8000 or 10000 Waterstone? – Plane Blade Final Hone
user-7627473
| Posted in Hand Tools on
I’ve been using various other sharpening methods/materials and recently decided to start using waterstones. I bought 1000/4000/8000 Norton set. To wit. I am going to put the secondary bevel on a new LN block plane – and saw an LN video with a person “Liz” putting secondary bevel on a new LN blade using only 1000 then 10,000?? I had seen Mike Pekovich using 1000/4000 then finishing with 8000 which is why I bought the set – but was curious about this person using 10000 as a final – and wondered is 10,000 really necessary? And also curious about the leap from 1000 to 10,000 – seemed a bit odd to me. Any feedback appreciated.
Replies
Hi. I haven't seen the LN Video. Conventional wisdom is indeed to go 1K, 4/5K then 8/10K. The idea is that it's easier and less work to abrade the scratch marked from a previous grit. I finish with honing compound on a leather strop or micro grit on mylar film (1u).
Yes, of course understand reasons for "progressive" grit...and have used Yellowstone compound on strop as final polish. Specifically interested in the use of 10,000 - is it really necessary.
8k, 10k. Not much difference. If you already own an 8k, I would never buy a 10k. But if you were just starting, sure.
Norton makes a 4k medium stone, Shapton makes a 5k. Whatever. I'd never think twice about a small difference between grits.
Some folks like 16k or even finer. Whatever.
When using abrasives, whether it's sanding a table top or sharpening a blade, the next finer grit needs to remove the scratches left by the previous (coarser) grit. Skipping a grit(s), like jumping from 80 grit to 220 grit sandpaper, introduces the possibility of leaving being those prior scratches.
On a tabletop, you'll see those 80 grit scratches through the finish. On a blade, you might end up with tiny serrations that lead to the blade dulling quicker.
I would never skip a step on the flat back of a blade. So, 1,000 - 4,000 - 8,000. Or whatever grits you own. 10,000, 8,000, whichever. The practical difference is teeny. Use what you got.
But the secondary bevel on an edge is really, really tiny. Maybe a few hundredths wide. A ssixteenth is getting too big. It takes very little, even on a 10,000 grit stone, to eliminate the 1,000 grit scratches. On that side of the blade, jumping over a grit is no big deal.
If you were sanding a wooden tongue depressor, on the narrow edge, you wouldn't need to go through 6 progressive grits. You could use a piece of 400 grit paper and pretty quickly sand halfway through the stick by doing just that edge.
+1 on JC2's advice. I'l just add that I'd lose the strop for plane irons and chisels. The threat of rounding over the edge is not worth the teeny bit of extra "polish".
Thanks all. This was clip referenced in initial post. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFziqMTgeEI
I'm with John_C2. Since you already own the 8k, don't stress it.
I went the Rob Cosman path, a 300/1k trend diamond stone and a 16k Shapton.
I haven't quite convinced myself I need the 30k Shapton... But, I have eyed it. LOL
I just read on Dieter Schmid Fine Tools site - that above 8000 there is no Japanese standard for waterstone "grit/particle" - so you are simply taking it on faith. As well, their rec. is for 8000 final - and above there is no "real/practical" difference.
Get wire edge on 1000 grit, say 30 deg.
Raise angle to approx. 32 deg, and polish edge on 8,10,or 16 thousand grit.
It is this small change of angle which makes it possible to make huge jump in grit size.
Best wishes,
David Charlesworth
Thank you David, appreciated
The take away from all this is; there are almost as many methods to sharpening as there are woodworkers, each of us convinced our method is the best. The simple matter is if you are happy with the results you are getting you are fine. I sharpened for years to 6000 before adding a 10000 grit stone and I can't say I really noticed much of a difference. Now I'm starting to use honing films, because of a lack of water in my shop and have 4 steps on my granite plate starting with a coarse grit(200 equivalent) only used to remove nicks and chips or to regrind the primary bevel, an equivalent to 1000-1200, my main starting point when honing, then a mid grit equivalent 3000-4000 then finish on something claimed to be .3 microns(I still can't remember the supposed grit equivalent).
I think the need for an intermediate stone depends a lot upon how you view the secondary bevel. If, like some respected sources like LN and others and at least one responder here, you sharpen the primary bevel everytime and only shape the secondary with your finest stone then you may be able to skip the intermediate. If on the other hand you are like me who hones to the secondary bevel repeatedly until it becomes approximately half of the width of the primary bevel before regrinding the primary, I feel the need for an intermediate grit.
Thanks
Sharpening, the "The Holy Grail" of woodworking. There are as many opinions as there are options for sharpening a plane blade. Here's one that simplifies the process and keeps you working instead of sharpening. Rob probably knows as much as anyone when it comes to sharpening. It's worth a look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okLIEoz00v0
Since I started using his method there has been no more confusion and my blades are always extra sharp. What a difference, working wood instead of hours of sharpening.
Good luck.
Thanks
If you want to go higher than 8K, go to 16K.
I'm not seen that much difference going to 16K other than for plane irons.
For touch up and go, I typically go from 1250 straight to 8K, then either 16 or a strop.
As Mr. Charlesworth mentioned, when I'm going from 1250 to 8K, I'm actually doing a "tertiary" angle.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled