Simple sharpening from 1900s

[tibi]

Hello,

I have been reading some old public-domain books on woodworking. I have found this section about sharpening in D. Denning's book Art and Craft of Cabinet-Making from 1891.
He talks about using a single stone for honing and applying less and less pressure as the tool becomes sharper, "till, for the last rub or two, it is almost nothing. "

I have never heard of applied pressure having an impact on sharpness in modern sharpening videos or articles. Actually, I have only heard it only once exactly in this video (it is timed to start when Mr.Chickadee is talking about it)


Can someone compare if applying less pressure on the stone is just a poor's man solution (and almost every carpenter was poor in the 18th or 19th century) or if it is an adequate substitute for a finer stone?

 

[Argus]

This text was written before the universal adoption of jigs and things........

Another challenge to all the sharpening aficionados, perhaps a Christmas Spectacular!

 

[Jacob]

Hello,

I have been reading some old public-domain books on woodworking. I have found this section about sharpening in D. Denning's book Art and Craft of Cabinet-Making from 1891.
He talks about using a single stone for honing and applying less and less pressure as the tool becomes sharper, "till, for the last rub or two, it is almost nothing. "

I have never heard of applied pressure having an impact on sharpness in modern sharpening videos or articles. Actually, I have only heard it only once exactly in this video (it is timed to start when Mr.Chickadee is talking about it)


Can someone compare if applying less pressure on the stone is just a poor's man solution (and almost every carpenter was poor in the 18th or 19th century) or if it is an adequate substitute for a finer stone?

View attachment 148734

Sounds like normal sharpening to me. One fine oil stone most of the time. You can speed things up with a coarser stone but he doesn't go into details; it's basic advice for a beginner
The idea of pressure might be a surprise to a jig user as you can't put much force on them - they are clumsy and difficult to use.
But the main thing about freehand is that you can use as much pressure and speed as you can muster, and get the job done much more quickly

 

[tibi]

Sounds like normal sharpening to me. One fine oil stone most of the time. You can speed things up with a coarser stone but he doesn't go into details; it's basic advice for a beginner
The idea of pressure might be a surprise to a jig user as you can't put much force on them - they are clumsy and difficult to use.
But the main thing about freehand is that you can use as much pressure and speed as you can muster, and get the job done much more quickly

That was my original idea Jacob. More pressure equals quicker sharpening. I was puzzled by the idea, that after you get the burr, you can use the same stone for finer honing with less pressure to get a sharper tool.

 

[Jacob]

That was my original idea Jacob. More pressure equals quicker sharpening. I was puzzled by the idea, that after you get the burr, you can use the same stone for finer honing with less pressure to get a sharper tool.

If you've got only one stone that's the one you use.
If you have two then you might finish the burr carefully, on the finer one.
If you have 3 you have too many!

 

[tibi]

Sounds like normal sharpening to me. One fine oil stone most of the time. You can speed things up with a coarser stone but he doesn't go into details; it's basic advice for a beginner
The idea of pressure might be a surprise to a jig user as you can't put much force on them - they are clumsy and difficult to use.
But the main thing about freehand is that you can use as much pressure and speed as you can muster, and get the job done much more quickly

He also talks about (hollow) grinding on the grindstone a paragraph above, so honing is not the first step.

 

[Jacob]

He also talks about (hollow) grinding on the grindstone a paragraph above, so honing is not the first step.

Depends on what you are starting with. If you start with a sharp plane and "hone" a little and often, then you don't need to "grind" for a long time, if ever.
Grinding was most often done with a coarse flat stone, as a wheel is not always available.

 

[Orraloon]

I am in agreement with Jacob. An oilstone and strop is all you need. My dad was a joiner and showed me how to sharpen over 50 years ago and it still works for me. I have had a go at the modern ways and do own a couple of diamond stones and a wet grinder but have always gone back to the oilstone to keep things simple. I dont mind a coarse diamond stone to hurry up the primary bevel but I do wonder what made me buy a wet grinder. Must have been taken in by chat on woodwork forums. I did get it for turning tools but soon found a bog standard bench grinder was way faster for that. On the bit about light touch on the stone its something I just do without thinking about. One of those things that applies to all sorts of pursuits. From catching a trout to playing music to name a couple.
Regards
John

 

[Argus]

If sharpening was done from a circular, larger diameter stone (which may have been the case in non-electric workshops) a distinct concave shape on the bevel was the result.

With broader-width blades the two high points at the tip and the heel could be easily and quickly leveled on a flat stone as a reference.
Less metal in contact on the stone thereby removing less metal at this stage to get a sharp edge. ................An alternative to dropping the hand at the end of the push-stroke to achieve a convex bevel.

Turning gouges, straight from the grind stone, are also concave; a round, inner curve on the bevel is formed that mimics the shape of the wheel.
If you get the angle of the handle and the rub-action right as the work turns, the concave middle of the bevel can then burnish the wood beneath it following the cut.

More than one way of achieving a cutting edge.

.

 

[Jacob]

If sharpening was done from a circular, larger diameter stone (which may have been the case in non-electric workshops) a distinct concave shape on the bevel was the result.

With broader-width blades the two high points at the tip and the heel could be easily and quickly leveled on a flat stone as a reference.

Or just back it off to 25º ish and then hold it at 30º to finish with. Saves a lot of faffing about.

Less metal in contact on the stone thereby removing less metal at this stage to get a sharp edge. ................An alternative to dropping the hand at the end of the push-stroke to achieve a convex bevel.

The idea is not to aim for a convex bevel. It's more to free you from trying to maintain the flat bevel which modern sharpeners are obsessed by. It's faster, easier, and being slightly convex doesn't matter a jot.

 

[baldkev]

Oh hell, sharpening

 

[Argus]

a a aaand....... they're OFF!

 

[Tris]

I'll check back in a week, it'll either be at 150 pages or locked in the padded room

 

[raffo]

You're unlikely to have heard of that technique because current marketing emphasizes buying multiple stones, like the coarse/medium/fine diamond stone setups popular in youtube.

The stone Denning is talking about is the Washita stone, a good coarse Washita will cut fast with extra pressure and less aggressively and finely with less pressure. Keep also in mind that the steel being sharpened is old cast steel that Sheffield was famous for in those times.

If you're in the UK, Washitas seem to be easy to find in what you guys call car boots sales. If you want to experience what it was like to use a Washita, get a hold of a Charnley Forest stone and try to sharpen a worn chisel with it and then go to a Washita.

 

[D_W]

You're unlikely to have heard of that technique because current marketing emphasizes buying multiple stones, like the coarse/medium/fine diamond stone setups popular in youtube.

well, it's off a little from finer sharpening, too, which is better described in earlier texts than 1900, but no more time consuming and since grinding is mentioned here, no more expensive.

Holtzappfel's writings emphasize separating the grinding and sharpening angle, not keeping them close, but do suggest a fine stone. Grinding finely and separating angles allows use of only one fine stone that would cut about as fast as a current 4k grit waterstone (but finer).

 

[D_W]

Can someone compare if applying less pressure on the stone is just a poor's man solution (and almost every carpenter was poor in the 18th or 19th century) or if it is an adequate substitute for a finer stone?

View attachment 148734

it's a compromise, but there is more than just finer edge. you have a burr from heavy pressure. from finer pressure, the burr becomes thinner. too, if an iron has some toughness, you'll have a small amount of deflection, potentially more than just a little if you tip an iron up and really lean on it.

In order to make stropping work better, it's long been practice (both western and japanese) to follow the use of a stone with light pressure back and forth on bevel and back. the better the burr (finer) before you go to stropping, the better the result will be and the less pressure you can use on the strop.

In terms of practical benefit, though, it also depends on the stone and steel hardness. If you're using a washita, this heavy and then light pressure returns a lot. if you're doing it with a 1k waterstone, it doesn't really yield too much benefit because the abrasive is too aggressive (alumina) vs all but very very hard steel.

The good thing is, it's not hard to tell if there's benefit - just apply it. even if you're using two stones, it's good policy (let's say india stone and then fine washita, or other oilstone) to lighten up on the pressure and not leave a drastic burr on an edge (and don't tear off a burr, especially a coarse one - hone it off) to be addressed on the next stone, which may be too slow to clean up after it and definitely won't benefit from a huge burr detaching and then going under the edge. You'll never remove the damage that it creates with a fine stone.

 

[Jacob]

Oh hell, sharpening

Yebbut it's very nippy outside and sharpening warms people up no end!

 

[Yojevol]

If sharpening was done from a circular, larger diameter stone (which may have been the case in non-electric workshops) a distinct concave shape on the bevel was the result.

I seem to remember the large diameter whetstone at my school (pupil powered) was about 2' dia. (metric came in some years later!).
I've just done a little exercise on my trusty CAD package and found that the concavity across a 1/4" bevel would have been 0.0007" ie, less than a thou. Distinct?
Brian

 

[D_W]

I seem to remember the large diameter whetstone at my school (pupil powered) was about 2' dia.( metric came in some years later!).
I've just done a little exercise on my trusty CAD package and found that the concavity across a 1/4" bevel would have been 0.0007" ie, less than a thou. Distinct?
Brian

Such a grind stone is mentioned in old texts. thus the need to separate the grinding and honing angles. the hollow isn't a meaningful hollow, nor is it intended to be.

hotlzappfel goes on to discuss the grinding at a shallower angle and then the precision of honing at a step up angle for softwoods and another for hardwoods.

Hasluck's books followed in the early 1900s. One of the two authors made a comment along the lines of the grinder being more essential than the best of stones, and one of the hardest things to give up in a working shop ( of all things, not just sharpening things).

Hasluck's texts are interesting because they go on at length about how far behind a workman will be if they have a poorly sharpened saw or a convex primary bevel on a tool. The need for efficiency (taken over by machines) was probably very near dead by then, but the text was spot on.

 

[Jacob]

I seem to remember the large diameter whetstone at my school (pupil powered) was about 2' dia.( metric came in some years later!).
I've just done a little exercise on my trusty CAD package and found that the concavity across a 1/4" bevel would have been 0.0007" ie, less than a thou. Distinct?
Brian

My school same sort of stone and size, hand turned with a water bath.
We were strictly banned from using small powered grindstones as these were only for the metal workers who shared the workshop. Could seriously damage a chisel in the wrong hands, not least because they'd end up looking as though nibbled by rats, and blued with over heating.