Japanese waterstones

[Driver]

I see that Timbecon have reduced the price of their "King" brand waterstones and I'm considering buying a couple.

I've been using scary sharp with reasonable results but - having read some of the opinions of you learned gentlemen - I'm sure that I'll get a better result with waterstones.

Does anyone have any experience with the King stones? Are they any good?

Incidentally, what I have in mind is to use scary sharp up to about 1200 grit W&D paper and then switch to 4000 then 6000 grit waterstones. Will this work?

(I'm sharpening plane blades and chisels).

All opinions gratefully received!

Col

[derekcohen]

Col

If you can pick up a few King stones cheaply (about $25 each or there abouts), then they are a good way of experimenting with waterstone sharpening. But I would try and get a 1200, 4000 and 6000 as a minimum (the 1200 will remove steel while the 4000 and 6000 will polish it). Consider that the 4000 is about the same as 1200 grit W&D, and you will understand that SS up to 1200 is unnecessary.

If I were buying waterstones from scratch, I would not buy King (which I have) but get the Shapton stones. I have King stones (800, 1200, 4000, 6000, then move to Veritas green rouge) because that was all that was available in WA when I was looking about 18 months ago. About 12 months ago I nagged Timbercon to buy in stones in 4000 grit, which they did, because the jump from 1200 to 6000 was too great. Now I'm thinking that a 3000 would be a better choice than a 4000, but I don't think that one is made.

Don't get me wrong - the King stones do a good job. But I have heard that there are much better to be bought overseas. Shops like Timbercon and Carba-tec tend to import the cheaper end of the ranges of tools and accessories.

I have not used Shaptons but hear great things about them: easier to use (used almost dry), more durable and faster cutting than King. But you would need to get them from the States and they would be more expensive. The recommended basic set comprises a 1000, 5000 and 8000.

The Here is a link:
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/Merchant/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=toolshop&Product_Code=MS-SHAPPRO.XX&Category_Code=

All waterstones need flattening, the Kings more frequently than the Shaptons. I have had good results flattening Kings on drywall/plasterboard sandpaper (the charcoal mesh), but Shaptons need a diamond stone (which is an additional expense).

The other waterstone to consider, somewhere inbetween the two above, is the Norton, which are sold by Lie Nielson, I believe.

You're welcome to come and try my stones out beforehand.

Regards

Derek

[Wood Borer]

Driver,

I have the same stones as Derek and keep them in the same container as Derek. (I don't leave them in the laundry trough near the door to me shed though!!!!!)

I find them excellent however if there are better ones around at a reasonable price I would purchase them for at least a trial.

I use mine for chisels and plane blades.

I flatten mine with a diamond stone.

Go for it.

- Wood Borer

[Driver]

Derek and WB

Thanks for your - always welcome - advice.

Derek - I'll take you up on that offer to try out your stones before I jump in. I need some practical guidance on sharpening technique anyway. You won't be amazed to learn that I have to be away for a couple of days next week on a wine industry related trip to the Great Southern (tough job but someone's got to do it!) I'll send you a pm or give you a ring when I know more precisely what my movements are.

In any event, you've both made up my mind for me - I'm definitely going to move to waterstones.

Thanks again.

Col

[Vonrek]

Col,
Just another opinion to add to the mix. I have 1200 and 6000 grit King stones and am very happy with both. The 8000 stone was a little too pricy at the time of purchase but the edge obtained with the 6000 and the use of a nagura stone is very, very sharp.
David Finck in his exellent book "Making and mastering Wood Planes" recommends king stones as the best of the man-made bunch and recomends only 2 are needed! These are the 800 and 8000 with nagura.
He uses a hand-cranked grind stone to hollow grind the primary bevel, the 800 to remove manufacturing scatches, flatten the back and develop any slight bow to the blade's edge and the 8000 to polish everything.
David is a pro woodworker who studied under James Krenov (who also wrote the foreward to his book) at the college of the redwoods. His sharpening method is based on producing the sharpest possible edge in the shortest possible time.
Unlike Japanese blades, the plane blades David uses are O1 tool steel, perhpas this simpler (ie. non-laminated), homogenous steel doesn't require the range of grits the more complex and delicate Japanese blades do? He also uses the same method for chisels tho.
David also mentions the fact that at times he will go straight from the grinder to the 8000 grit!! His reasoning is that with a slow grinder there is minimal heat build up allowing one to grind right out to the edge of the tool. This then creates a minute area to be honed on the 8000 grit and as pressure is inversely proportional to surface area, the pressure generated is immense and enough to produce a very fine edge.
It also can't be overstated enough the no matter how good the stone, if the back of the blade is not polished to the same degree as the bevel then the tool will never be truly sharp.
I've also heard very good things about the Shapton stones but from memory the price of them was astronomical.
Good luck with your search.

Cheers
Tim

[Rocker]

I have my doubts whether a very fine stone is worth having at all. I do my honing on a scrap of MDF charged with Veritas green honing compound ($19.50 from Carbatec, but only US$6.50 direct from Lee Valley). I find I can rapidly get a beautiful mirror finish on chisels and plane irons using the MDF.

Rocker

[derekcohen]

Tim and Rocker

There is a good reason why you need several sharpening stones, from 800 - 6000 (at least) and not just two (say 800 and 8000). The reason is the same for using sandpaper.

A question for you: in sanding a piece of timber, would you sand with 80 grit then go directly to 600 grit W&D?

I'm sure that you would say, "Of course not. You would not remove the scratches from the 80 grit". And you'd be right.

Sharpening blades is no different. By definition a sharp edge is created when two angles come together (for the purposes of this argument we will ignore the angles degrees). This also means that the sides (that come together) are FLAT. This is the reason we BEGIN the sharpening process by flattening the back of a chisel. No back bevels please Rocker (we had this conversation before).

This means that edges must be without ridges or scratches. Have a look at the blade under a decent magnifying glass (do you sharpen without one?). It is possible to get a bright and chrome-like shine on steel and still have a poorly sharpened EDGE because of the multitude of scratched that still remain.

This is the achilles heal of the Tormek. It goes from 225 to 1000 grit. Not sharp enough and toom many scratches. If you think it is sharp, then you don't know sharp.

I asked a question some time ago (yes, I know I am repeating myself) why a truly sharp blade (6000) feels less sharp to the finger tip than a semi-sharp blade (1000). The answer is at 6000 and plus you don't feel the ridges.

You do not sharpen kitchen knives on smooth stones since you want a slightly rough feel as these knives are designed to tear. But surgical and woodworking blades are different.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[silentC]

Surely an edge polished at 8000 grit would look the same under a suitable factor of magnification as an edge polished at 1000? I'd have thought that the nature of the cutting edge would be the same - that the actual business end is jagged and it is this quality that makes it cut. In that respect, does it work any differently to a knife?

If you could zoom in on what appears under a magnifying glass to be a smoothly polished surface, it would quickly take on a very rough and random appearance. There are still scratches, they are just too small to see. Even if you religiously follow a process, the scratches must still be there, spaced at intervals of roughly the square root of 8000 per inch.

The grits that people use are surely arbitrary and subject to the available technology. If you could sharpen to 50000, would it be noticeably sharper than 8000? There must be a point at which the edge becomes as efficient for cutting wood as it is ever going to be.

I just wonder at what point the edge becomes 'sharp enough'?People talk about tearing vs. slicing but at a microscopic level, is there any difference between the two terms? Perhaps it is the point at which the width of the crevices in the cutting edge are some factor of the diameter of the wood fibres that are being cut.

This is just me playing devil's advocate because I certainly don't know enough about the physics of sharpening to have an answer.

[derekcohen]

SC

Here is a little experiment for you!

Begin by sharpening your favourite chisel to 1000 grit (waterstone), or equivalent SS (around 360 W & D?). Then try and take a shaving, by paring, a piece of END GRAIN pine.

Now sharpen the chisel to 6000 (throught the grits - around 2000 W&D ?), and pare the pine end grain again.

Let us know what you find.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[silentC]

Sure, I take your point there - 6000 is probably going to be noticeably sharper than 1000 - but can you say the same for 6000 done 'properly' vs. 8000 done the easy way? At least, would the difference be on the same order of magnitude?

I guess the only way to prove it is to try it as you suggest but I can't afford to invest in a heap of stones to find which way is best.

BTW I used a (Stanley!!) chisel sharpened on an oilstone to pare 45 deg. mitres on a piece of blackbutt using a guide and was able to take transparent shavings, so I guess it was sharp enough. The main problem I noticed was that the edge dulled fairly quickly - perhaps this is the real advantage of what you call 'truly sharp'?

[derekcohen]

SC

Re:
the edge dulled fairly quickly

I do think that this is one of the consequences of a poorly sharpened blade (which is made more difficult when the steel is soft as well and does not have the ability to retain the edge it has been given).

I have had the experience on many occasions when busy planing wood with a handplane that I can still keep going with a slightly blunt blade (perhaps "bluntness" is a point of relativity?). It is harder going but it works. I just have to push more firmly. By contrast, I have also managed to cut well with a plane and blade that is brand new and only factory sharpened (no flattening of the blade, no 6000 grit, no honing). For example, the Mujingfang planes I bought not so long ago. They sliced the timber very easily straight out of the box. BUT the cut surface was quite rough to the touch (by comparison to a prepared smoother). Once the blade was sharpened and honed, etc, it left a glass-like surface behind.

Clearly a smooth surface is going to encounter less resistance/friction than a rough surface, and this will equate to longer life. Yes, heat build up also shortens blade sharpness.

Is there a cut off point when sharpening? I guess the law of diminishing returns applies. Look, at my level of woodwork (the typical weekend warrior) I would not notice many of the flaws so obvious to someone more experienced. I stop at 6000 and hone with Veritas green crayon. But there are some that sharpen to 12000 and more! Yes, really.

Can you get away with a less sharp chisel? Sure. Would you notice it? Probably not if you weren't exposed to a higher level of sharpness. And if you did relatively little hand work (we should hear from the Carvers and Turners in our midst).

Is there really such a difference between 1000 and 6000 (do my experiment and find out!)? I do listen to guys who I believe know what's what. My limited experience tends to back them up.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[craigb]

I recently purchased The Technique of Furniture Making by Ernest Joyce, which is apparently considered something of a "bible".

Just thought I'd throw into the debate what he has to say about water stones.

"Over the past few years a growing number of craftsmen in Britain and the USA have swung over to using inexpensive Japanese water stones. These are only available from specialist tool suppliers and due to their extreme softness are unsuitable for the novice or school use. However, used with care, they cut fast, produce a near perfect edge, and avoid the use of messy oil.

Even their softenss in the hands of a craftsman is an advantage as they can so easily be trued up by surfacing with a new coarse, but cheap, carborundum stone, thereby ensuring that one is constantly using a perfectly flat stone.

They are available in several grits; the writer manages perfectly with two only: 1200 and 1600"


Craig

[derekcohen]

Craig

Just to correct what is probably a typo. It is possible to use just two waterstones, certainly a 1200 (mildly coarse stone) but not a 1600 as well. I have never heard of a 1600, and a grit at this level would not polish a stone. You need at least 3-4000 to do that. I assume that you meant to type 6000.

I used to go from 1200 to 6000 but added a 4000 as it required too much effort to remove the scratches after a 1200.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Rocker]

Derek,

My point was that I sharpen with diamond stones to 1200, and then polish with honing compound on MDF. I am not sure what grit the honing compond is, but it seems to produce a mirror finish quite quickly, so I suppose it must be grinding the steel away fairly aggressively, and presumably eliminating most of the scratches as it does so. This results in an edge that is plenty sharp enough for my purposes.

I never work with pine, so it is of no consequence whether I can pare pine end-grain. I can plane curly jarrah with minimal tear-out. No doubt I could get a marginal improvement by going through the grits to 6000, but I am doubtful whether it would really be worthwhile to take the time, trouble, and expense to achieve optimal sharpness. I suppose it all depends on your philosophy of woodworking.

Rocker

[derekcohen]

Rocker

You are probably sharpening your chisels very well. A couple of points.

The thing about diamond stones is that they cut aggressively when new, during which time their peaks are worn off, and after that they actually cut finer. I have a "fine" diamond stone (equivalent to 600 grit W&D) that will also put a shine on metal. I suspect that your 1200 diamond stone (probably equivalent to a 6000 waterstone) may be polishing a little better than this. Add the green Veritas rouge (I assume this is what you refer to as honing compound, but the other brands are much the same) and the grit factor is in the order of 9000 waterstone! That is sharp!!

The rouge (and the higher grits) do not, however, "(grind) the steel away fairly aggressively". All they do is polish what is already flat.

The business with the pine end grain is something I explained at another time but not here, so it appears to be misunderstood. The test is to slice pine end grain. And this is very difficult unless the blade is very sharp since the softwood strands will just bend and be crushed by the average blade. Try it and see for yourself. Paring hardwood end grain is, by comparison, relatively easy since the strands remain stiff and upright.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Rocker]

Derek,

Since my last post, I have done what I should have done earlier, consulted Nick Engler's book 'Sharpening' in the Workshop Companion series. As you are aware, but some of the rest of us either never knew, or had forgotten, there is a big difference between the Japanese and the American grit systems. Apparently, 8000 grit, in the Japanese system is equivalent to 1200 in the American system. So a very fine diamond stone (1200 grit in the American system) is equivalent to the finest Japanese water stone (8000 in the Japanese system). So, as you say, my sharpening system, of 600 then 1200 diamond stones, followed by honing with the Veritas honing compound, which has a 0.5 micron particle size, according to Lee Valley's catalogue, may, after all be producing a close-to-optimally sharp edge.

Rocker

[Driver]

Jeez, I'm glad I started this thread! It's brought all the thinkers out in the open. Even Tim - who doesn't make himself heard anything like enough (although you're always worth listening to, mate - I wasn't having a shot!)

Keep it up, fellas. The rest of us are learning heaps!

Col

[bitingmidge]

While we are at it, I am sure I have seen reference to "Nagura Stone" casually tosssed in to this thread for good measure.



but the edge obtained with the 6000 and the use of a nagura stone is very, very sharp.



Now I understand that a nagura stone is used to create a slurry on the finer waterstones, but what is it?

I haven't seen one in a shop, will any old river gibber do the trick?

Cheers,

P

[silentC]

In his post above, Tim refers to David Finck and states that "his sharpening method is based on producing the sharpest possible edge in the shortest possible time."

That's what I'm looking for. I want to spend more time cutting and less time sharpening, so there has to be a happy medium.

I've got a grey wheel grinder and a double sided oilstone. I grind rarely and touch up on the oilstone - a few seconds on the coarse and a few seconds on the fine - frequently. The edge is sharp enough for what I do but it doesn't last. The quality of my chisels is no doubt a factor but I'm hoping that by replacing the grey wheel with a white one and by replacing the oilstone with a couple of waterstones, I can get better results using the same process that I do now.

[craigb]

Derek,


Just to correct what is probably a typo

Could be a typo Derek but it's Joyce's if it is.
That's what it says in the book. I've never heard of 1600 grit either but then I don't know much about water stones.

Does a 2000 exist?
Can you list for my enlightment the range of grits that you are aware of?
I know there's an 800 as I've seen it at Carba-tec.

Cheers
Craig

[derekcohen]

Craig

FRom Carba-tec I obtained a 800, 1200 and 6000. They also have an 8000 in stock. I obtained a 4000 from Timbecon.

It is possible to get stones with rougher and finer grits, but they are not available in Oz as far as I am aware. I would like a 350.

I'm sure the 1600 is a typo but I've not read this book.

I certainly agree about sharpening as quickly as possible. That's why I once considered a Tormek (as discarded the idea after research). It's why I now sharpen free hand and not waste time with a sharpening guide (unless setting or correcting the bevel). And it is why most use a hollow grind on blades and chisels since you have less to sharpen (but this does not work on Japanese blades or specialist chisels, like mortice chisels).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[silentC]

Took delivery of a 1200 grit King brand stone from Timbecon today, along with a cheap honing guide. They're a special deal at the moment for $23.80 the pair.

[Larry M]

Guys

After following this thread I've also purchased a couple of waterstones. Do you store your waterstones immersed in water or soak them just before use?

Regards

Larry

[derekcohen]

Larry

The 800 and 1200 live submerged in water. The 4000 and 6000 are run under a tap and kept moist (not wet) about 15 - 30 minutes before use, otherwise stored dry.

Make sure that they are flat before use.

Let us know how you get on with them.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Larry M]

Derek

Thanks. So many new things to learn and play with, so little time to actually use them to produce something.

Partially your fault, I regret to say. I am suffering the early onset of a mild case of 'Derekitis'. I just bought my third plane, not because I needed it but because I wanted it. Oh the shame of it all. I already had a Falcon #5 that belonged to my Father and a 'handyman' Stanley #4. Then I saw this old Record #4 in a secondhand shop and just had to have it. So I'm spending my time cleaning it up. That's three planes in bits ready to sharpen 'properly' and put back together.

Larry

[derekcohen]

Larry

Thanks for that. I do love to stir things up a little. And it is thrilling when others experience the same excitement and pleasure that I do.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Ben from Vic.]

My sharpening process is as follows...

1. Out to the road and look for the flatest piece of black-top you can find. Use this to obtain the correct angle, and flatten the back of the iron (watch out for cars).

2. Move onto the footpath next, be sure to remove all the scratches from the road (watch out for the postie).

3. I will usually follow this up with a garden paver, or a besser brick. You shouldn't need to spend to long here, just a few swipes.

4. Step four is a standard domestic clinker brick, the red or brown are best.

5. If I'm after a really sharp edge for hard timbers, I'll follow up the first four steps with the back of an un-glazed dinner plate. I'll sometimes add a drop of oil, just to make it that much more special.

6. For finnal honing, I'll run the tap over the sharp edge at a really acute angle, the mild abrasive nature of the water will put lovely shine on you edge (it worked on the Grand Canyon).

Do not test this edge on your arm hair!!


Ben.


Did someone say 'tongue in cheek'?

[bitingmidge]

Meanwhile in the background a small squeaky voice says...what IS a nagura stone?

Cheers,

P

[derekcohen]

Ben (from Vic)

That's some procedure. Too many sharpening steps for me however. I don't have the patience to go down the footpath (even if you are you leading me down it). What grit is your dinner plate? Do you do this freehand or with a guide? In circles? And what do you lubricate it with, domestic or imported water? Enquiring minds want to know these things.

Bitingmidge

A nagura stone is used to create a slurry (of grit) on the waterstone. This aids in the sharpening process.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[bitingmidge]

Derek,

Many thanks..as I figured, but will any old stone do, or is it the old $50 touch at the toolshop?

Cheers,

P

[derekcohen]

P

A Nagura stone should run to a whopping $10 or so, perhaps less. Actually, you could probably get away with using an old diamond stone (I do this at times) since what you are just doing is sanding the top surface of waterstone.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Vonrek]

Disagreeing with someone in writing is difficult at times as it can be harder to express tone and easier to offend. I am in no way offended here, just wanted to say that so my post is taken in the tone of friendly discussion with the aim of sharing knowledge and ideas and not as a rebuke of what others have said.

I would certainly bnot class myself as an expert, in fact i have really just regurgitated what someone else has said. I do regard that someone else as an expert tho'. David Finck simply suggests that with the speed of metal removal with water stones, the intermediate steps are redundant. Once an edge has been shaped to the desired straight or slightly arced profile, sharpeing aims to refine the scratches in the metal to as small as possible within practical limitations. Someone asked where to stop, theoretically i would guess that the finest possible edge would be that obtained when the sharpening device used had a grit size as small as the smallest possible particle that could be mechanically removed. Certainly, very sharp edges still look quite rough when viewed with very powerful magnification.
From a "macroscopic" point of view a plane iron/chisel, surface ground at the factory will have quite deep scratches. When sharpeing commences, the ridges of these scratches whould form the riding surface of the iron and be in contact with the sharp points of the sharpening surface be it a stone, diamond plate or sandpaper. The effect of the sharpeing medium is to erode these deeper scratches until the depth of the scratch is equal to the average height that the sharpening particles protrude above the surface of the stone. The speed that the metal is removed is likely to be reliant on a number of factors. The sharpness and size of the particles, the pressure generated between the edge/surface and the stone, the speed at which the tool is moved in relation to the stone or vice-versa and the rate at which the particle become blunt and/or are replaced with fresh, sharp particles.
The friable bond of Japanese water stones and the high pressure genrated between a very fine edge and the stone mean that water stones are capable of removing steel very quickly.
As one moves through the grit sizes, the scratches become progressively finer until they are so fine that the light hitting them is no longer reflected all over the place within the "valleys" but of the scratches but reflected uniformly back producing a mirror effect. Moving from an 800 grit stone to a 1200 grit stone means that the depth of the scratches is reduced to the depth of the smaller 1200 grit particle size, moving to the 400 grit stone likewise further reduces the depth of the scratches until the 6000/8000/honing compound leaves the surface with very very fine scratches and the mirror surface desired.
All of these stages remove steel, they have to in order to refine the edge/surface further and produce progressively finer scratch patterns. Veritas boast and actually warn that their green compound removes metal very quickly and to be careful if using it to polish softer metals like brass. The amount of metal removed at the polishing stage may be small but it is the most important as it produces the finest scratch pattern and what we term a sharp tool.
Finck simply proposes that because of the fast cutting action of water stones and the benefits of a hollow ground bevel, one can move directly from the 800 stone to the 8000 stone as the 8000 stone cuts quickly enough to lessen the depth of the 800 grit scratches to the very fine 8000 grit scratches in very little time. Whether one has used intermediate stones is therfore irrelevant as the finer grit stones should remove all traces of the deeper scratches left by the earlier stones.
One can not skip through the grades when sanding wood because the grit particles bonded to the paper dull relatively quickly and also fall off not to be replaced. 400 sandpaper would start to erode the scratches left by 80 grit paper but would quickly clog and become blunt. If the sandpaper however had grit that was replaced as it fell off or blunted i would argue that one could jump the stages for the reaons mentioned above. Sanding wood is also a little different as the difference in abrasive particle size between the grits is much greater, it would therefore take a lot longer to erode the very deep 80 or 100 grit ridges with finer grit paper.
Finck also proposes that the lesser time spent at the stones decreases the likelihood of errors creeping into the sharpeing process, ie the bevel becoming rounded. Interestingly enough, Toshio Odate describes finishing japanese plane blades with feathering strokes which involve rolling the bevel on the finish stone to create the slightest degree of rounding!! This he states increases the strength of the final edge, perhpas an important step when dealing with the very brittle steel forming the edge of Japanese plane blades.
This dichotomy strikes me as perhaps arising from the fact that japanese water stones have been used out of their normal context in the west. I heard westerners complain that dozuki's and ryoba's are difficult to use but japanese shokunin rarely work at a bench, preferring low horses and a seated position. Likewise japanese planes are normally used on planing beams which angle downwards quite sharply. Japanese shokunin sharpen their blades with a flat bevel and view the hollow grind very undesireable. It is only recently too that the average Japanese has bcome interested in home woodworking if i am to believe what i read. Prior to this only very skilled craftsmen used these tools and they had gone through a very arduous and long apprenticship.
The Japanese shokunin also have a very unique relationship with thier tools. Not many westerners have written about the "spirit" of woodworking tools and it is considered very rude to just look into another shokunin's tool box let alone handle one of his tools. The wide range of grits available in waterstones perhaps is not a reflection of the process necessary to sharpen a blade well but a refelection on the culture and attitudes Japanese craftsmen have towards their lives and professions.

I think this has become quite a long post, but thats what happens with a little bit of encouragement!!

Happy sharpening, whatever your methods

Tim

[bitingmidge]

Derek,

Thanks for the info, I was going to try a kidney stone to save a bit of money, but looks like it's off to the shop one more time! (sigh!)

Cheers,

P

[derekcohen]

Hi Tim

Thanks for continuing the debate. From my side there is absolutely no need to feel concerned that you may offend because you disagree. The only thing that is offensive is that we aren't doing this over a couple of beers. I love these discussions, which can only take place because we have differing views about some points. Frankly, most of the points you raise are my view as well. Such as the "spirit" of woodworking tools. For myself (and I know that I speak for others with similar feelings) woodworking with handtools is not just about creating objects; it is about connecting with history and revisiting and sustaining the values of a bygone era. In this regard it has a semi-spiritual nature.

I really have not read Finck, and he may have forgotten more about woodworking than I will ever learn, But there are fundamental issues here that logically I cannot accept. For example, that a 8000 waterstone can both cut aggressively and do so by minute steps. If this was so, then why do we even bother with a 1200 stone? Likewise about the Veritas green rouge. I use this a lot. Have you ever tried to sharpen a blade using it exclusively? I guess you could if you had enough time, but I really don't want to make my life's work sharpening just one blade! Polishing is different from grinding, although both involve a degree of cutting.

I guess that it is possible to go from a 800 to a 8000 waterstone if the surface area for sharpening is very small. This would necessitate that you are sharpening blades that are hollow ground. Still, you would have to do a whole lot of unnecessary sharpening with the 8000 to remove the grinds of the 800 grits. Certainly, this is not an option on Japanese blades, which must be ground flat.

I must stop at this point. Time for my medication.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Rocker]

Tim,

Your cogent description of the process and philosophy of sharpening coincides pretty much with my own, which is that we need only be concerned with producing a mirror finish on the flat back of the blade within a few millimetres of the edge, and on a narrow (less than 1.5 mm wide) micro-bevel. The primary bevel does not come in contact with the workpiece, so its surface can be relatively rough, and it can be produced by any method that will remove metal quickly, so long as it does not adversely affect the temper of the blade.

I find that, so long as the micro-bevel is kept narrow, its honing to a mirror finish on fine (600) and very fine (1200) diamond stones and finally on MDF charged with Veritas green honing compound is very rapid - probably not more than two or three minutes in all.

I like to keep the process of sharpening quick and simple, so I avoid Japanese waterstones, with their need to be repeatedly flattened. I confess also to lacking any spiritual affinity with my tools. Although I am in awe of the fine results that craftsmen of previous eras were able to produce with primitive tools and methods, I do not feel any obligation to keep those tools and methods alive, if more efficient modern ones exist.

Rocker

[derekcohen]

Rocker

I hope that I am not misunderstanding you, but when you say "we need only be concerned with producing a mirror finish on the flat back of the blade within a few millimetres of the edge" am I to take you literally? Are you saying that it is unnecessary to flatten the back of an entire blade, or just only flatten a tiny section, and are you referring to a chisel or are you referring to a plane blade, or both?

Butt chisels (the common work chisel) must have flat backs. They simply will not pare accurately without a flat back. This area is equivalent to the fence of a tablesaw.

While the backs of Japanese chisels have a hollow, they are still flat.

While all chisels require a flat back, not all require a flat primary bevel. Unfortunately Japanese chisels do, and the necessity of sharpening through the various grits is more of an issue here. For non-laminated blades one can reduce surface area with a hollow grind. But I don't think that this is what you are referring to.

I think that you are referring to sharpening a secondary bevel on a flat grind and treating this as if it were the main area for sharpening. In theory I do not have an issue here, but it is important to decide beforehand at what angle the primary and secondary bevels will be ground. As I'm sure you are aware, there is a difference in the slicing action produced by a steep vs shallow bevel.

I am curious what angles you use, or whether you see this to be relevant at all?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Eastie]

Derek,
As per rockers post above I flatten the entire back of my bevel edge chisels through to about a 2000 waterstone (Norton) and then polish the first inch of the back of the blade only – I see no point in polishing the whole back. Sure material is being removed and perhaps under a microscope the back of the blade would no longer be ‘flat’, but I find no difference in use and no one looks at my work under a microscope. As for the primary bevel I go for 25 degrees on my sandvik chisels and 30 on my ugly ones – again I only go through to the 4000 waterstone. For a polished micro bevel I use a 8000 waterstone @ 26 degrees for the sandvik’s and 31 for the others. The most important thing is I find this works for me :)

Best wishes,
Mark

[derekcohen]

Mark

I meant to say what I do, but forgot. With all my chisels, Japanese and Western, I flatten the backs completely. 4000 is enough. And as you do, I only maximum polish the area around the bevel, probably about 2"/50mm worth. This does not take extra effort since it is being done each time I remove the wire edge. So gradually the polished area creeps up the blade.

Sharpening a bevel is dependent on the type of blade. My run-of-the mill chisels are hollow ground at 25 degrees, my Japanese are flat ground at 30 degrees, and my Witherbys are flatground at 25 degrees. They all have a different use.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Rocker]

Derek,

I agree that the back of a chisel needs to be reasonably flat, but, like Eastie, I only attempt to polish the few millimetres of the back of the blade nearest to the edge. I am afraid I only have a set of six Marples blue chisels. They need fairly frequent sharpening, but they work for me.

I sharpen the blade of my Veritas #5 1/4W plane with the angles shown in the attached diagam (the back-bevel angle is exaggerated for clarity). I contend that the only parts of the blade that needs to be polished to a mirror finish are those within the critical zone. The remainder of the blade's back will be covered by the chip breaker, and the primary bevel will not come into contact with the wood being planed. The Veritas instruction book suggests that the back-bevel angle can be increased to as much as 15 degrees, but I have not done this with my blade.

Rocker

[derekcohen]

Rocker

Great graphic. I have no argument with your shapening of plane blades like this. I think that we may have been discussing things a little at cross purposes, viz plane vs chisel blades, which caused some confusion for me. I see you use a 5 degree back bevel on your Veritas. This should be a more suitable set up for hardwood than softwood. Have you used the plane on both, and what is your finding?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Rocker]

Derek,

No; my back-bevel is only 0.5 degrees, so I do get some tear-out when planing curly jarrah. Probably I should get a spare blade and give it a 15-degree back bevel, for use on difficult grain. The Veritas instruction book says that you can increase the back-bevel to as much as 20 degrees, which yields a cutting angle of 65 degrees; apparently this should virtually eliminate tear-out, but it significantly increases the amount of force that you need to apply to drive the plane forward.

By the way, the graphic in my previous post was done using AutoSketch, which you can get from Amazon for US$95.

Rocker

[derekcohen]

Rocker

A second blade, one back beveled, is a good idea. But I would not go greater than 10 degrees (which would give you a cutting angle of 55 degrees). A couple of years ago I built an infill plane and used a 1/8" LN blade (which would be similar to your Veritas blade) plus a thick chipbreaker and set it at 55 degrees. It has a very small mouth (.002") and produces the best finish of all my planes, including the HNT Gordons, on wild Jarrah grain. I don't use it for much else as it is only a finish smoother (and slow).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Vonrek]

If this was so, then why do we even bother with a 1200 stone?

Hi derek,
The answer to your above question is you don't (if you're a Finckite!). I would contend that because the veritas green rouge doesn't have the unique nature of the water stones, that is, their ability to constanly expose new, sharp particles, it will not cut as fast as the 8000 grit stone and not be suitable for the final sharpening from the 800 stone.

Are the scratches left from a 800 grit stone really that deep? I guesss that's the real issue. Finck would maintain that they are not and therefore able to be refined with a 8000 grit stone immediately. Even if one were to use a 1200 grit stone, how much more does this refine the scratch pattern? The step between 800-8000 compared with 1200-8000 surely can't be too dramatically different (I guess this is why you use a 4000 stone in between!!!).

Hi Rocker, how do you produce your back bevel? David Charlseworth has described a method of using a very thin steel ruler attached to a 8000 grit stone with "suction/surface tension" which acts as a "tool rest" to enable a small flat to be mirror polished on the back of a blade. He contends that this method produces a back bevel literally too small to measure but allows him to produce the all important mirror shine where it is needed, without the difficulty of overcoming the friction/suction of polishing the entire back of a plane iron on a water stone. He never uses this methods on chisels though, describing instead a minute hollow grind lengthwise along the chisel whcih allows only the tip and base of the chisel to be polished at the 8000 grit stage (he is talking about Japanese chisels too).
I have tried the "ruler trick" as Charlseworth calls it but he maintains that it does not alter the planing action of his planes at all, as opposed to a purposeful back bevel aimed at dealing with curly grained woods.

I'm finding this discussion very interesting and quite enjoyable. If i'm ever in Pertch Derek, we will take it up over a beer!!

Cheers
Tim

[Rocker]

Tim,

I use the same method as you for the 0.5-degree back-bevel; like you, I got it from David Charlesworth's book.

Derek,

I will take your advice and use a 10-degree back-bevel on my spare plane blade, when I get one for use on curly grain.

Rocker

[derekcohen]

Are the scratches left from a 800 grit stone really that deep? Finck would maintain that they are not ...

Tim

I cannot stop myself from responding to this question/comment, so do take my reply as one from a Devil's Advocate, just a little provocative shall we say.

It is my understanding that coarse grits are larger in diameter than fine grits. This means that they extend further in three dimensions. What you (or Finck) are suggesting is that an 800 grit (and other grits for that matter) is (are) two-dimensional, that is, it extends in the horizontal and not the vertical! This is the only way in which you cannot get a deep scratch. If so, how on Earth does the waterstone sharpen?

Of course my logic may be way out.:)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Vonrek]

Derek, there is nothing wrong with your logic. The marks left by a 800 grit stone have to be as deep as they are wide. The theory behind the Finck method is simply that the 8000 grit is able to quickly enough erode the ridges formed by the 800 stone to the much finer (and less deep) 8000 ridges to enable the intermeddiate steps to be skipped.

This method has some precedent too. Krenov describes moving immediately from a hand spun grinder to a relatively fine stone before final finishing on fine arkansas. Finck studied under Krenov so it is no suprise that he may have picked up on his philosophies, just updating them to the now more readily available water stones.

I'll guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point until we can get together and have a "hone off" !!!

In the mean time, make sure you keep your wrist locked as you labouriously move through all those grit changes so your bevels don't get rounded LOL:D LOL.

Cheers
Tim

[Mik]

Hi from all at Mik International!

We find some of our customers don't know how to sharpen simply and effectively, and/or think it is a difficult and daunting art.

In fact it's not difficult when you know how, and its not complicated either, so we put together a kit of everything you need, including the Japanese Water Stones, to sharpen your flat bladed tools. Lately we have been calling it the Mik Deluxe Sharpening Kit. We also wrote a step by step tutorial and include it with the kit. With the kit anyone can produce a mirror polished edge that will shave the loose hairs off your arm.

We have been demonstrating the kit for years at wood shows and its a very popular demo and the kits sell well.

You can find it on page 51 of our catalogue, or under 'Sharpening Aids' in our web site.

Hope this helps.

[gatiep]

Hey Mik,
Why would you want to shave off the loose hairs off your arm.....just wipe them off mate.... theyre allready loose......
Enjoy the long weekend. Happy Easter
Cya
Joe

[Rocker]

Just received my latest consignment of goodies from Lee Valley, including a Veritas standard block plane, and a spare blade for my Veritas #5 1/4W bench plane. I got the spare blade so that I could have a blade with a back-bevel for planing wild-grained jarrah. I honed the blade and gave it a 15-degree back-bevel, which, in addition to the 45-degree frog angle of the #5 1/4W, yielded an effective cutting angle of 60 degrees (see the diagram in my post #39). The back-bevel is only about half a millimetre wide, but makes a huge difference to the effectiveness of the plane for planing difficult grain. Whereas, with a 45-degree cutting angle, I was getting severe tear-out when planing wild-grained jarrah, with the 60-degree cutting angle yielded by the back-bevel, tear-out was eliminated.

Incidentally the Veritas standard block plane is a beauty; at 820 grams, it is about twice the weight of the LN low-angle block plane; and it is very comfortable to use. It can easily cut a shaving only 0.02 mm thick.

Rocker

[Ben from Vic.]

Rocker.

I've been toying with the idea of a back bevel for a while, using a two blade system like you.

My question is, how does the BB blade go in everyday use?

Noting that HNT Gordon blades are set at 60 deg' I've been considering adding a BB to the only blade I have for my 4.5, with the idea of leaving there permanantly (I am aware of how much work it would be to remove it).

I have thought about LN's high angle frog, but it would cost at least $160 and only adds 5 deg' (new blade is about $100).

We add a BB when working difficult grain timber, but isn't that just about all of the more popular Aussie timbers (in one way or another)?

Please consider.

Ben.

[Rocker]

Ben,
I don't see any disadvantage in your using a back-bevel to raise your plane's cutting angle to 60 degrees for everyday use, apart from the probability that you would need to sharpen it more often than you would with a lower cutting angle. However, since you are just honing two very narrow bevels, the micro-bevel and the back-bevel, I don't think this is going to entail much work. Although the plane is slightly harder to push with the higher cutting angle, this is scarcely noticeable so long as the blade is really sharp. In fact I am considering leaving the blade with the back bevel in my plane semi-permanently, and just keeping the other blade as a backup.

Rocker

[derekcohen]

Ben asked

how does the BB blade go in everyday use?

and Rocker answered

don't see any disadvantage in your using a back-bevel to raise your plane's cutting angle to 60 degrees for everyday use, apart from the probability that you would need to sharpen it more often than you would with a lower cutting angle.

Ben, Rocker has essentially given you a correct answer. However, the question you ask is inappropriate.

The purpose of a back bevel is to raise the cutting angle of the plane's blade, here to 60 degrees (but one could just as easily raise it between 50 - 60 degrees). Now this is not to simply provide an improved cut (because it may not do so). The reason why we use a 60 degree cutting angle is so that we reduce the chance of tear-out when cutting difficult grain, as is typical of our Aussie hardwoods (like Jarrah). The higher the cutting angle, the greater the scraping action. Indeed, I would not use a 60 degree blade on softwood (like pine) as the finish is likely to be poorer. Softwoods, and other timbers with nice straight, predictable grain will benefit from a lower cutting angle, which is what the original Stanley planes (with 45 degree cutting angles) were designed for.

The fact that the HNT Gordon planes can get such a good finish on softwoods as well is more a testiment to their good design and, in particular, the plane's very small mouth.

Rocker is correct when he identifies that a higher blade angle will require a greater force to push the plane. This is because, as the cutting angle gets higher, so the plane increasingly begins to resemble a scraper. Keep in mind that you do not use scrapers on softwoods - they will just tear. Hence a high angle blade on pine is generally not a good idea (unless you have a very sharp blade indeed).

At the other end of the spectrum (just to illustrate this process another way), you want to plane end grain with the lowest possible cutting angle (say 20 degrees). Here, the grain is near-vertical.

So it is "horses for courses". There is no such thing as "everyday use" - unless all you plane is Jarrah or similar!!! :) Stick to a standard 45 degree cutting angle if you plan to work with softwoods.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[derekcohen]

Just received my latest consignment of goodies from Lee Valley, including a Veritas standard block plane, and a spare blade for my Veritas #5 1/4W bench plane.

Oooh, Rocker!!! I'm afraid that this is the first step down the Slippery Slope for you! Oh, yessss!! :D :D :D

I can just see it now. Soon you'll be trading in your electric 'tailed router for a Stanley #71. That digital vernier caliper will make way for the finger test (does it feel about right, more or less, give or take, close enough). The biscuit cutter will be ousted by a Stanley #59 doweling jig. And dovetails, oh YES, they will only be done by hand.

Just think of all the new tools you will soon be buying - tenon saw, dovetail saw ........... :D :D :D

Well done with the black plane and blades.

Best regards from Perth

Derek

[Rocker]

Derek,

I am afraid this is beginning to get a bit off-topic; but I have actually been known to cut dovetails by hand, although I will admit to owning a Leigh jig. Here are some compound-angled ones I did last year:)

Rocker

[Rob Lee]

Hi Rocker, and thanks for the order!

While I can't claim to have a lot of experience with the wild grained and abrasive woods you have down there, I may be able to contribute a bit on the mechanics side...

Much of what Derek has said above is good information - but I'd clarify/add to it as follows....

What you're after by adding a back-bevel (bevel down plane), or increasing the bevel on a bevel up plane, is a change in the wood chip formation. For a given species of wood, there is a change to type-II chip formation at higher anges (say 55-60 degrees and up) from type-I. It's type-I chips which exhibit tear-out the most...

Some users have reported that using a Low-angle plane with a very narrow mouth opening also reduces tear-out, but this is really a case of the narrow mouth limiting the extent of tear-out, rather than changing the chip type.

Note too that if you use a plane skewed, you essentially reduce the effective blade angle as well...

One of the best ways to sort through a lot of this, is to have a willingness to experiment a bit with which angles work best with your planes, your technique, and the woods you typically use. While there isn't a definitively correct answer - 55 degrees plus for difficult grain is a good starting point!

Cheers -

Rob Lee

[Ben from Vic.]

My thinking is this, choosing a blade angle is always going to be a compromise.
As the blade can only be set at one angle, the user would be best to set it at the middle of the range of timbers he (she) is most likley to work with. 45 was the angle chosen as the best angle for soft to medium, straight grain timbers, with occasional hard timbers.
If you were to work exclusivly in pine (or softer timbers), you may even benifit from lowering the angle to 35 - 30 (I may be wrong here ;) ).

I rarely use anything softer than Blackwood, and Vic Ash and Tas Myrtle are my 'medium' range, so I'd likley benifit from raising my angle a little.

I have it in mind to start with a 5 deg' BB and see how I go. If all works out well, I may go up again.

What are you thoughts?



Now this is not to simply provide an improved cut (because it may not do so)
Derek

Derek, I presume that the finish quality (on harder timbers) wouldn't be reduced by increasing the angle (adding BB)?

Ben.

[derekcohen]

Ben

As I mentioned earlier, and repeated by Rob Lee, finish quality is more a function of the size of the plane's mouth than cutting angle. Basically, the smaller/narrower the mouth, the thinner the shaving permitted. Of course it helps to have a nice, thick blade (at least 1/8" plus solid chipbreaker) to reduce any possible chatter on tough timber. My HNT Gordon smoother (1/4" thick blade) cuts wonderfully, but my home built infill smoother, with a 1/8" LN blade, 1/8" thick chip breaker and 55 degree cutting angle, does an even better job since it has a mouth that is .02" wide. This can leave a glassy surface on Jarrah.

Similarly, I have had the best finish on Pine with a Stanley #65 block plane with Hock blade (set at 20 degrees).

Here's a tip for improved planing performance. One of the new, solid chipbreakers from LN or Hock will produce an even greater upgrade than changing the blade. Combine this with a thicker blade that is sharpened to 8000 grit (waterstone equivalent) and you will have a mean machine. Try Hock of LN ("Stanley Replacement") for blades if you own a Stanley since these are the maximum thickness to fit the mouths without filing them wider. Veritas make very good blades but they will be too thick to fit (sorry Rob).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Rob Lee]

Hi again -

Ben has asked me to elaborate on chip types, and as a picture is worth a thousand word - a several thousand word discourse can be found at this link:

http://www.leevalley.com/shopping/Instructions.asp?SID=&ccurrency=2&page=49520

This is the information from our website, under "Instructions" for the Low Angle Jack plane replacement blade... though the information is applicable for all blades...

For further reading - this topic is covered in Appendix I of "The Complete Guide to Sharpening" - published by Taunton Press (and written by my kids' grandfather :) ).

Cheers -

Rob Lee

[scooter]

a several thousand word discourse can be found at this link:

http://www.leevalley.com/shopping/Instructions.asp?SID=&ccurrency=2&page=49520

This is the information from our website, under "Instructions" for the Low Angle Jack plane replacement blade... though the information is applicable for all blades...

For further reading - this topic is covered in Appendix I of "The Complete Guide to Sharpening" - published by Taunton Press (and written by my kids' grandfather :) ).

Cheers -

Rob Lee
Gday all,

Rob, thanks for the link & good to see you popping up on an Aussie BB.

I don't have the Leonard Lee book but it does come highly recommended so more power to your kids' grandfather's arm.

We look forward to you opening an Australian Lee Valley outlet (with prices reflecting those in the Nth American market and the strong $AUD, instead of the inflated prices we seem to pay locally for imported stuff.)

Derek, et al - enjoying the plane blade bevel (or should that be bezel ??) discourse.

Cheers all...........Sean

[Ben from Vic.]

Thanks again Derek, Rocker and Rob.

After floging the dead horse for a second time, I think I see the big picture (reguarding back bevels and blade angle). ;)

I sometimes need to go over things a few times to get all the angles.

I appreciate your patience, especially Derek, who has probably answered all these questions before, and will more than likely have to do it again some time (thought hopefully not to me). :D

Rob, Thanks for your additional info and the very helpful link.

Ben. (who is still very impressed that Rob 'gets has hands dirty' and contributes). http://www.ubeaut.biz/thumbup.gif

[Rob Lee]

Thanks again Derek, Rocker and Rob.

(... snip ...)

Rob, Thanks for your additional info and the very helpful link.

Ben. (who is still very impressed that Rob 'gets has hands dirty' and contributes). http://www.ubeaut.biz/thumbup.gif

Ben (et al) -

Thanks for the kind words - I'm glad to jump in whenever I can. If there's a question you need answered, feel free to "PING" me at [email protected] - while I do check in here once a week or so, I may miss a post...

Cheers -

Rob Lee

[sinjin1111]

Hi guys, i have been uding King stones for close 18 yrs. And i really like them. And i use 800 1200 6000.
I was wondering if anyone has tried some of these Diamond stones or are they ceramic?

Flattening off waterstones i think is something you just need to do nearly every time you sharpen. I went to the trouble of getting a piece or 20mm glass edged so i can flatten off my stones on that and it works really well.
Getting blades sharp to the point of shaving is really pretty easy once you have been doing it for long enough and good steel is so important in blades.
But i just find when you are planing Hard timbers they get the days lights beatten out of them pretty quickly regardless. I know i spend more time pushing a blade over stones than i actually do planing the wood most of the time.
Then again i find sharpening blades very rewarding. It's like......"now think boyo"....have you planned this job out properly before you hoe in and make a mess of it.
Sinjin

[derekcohen]

I was wonedring fi anyone has tried some of these Diamond stones

Sinjin

I use the same waterstones as you (with the addition of a natural one as well).

The smoothest diamond stone only sharpens to 1200 grit (sandpaper equivalent), which is about a 4000 waterstone.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[cdm]

Hi Derek,
Thanks for all the informative posts you constantly manage (don't know how you find the time:) ). My sharpening consists of the same 'kit' as you, the 800, 1200, 4000, 6000 & green compound. I was wondering on your's (or anyone else's opinion on the #200 Grit Silicon Carbide Stone for starting the sharpening process instead of always going to the grinder.

BTW, I reckon the green rouge gives a *really* sharp edge. I wonder what a #30 000 grit :eek: shapton gives you??:confused:

All the best,

Chris

[derekcohen]

Hi cdm

I'm afraid that I do not have any experience of the "#200 Grit Silicon Carbide Stone". Below the 800 waterstone I would previously turn to sandpaper (now I use my belt sander grinder). But I will emphasize that the establishment of the correct bevel is the foundation for a razor edge, and so the process of achieving it becomes the first goal. How you get there is up to you: stone, grinder, whatever floats your boat. A 200 grit waterstone should do a good job (although I expect it to dish quickly).


I wonder what a #30 000 grit shapton gives you??

I believe that the ceramic Shaptons rate their grits differently to Japanese waterstones. I'm not sure what 30K would be, but it might be about 12000 waterstone. I understand (if I recall Steve Knight correctly) that anything above 9000 grit (waterstone) is unlikely to be significant.


I reckon the green rouge gives a *really* sharp edge.

In recent readings someone (I can't recall who) has stated that honing on the green rouge degrades the edge. They recommend honing on plain leather. Personally I find the green rouge excellent.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[sinjin1111]

Hi guys.... i think without any thought i flatten my stones off quickly before i start trying to sharpen. Particularly the #800 etc as they wear pretty fast...well mine seem too. And i always finish off with the #6000.
But a friend of mine showed me how he gets his mirror finish by pollishing with cutting compund by hand. Note this edge is very sharp...the usual shave yrself bizzo. But when you reflect the mirror in the light there is a gentle curve. And i said to him if you put that back on the stone and re-sharpen you have to take that extra fine curve back off before you start hitting the real-estate you want. He said yepp...and smiled.
So does everyone else do this process? Or does everyone else just sharpen straight off .....say there #6000 or #8000 and leave it at that?
Sinjin