler trick but without a ruler).
I sold some nice chisels a few years ago because I'd picked up on the flat face dogma and they weren't perfectly flat. Nothing wrong with them at all I now realise!

Woodbrains says you know full well why a back bevel on a bench chisel is not a good thing. Well he's wrong (again) I don't know why and I'm waiting for an explanation. What is it you can't do with a less than perfectly flat faced chisel?

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Still not talking about the flatness of the backs, how did this creep in?

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

A subtle but important point is that anything involving rubbing the back of a blade on a larger flat surface will move it in the direction of convexity (as opposed to causing convexity). If your chisel back is ever so slightly concave to begin with, both stropping and backing off will always be making things flatter.

Should you pass beyond flat, convexity becomes self perpetuating until the back is re-ground to restore the slight concavity.

True, but so what, and why would anyone want to regrind the face?
It's not so much convexity you get - more a long flat bevel on the face as you turn to remove the burr. Unless you flatten the whole face every time you sharpen, which would take an age and rapidly destroy your blade! I wouldn't be surprised if people actually do do this, when you read all the nonsense about "prepping" chisels etc. :roll:

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Still not about the flat face. This is not difficult to grasp; the wear, on a single bevel tool MUST be removed by sharpening on the bevel side only, a double bevel tool can have both bevels worked on to remove the wear. Therefor stropping on a double bevel tool is effective, but not on a single bevel tool, as you cannot deal with the side adjacent to the bevel without introducing a double bevel. It is fairly simple to deduce we do not want a double bevel on a singe bevel tool, be definition. We have to use a stone to remove enough metal on a single bevel tool as wee have to cut past the wear on the back.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

Hello,

Still not about the flat face. This is not difficult to grasp; the wear, on a single bevel tool MUST be removed by sharpening on the bevel side only, a double bevel tool can have both bevels worked on to remove the wear. Therefor stropping on a double bevel tool is effective, but not on a single bevel tool, as you cannot deal with the side adjacent to the bevel without introducing a double bevel. It is fairly simple to deduce we do not want a double bevel on a singe bevel tool, be definition. We have to use a stone to remove enough metal on a single bevel tool as wee have to cut past the wear on the back.

Mike.

Strictly speaking they are all double bevel tools. One bevel on the end and the other being the whole face. A single bevel is like one hand clapping.
All you are saying is that the face should be flat. But why? And why can't you strop the face? I can see that according to your circular logic and arbitrary rules you MUST NOT but that's your problem, not mine.

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Erm, no! We can have one angle measured from a reference face, (single bevel) or 2 or as many as we like, double, triple, multiple if the mood takes. Stop being obstreperous.

Mike.

 

[wizard]

Do any of you lot ever use your tools or do you spend all day sharpening them and then talking about it
:lol:

 

[Jacob]

Do any of you lot ever use your tools or do you spend all day sharpening them and then talking about it
:lol:

Using them every day! And only as much time sharpening as necessary.

 

[Jacob]

Hello,

Erm, no! We can have one angle measured from a reference face, (single bevel) or 2 or as many as we like, double, triple, multiple if the mood takes. Stop being obstreperous.

Mike.

Evading the question. Why must a single bevel chisel have a flat face with no tendency towards a double bevel (Corneels "bellied" chisels as described above, or Matthew's creeping bevel). What would it stop you doing? Can you think of a way of demonstrating this so we can all try it and see for ourselves?

 

[Cottonwood]

Jacob do you have any video available where you demonstarate your hooning method?

 

[Jacob]

No but it's much the same as Paul Sellers method here.

 

[bugbear]

Strictly speaking they are all double bevel tools. One bevel on the end and the other being the whole face.

That's not a bevel - that''s a face. Whist all edges are formed by the intersection of two surfaces, not all surfaces are planes, and not all planes are bevels.

"strictly speaking"

BugBear

 

[bugbear]

No but it's much the same as Paul Sellers method here.

Except that Seller flattens and mirrors polishes his backs, works through a succession of diamond grits finishing at 9 micron, instead of a single (43 micron - "coarse" in diamond plate jargon) India stone, he uses a different lubricant, and then uses a strop loaded with 0.5 micron paste to mirror polish the bevel.

Apart from that, much the same.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

No but it's much the same as Paul Sellers method here.

Except that Seller flattens and mirrors polishes his backs, works through a succession of diamond grits finishing at 9 micron, instead of a single (43 micron - "coarse" in diamond plate jargon) India stone, he uses a different lubricant, and then uses a strop loaded with 0.5 micron paste to mirror polish the bevel.

Apart from that, much the same.

BugBear

The action is much the same (dipping the handle - rounded bevel). I don't use a single India stone* and I do strop (with Autosol which may be 0.5 micron paste or finer for all I know) and I do use the same lubricant*
* both of these with variations - I've got various stones and use various lubricants - it's an ongoing experiment as far as I'm concerned. But certainly a single fine India stone is a good default starting point and sufficient for most purposes.
I don't know how he caught the polishing bug - maybe a temporary aberration and he'll grow out of it!

 

[Cottonwood]

well Jacob, to be fair I gave his method a go and I was amazed at how well it worked, particularly on a 1st time try out. I used a bog standard norton abandoned around 6 years ago in favour of the ubixquitous water stones. (1200? grit, not sure, cuts fast though) lubed with white spirit, then solvol polish to strop. I did a set of 5 chisels in just a few minutes, and I was astonished actually, the wire edges just peeled off and all 5 were slicing paring sharp very fast, even taking clean slices off crumbly pine end grain. It seemed too good to be true. I suddenly thought this method works WITH the natural motion of a blade moving back and forth over a stone, not against it-raised a little at the back, dropped a little by the time it gets to the front of the pass. No need to agonise about maintaining a human version of a honing guide either. Just the one stone, suddenly there seems to be no real need for a tormek and a set of japanese stones, and all the fiddly maintenance, fragility etc associated with them. Plus I forgot how good it was to hone on a proper solid surface. I mean those jap stones arent cheap and a lot of them seem to end up as wasted dust. Hey maybe my technique with the waterstones was off, but to be fair I gave it a good go, but I want to work wood, not be a pro sharpener.... :idea: The system you and Mr Sellers use is OK as far as I can tell, and I intend to keep working with it, its fast and it delivers the result you want, no fuss sharp edges in a short time.

 

[Cottonwood]

No but it's much the same as Paul Sellers method here.

Except that Seller flattens and mirrors polishes his backs, works through a succession of diamond grits finishing at 9 micron, instead of a single (43 micron - "coarse" in diamond plate jargon) India stone, he uses a different lubricant, and then uses a strop loaded with 0.5 micron paste to mirror polish the bevel.

Apart from that, much the same.

BugBear

According to Mr Seller's video he is using coarse (250) Medium (800) and fine (1200) diamond plates, I think they are eze type?