Just bought several replacement wood chisels. Maker was careful to note that all were pridefully sharpened at 25 degrees, and honed at 30 degrees. Rubbish!
Why would anyone deliberately foreshorten the interval to initial re-honing by adding a micro-bevel? (And they ain’t “micro” – very evident, at least 3/64″ wide.)
Basis:
The smallest sharpening angle will produce the finest shavings, and cut the most easily. It will also lead to early breakage of the edge under heavy work. I like to keep paring chisels at about 20 degrees (or less), those for soft woods at about 25 degrees, and those for hardwoods at 30 degrees (or more.)
[ Depending upon experience, application, and other factors, the preferred bevel angles vary widely from a minimum of 15 degrees to a maximum of perhaps 40 degrees. In general, you’ll find your personal optimum compromise for the three usual applications in your shop – paring(fine angle), soft wood (medium angle), hard wood (steep angle) – and introduce occasional excursions for unusual or new cirumstances. The old 20/25/30 is a reasonably good place to start if you’ve not already established them. ]
The delicate 20 degree edges can withstand only hand pressure, and are used for manual paring and shaving. The 30-degree tools will handle mallet blows in most hard woods. Very hard materials may require angles of 35 degrees or more for successful mallet work.
(Larger angles are possible, of course, but are severely limiting because possible strokes become shorter and shorter as angle increases, thereby significantly reducing efficiency of time spent doing the work, and introducing the potential for severe crushing damage to the wood. At the extreme, the angle would be 90 degrees, suggesting “all bash, no cut”!)
Ya gotta spend time using tools, and then ya gotta spend time fixin’ em. With cutting edges, it’s about balancing efficiency in performing the work with the time required to maintain the tools – the smallest sum of the two is optimal.
It’s true that a quick fix in the field can involve adding a microbevel so as to revive the edge (at a steeper angle) while away from the bench. However, a significant secondary bevel only slows down the work, and must eventually be removed to regain the intended working angle. (If 30 degrees was wanted, then why wasn’t it ground and honed at 30 degrees in the first place?) A micro bevel should be added at the absolute minimum size required to restore a sharp edge, and only as a temporary solution so as to keep the work going.
Someone shared this as a practical field expedient, and it somehow became blown out of proportion and beyond rationality. Now it’s appearing as a design element, complete with bragging rights. Im my opinion, it’s time to “put the whoa on it.”
A 30 degree microbevel on a 25 degree tool will not strengthen the blade – it’ll still break under heavy use in hard wood. And, it’ll be slightly harder to use than the intended lesser angle. If a 30 degree bevel is needed for strength, then the whole edge should be at 30 degrees. Nothing wrong with a 27 degree “quick fix” microbevel while on the run, but the whole will eventually have to be restored to its original angle. Same for any of the other basic working angles.
Once a chisel is initially set up, it takes no more time to sharpen the entire bevel at the desired angle than to bevel the whole thing at the desired angle and then take time to change setup to introduce a micobevel which does no discernible good anyway.
In sum, the microbevel is NOT a desirable element. It is, rather, an interim fix to be employed only when the normal sharpening equipment is not at hand, and should be made as small as possible. It should be removed as soon as is practicable by restoring the entire bevel to its intended cutting angle.
Although I was guilty for years of hollow-grinding chisel blades, I think it’s the wrong thing to do (or to leave unrepaired.) A hollow-ground angle is actually much less at the cutting edge (depending on wheel diameter), and can lead to early stress failure of the edge. With a plate glass and sandpaper system, a hollow-ground bevel can be rather easily honed to flatness – – and should be.
(I’m working on a practical jig to allow accurate flat-grinding of tool edges on a bench grinder. More on that when appropriate.)
Method of use is a major factor in tool life. I keep a decent set of all-steel roughing chisels at hand for rough work. Those I willingly hollow-grind, minimally hone, and whale away. Cheap and tough, they’re intended as short-timers to take the brunt of the ugly stuff, to be replaced when their hard lives have been expended. The “real” woodworking chisels are treated with considerably more respect, as I don’t much want to be faced with the need to completely restore a damaged bevel!
An important aspect is acknowledging the need for edge upkeep. A chisel should be honed every time it’s used, and never put away in less than perfect condition. I expect about 25-30% of my direct chiseling time to be spent in sharpening, with special penance due if I drop one or do something equally stupid with it.
(Yup – “stupid.” It may be the result of stress or fatigue, in which case I should have quit earlier. It may be pure clumsiness, excused as an “uh-oh.” Or the result of haste – there’s nothing like wrecking your tools in the interest of getting done 15 minutes earlier. In any case, I should have known better or acted differently, and thus accuse myself of doin’ sumpin’ stoopid when it happens.) I found over the years that as I increased my standards for edge maintenance, my respect for and awareness of those edges rose accordingly – that’s a lot of work to just toss around casually – and my habits improved automatically.
Finally, an old adage worth repeating is that the safest tool is the sharpest one. Because it will cut so much more easily, it’s both more accurate and faster, and requires less force to apply – – and is therefore much less prone to accidental misdirection.
So much for my little rant. Comments?
Replies
Hah, hah, ha...you are so freakin' wrong about microbevels!
I'm not going to try to convert you right now, but you are missing a HUGE part of the puzzle.
Who wants to set our good friend right?
I'll jump in tomorrow or Monday...
This stuff gets so anal... but the microbevel plays an important and vital role.
Lee
How about a little civility!
A bad day woodworking is better than a good day working -- yes, I'm retired!
My question to you exactly. Your attitude and presentation would do little to attract me to the "Montana Fest" you're touting. I don't comprehend ill-tempered asides in response to serious discussion.
Did you mean to send this to me or Lee?
'Cause I agree with you.
A bad day woodworking is better than a good day working -- yes, I'm retired!
Hi..Oooops! My sincere apologies! Got my "to's" and "from's" mixed up. I most certainly did not intend to address it to you! Although I'm wordy, that's a passion for clarity. One of my other passions has to do with human decency - or civility, if you will. Your comment and perception were right on the mark, and I appreciate your having expressed them.Best regards,---John
I forgot to ask.
Do you do woodworking for a living?
Lee
I am not a professional woodworker. Do you intend to post responsibly or just hah-ha around?
RE: " Do you intend to post responsibly or just hah-ha around?"John,Perhaps you're not aware, but Lee is one of the premier furniture makers/carvers in the country these days. I can only dream about achieving what he has accomplished, and I am pleased he has chosen to be part of this Knots community. So when he talks, I listen. I can see from this and other posts that you get very swept up in your passions, which is fine. But at the same time, I think you can understand why not all of us get caught up in your flow of ideas (I'm also thinking of the height gauge). I hope you will keep those ideas coming, but I also hope you will accept that not everyone will agree with your approach. And sometimes that disagreement comes across with a cynical or dismissive reply, which is the nature of much communication around here.
Appreciate your post. Actually, I think wordiness (mine) for the sake of clarity comes across as passion for the subject. I do have a passion for truth and accuracy.I honestly am not posting to show that I'm right or to show how smart I am. There is logic to every rational conclusion, and I think that sharing the logic is no more than provision of rational support, and is, particularly in a forum such as this, and open invitation to dissect the logic, argue the conclusions, etc. I usually learn something from it, and hope that provocation of a discussion will divulge new ideas for others as well.I most certainly do not expect everyone to agree with my conclusions or practices, and appreciate the honesty with which most disagreement is posted. Y'know, they make red cars and green cars for a reason - we just don't all have the same tastes. Although there is a highly technical aspect to the machining of materials, including wood, each manual practioner (er, wood butcher, such as I) will have acquired preferences in the course of gaining experience.I'd not challenge those preferences, though I'd like to hear of them. I would, however, like to enter into rational discourse regarding the technical aspects of machining, and extensions thereof to manual practice.
Oops, I forgot how deadly serious this is.
Look, I'm not taunting anyone. If my jovial approach puts anyone off that's a pity. It's not intended to but if you want someone to approach this with a scowl and impenetrable earnestness I'm not the guy for you. I've been doing this stuff for a very long time and my earnest phase ran it's course decades ago.
MontanaFest is going to be a party. There may be a small group of overly earnest people who take this all as seriously as brain surgery but they will be in the minority and probably won't have much fun. Come if you like, you're invited, but don't expect the atmosphere to be like the jury room in "12 Angry Men". It's going to be a party that revolves around woodworking with oppurtunities to learn.
Microbezels...
Well, what surprised me about your post is that you know so much about sharpening but have missed the points of the microbezel.
A microbezel has two functions whether it's a carving tool or a bench chisel. The point where the microbezel and primary grind converge is called the fulcrum.
When the tool is used with the microbezel facing away from the workpiece it acts as a chipbreaker. As a chip is removed it follows the line of the microbezel and curls away from the rest of the tool. This motion generally results in the underside of the chip breaking so it's not exerting much pressure on the tissue in front of the cutting edge, you're less likely to splinter the wood. Getting the chip away from the chisel body also makes the chisel work with less resistance since the pinching motion of the cut is reduced and the chip is clear of the blade.
When the microbezel is against the workpiece such as when you're cleaning out a dado or groove, or when you're cleaning out the hole for an inlay you need the microbezel and fulcrum so you can control your depth of cut. During cuts like this the chisel is riding on the fulcrum and you are able to control the depth of cut by raising or lowering the handle. Without a microbezel you don't have a fulcrum and you can't control the depth.
You can get any chisel or carving tool very sharp without a microbezel but it's action will be no different than that of a knife and that's the same action as whittling.
As to angles, sheesh, you know more about that than I do! I haven't checked a grinding angle or honing angle in many, many years. I do it all instinctively and think of it all in terms of "length of grind" which is carver's talk. Shorter grinds are steeper angles, longer grinds are shallower angles. When honing the microbezel I simply find the angle of the primary grind by rocking the chisel on the stone, then raise the handle a few degrees.
Sharpening discussions get anal, it's over analyzed and over complicated. It's a one day lesson for apprentices, perhaps less. If you want to learn it well just get a lesson from a living breathing human that knows what he(she) is doing. Seeing the mechanics in person is worth chapter after chapter of written words. I'll be teaching carving tool sharpening at MontanaFest and it will take only 20 minutes (including a joke or two) of an hour long presentation. Sharpening is a simple procedure that can be taught in minutes, it will take anyone a bit of time to teach their body how to do it well but we're talking hours, not days of practice.
Lee
Lee,<!----><!---->
Actually, I totally agree with John, chisels should have no micro bevels, or bezels for that matter.<!---->
I use to sharpen your way in the early days of woodworking, but have learnt a lot since then, and yes John the Engineer is correct, I'm also an Engineer and can actually produce a calculation for this, ..... this stuff gets so anal.<!---->
I also read your previous post on this subject which really explains it a lot better than this post. You can read it here.
As per your previous post, referred to above, I had exactly the same problem and my chisels use to leave the English speaking world frequently.
The other important reason I don't do bezels any longer, is because I use a carving chisel every morning in the shower to shave with. This not only produces a better shave than any Gillette razor, but it keeps me in practice. A bezel does not work well here at all. Try shaving with a V-tool, if it has a bezel, and you will really find it difficult not to cut yourself.
RE: "Sharpening discussions get anal"A few years ago, Tom Peters (the management guru) was doing a PBS documentary on great companies around the world. So he shows up in some German company, and he makes a big deal that the apprentice machinists spend their first 9 months (yes, nine months) standing at a bench, doing nothing but sharpening stuff. Now that's anal ................... maybe John has a little German in his soul.
Edited 4/10/2005 1:28 pm ET by nikkiwood
You bet it's anal. If they spent nine months sharpening and then using, sharpening again and using again, then it might make some sense. There are many examples of technology, and in this case I include the crafts, where constant use, adjustments, and re-use created very efficient results. (It should come as no surprise that I consider indigeneous kayaks to be a great example). :-) I have also come to the conclusion that are more than one or two ways to get where you want to go. Sharpening is no different. In my own case, my work with a chisel become a whole lot easier when I started incorporating microbevels. Perhaps my method of works benefits from them where someone else's doesn't.
I have also come to the conclusion that Tom Peters is overrated.
Greg
Tom Peters is a quotable guy, but that's about it. 9 months sharpening? sounds like an "urban myth" of the business sort. You know, "I heard it from a friend of a friend, that his boss' sister's husband had his kidney stolen... woke up in a tub of ice...I wouldn't put it past a guy like Peters to exaggerate a bit in one of his talks to make some point.Of course, the company could have *hired* the person to sharpen stuff and it took the person nine months to realized it was a "dull" job. Mark
Measure it with a micrometer, mark it with chalk, cut it with an ax.
Is sharpening that important???
I thought you just buy the tool.......use the tool...........and throw it out when it gets dull!!
I can only recall three companies of those covered in "In Pursuit of Excellence". They were Dana, Delta, and Hewlett-Packard. While I believe they will all probably survive, it is not at all assured. They may all disappear and we will still be arguing the relatve merits of different sharpening techniques.
Greg
Lee, with all due respect, I'd suggest to you that there can be a fine line between joviality and derision. I have a well-"honed" sense of humor, and easily absorb good-natured humor, even when I'm the subject. As noted in my response to "81treehouse", my passion isn't aabout being right about woodworking or any other subject. I *am*, however, passionate about civility and rational exchange of ideas. Your initial response was purely derisive, and as such an unwarranted insult.I appreciate your detailed discussion with regard to microbevels, and will respond in a separate post.
"Your initial response was purely derisive, and as such an unwarranted insult."
John,
It might have been more acurate to have said the you interpreted Lee's response as derisive, despite the fact that your statement (above) reads as though it were an statement of absolute fact; I thought it was just your opinion. When I read your initial post, I thought it was a little puffed-up, pedantic, and overly-serious, but that was just my opinion. There just aren't that many absolutes in this world, despite the way some state their opinions so unequivocally.
I agree that civility is important, but having the opportunity to get to know Lee and his work through his many posts, I took his reply as good natured and benign.
As for sharpening, I think both you and Lee make some good points. To me, much of the debate over micro-bevels (bezels) depends on the tool you're using and what you're trying to do with it. Do you really believe that one should apply the rather absolute standards and practices you espoused in your initial post to chisels of all kinds, irresepctive of how they're being used?
-Jazzdogg-
Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right.
Edited 4/10/2005 6:25 pm ET by jazzdogg
Hi, Jazzdog...your comments are appreciated, and I'll think hard about them. If you knew me, you'd know that I'm not pedantic and absolutely not "puffed up", but I do tend to call a spade a spade. Lotsa words for clarity are intended to facilitate understanding, not as puffery. Unfortunately, education and background lead to some fairly stiff grammar and constructions, which sounds a lot more bookish than I really am.It's interesting that you saw Lee's intial reply as benign. More than one of us saw it as a vicious little salvo grounded in self-importance.It seems that both Lee and I have on separate occasions apparently been misread quite far from the true mark, and I appreciate your comments to me and about your knowledge of Lee's character.As to dogged partisanship of one method versus another, please see my earlier posts to several others and to Lee. In short - no, I'm quite open-minded and cognizant of the potential for application of alternate methods when they're beneficial - and even of dismissing the hoo-hah when it don't make no nevermind. It does at times seem that it takes an awful lot of chewing to get useful segregation among fact, preference, and opinion.A major benefit of these discussions is a broadening of scope, which usually leads to greater versatility. I opened a discussion about "Wood Chisels", which I blindly saw as limited to bench chisels - my mistake - but it's broadened nicely into a more general and instructive session.There are some very caring and interested individuals in this bunch, or the disussions wouldn't continue. I feel privileged to be in good company.
Well, in my absence I've been villified and idolized. Frankly, I deserve neither, especially the idolized part.I'm going to speak frankly. Don't take offence, it's just the way I am.Sharpening has been mindfugged beyond reason.I'm a simple man easily confused, I have one set of bench chisels. They are sharpened as I have described and I don't need to figure out if I'm working hardwood or softwood. It does'nt matter because they are sharp, sharp enough to cut either cleanly. If I need to clean out a dado, a groove, an inlay I use the same set of chisels because they have a microbevel that makes them useful from either face.My bench chisels have a microbezel on one face because I need to use that face quite often in furniture making. I've mentioned a few instances, be assured there are many more throughout the day. All of my carving tools have microbezels on both faces. I spend perhaps 5 minutes a day sharpening tools, who's got the time? For those that have two sets, for those that have specialty tools honed in particular ways, I would simply ask..."Why do you expect so little of your tools?"Carry on, gentlemen, find your own ways and your own truths, I've found mine. Argueing with engineers is like..., something about wrestling pigs in mud...I'm not leaving this discussion in a huff, more like a minute and a huff..., wait that's Groucho's line...Have fun, guys. I'm smiling here but I despise those colon/parentheses things.LeeMontanaFest
Okey-Dokey,
A few questions, and a comment. Comment first:
Slainte, wherever you are, I think it's time to post your great sharpening story again. Now to the questions:
I have three sets of chisels - one for paring, one for chopping out with a mallet, and one for stuff I don't want to use my good chisels on. My question - has anyone ever had a chisel bevel break because the angle was too sharp (low)? Or is the degree of bevel all about effectiveness and efficiency? If it's the latter, then it would seem to make the case for different chisels/sets for different purposes, wouldn't it (no disrespect intended, Lee)?
For those who use microbevels, aren't they more effective in chopping operations than in paring? Not that a microbevel would hurt, but it would seem a paring chisel would be more effective without a microbevel, wouldn't it?
I have never heard of anyone putting a bevel on the back side of a chisel, as they would on a plane iron, as someone mentioned here. Does that make sense for any chisel, or for a certain type of chisel? I assume not, but we all know what happens when we assume...
Might seem like a dumb question (OK, some of the others might too...), but would the chisel maker make any difference in whether or not a microbevel is effective, or for that matter whether or not one maker's set is better for paring and another's is better for chopping? I'm thinking of quality chisels here - Sorby, Three Cherries, Pfiel, etc.
Finally, assuming that, especially for pros who use their chisels daily, sharpening is likely a daily and maybe even more frequent activity, does the minor benefit some of us see in putting on a microbevel really make a difference? In other words, isn't the single most important factor, by an order of magnitude, keeping the chisel sharp, sharp, sharp?
Just some food for thought, but I think the answers could be interesting.
Regards,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
Offended? Heck no, I'm the offender here, not the offendee.Topic one. Sure, once in a while I get asked to "give my impressions" of a carving tool. I was sent one, a 1/4" #4 to look at. I clamped a piece of white oak down and began to chop a mortise. The edge rolled right over because the grind was too long. I shortened the grind, honed a microbezel in both faces and chopped on through, no sweat. Carving tool sellers are hawking their tools as ready to use (none are) by lengthening the grind to make a sharper edge withour honing. As to multiple sets, sure, get as many as you want. How many do you need? One set for the bench, then specialties like mortising.Topic three. Nearly all carving tools have microbezels on both faces. This is particular to carving tools. Bench chisels do not but the same dynamics are in place for both sets of tools when the microbezel is in play.Number 4. I can't imagine why.Number five. No, there are cutting angles and procedures that sharp, sharp, sharp won't accomplish. Ever try cutting a mortise with a razor blade?Oh, "sliante" is a greeting, his name is Sgian Dubh which is an acronym for John Smith or something like that.LeeMontanaFest
"Oh, "sliante" is a greeting, his name is Sgian Dubh which is an acronym for John Smith or something like that."
Ever realize you've been making the same dumb mistake over and over and over again? Thanks, Lee!
Who can remember Sgian Dubh anyway? I actually thought his real name was something else, but now I can't remember that either.
Cheers,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
Thank you for your informative and interesting posts on sharpening. I'm just learning to sharpen hand tools and I need all the help I can get. Maybe I'm drinking too much wine, because every wrist-locked rock-steady sharpening action seems to become a corkscrew pattern almost immediately!<<Sgian Dubh which is an acronym for John Smith or something like that>>Sgian Dubh is a Scottish term for a small knife concealed inside the kilt, if memory serves. Maybe it has another meaning(s) as well.Best regards
Tom
[Avoid schadenfreude]
Trappist, just remember that a sharp tool is safer than a dull one so every once in a while,...hone the point of that corkscrew.LeeMontanaFest
Literal translation is Black Knife.
This piece of kit is full of unsubstantiated legend like most things to do with scotts history.
One story is that the name derives from the black colour of the blade after it has tarnished from being in a leather case next to the skin. Another is that the handle is made from blackwood.
They are worn in the sock with just the hilt showing. Typical pictures attached
Part of the legend is that the Brits regarded the cattle thieving scotss as sneaky and conniving, typified by a nation who would regard a concealed weapon as pert of the national dress. There is however pretty strong evidence that they were just a work knife, and that the Scots were pretty pleased to adopt the legend (who wouldnt)
The myth is a huge part of the fun with all this celtic stuff; just dont raise it in front of them or you will be banished to the cafe.
David
Patto, actually the literal translation of Sgian Dubh (or one of the alternate spellings) is Knife Black, not black knife. Black is also reckoned by some to have the meaning hidden. Even at an agreed meeting between chiefs to thrash out an agreement on some contentious issue it's said that no self respecting chieftan would actually turn up completely unarmed just in case so to speak, hence the secret knife tucked in the sock. It's a nice story anyway, but who knows?
And slainte is a greeting, short for sliante bheatha, good life. Slainte.RJFurniture
Actually, the Sgian Dubh is usually tucked inside your knee high stocking. There's a different weapon conceled under the kilt.Tom
Nothing is worn under the kilt....
Its all in perfecct working order.
Sgian Dubh is a Scottish term for a small knife concealed inside the kilt, if memory serves. Maybe it has another meaning(s) as well.
Oi Vey...
a Sgian Dubh is a ceremonial dagger, part of Scots national dress, and is worn down the outer side of yer right sock... the translation from Gaelic means black knife...
concealed inside the kilt... sheesh... what else ya think we keep in there.....Stinger missiles....???????????????????????????Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Hi, Lee..This actually more or less to "ALL", in response to your informative discussion of microbevels, but there are some questions/comments for you personally...I think that the first thing I'd like to point out is that carver's tools are sharpened and used "upside down." Er....maybe you carvers (for whom I have the utmost respect) think that bench chisels are usually used upside down. Regardless, the point is that the tools are opposite in their nature and usual application.More clearly, perhaps ... a carpenter's or bench chisel is most frequently used "flat side down", and using the flat as a self-indexing guide. Conversely, carving tools have the "flat" (or comparable section) on the topside, and are most often used bevel-side-down. A carver will use a #3 gouge "flat side up" to clear a field so that it's nearly flat but retains character, whereas a carpenter will attempt to create a perfectly flat field (e.g., for setting a hinge) by using his chisel "flat-side-down."[ As an aside - one of the most difficult transition points for this engineer has been change of focus (in carving) from orientation to hardware-mounting "perfect field" to a carved "field with character." I struggle with trying to make every raised surface perfect, and in so doing of course remove its character. Ratz. But I'm learning... Further, I think it's a shame that many carver's tools aren't traditionally included in the carpenter's/cabinetmaker's bag of tricks. The two aren't really severely separate disciplines, but are so closely related that the line between them can at times be invisible. After all, it's *woodworking*, ain't it? ]The use of a microbevel to provide a fulcrum about which to manage fine paring with an "upside down" blade is absolutely on the mark, in my opinion. I'd not thought of it (that's a little embarrassing, as I've been learning a bit about carving), though I've been vexed repeatedly with attempting to control penetration when using a bench chisel "upside down" for paring in crevices or channels. Am going to experiment with adding it to a few of my paring chisels to see if it provides the solution for me - here's betting that it will. Have you a recommendation as to whether a rounded or flat bevel (moving fulcrum vs. fixed fulcrum) might be more advantageous? I've actually been thinking recently in terms of revising some straight chisels to make some dang-fool hybrid of a carpenter's/carver's shortbent flat chisel. (Cranks are handy, but I perceive use for something rounded as well for hand shaving at odd angles.)Let's consider a carpenter's chisel being used to chop vertically to a mark. Use of a microbevel provides a shadow line which decreases visibility of the mark - it's much harder to see where the edge lies in relation to the line. As well, if a high angle - e.g., 35 degrees - is need for tool stength, then addition of an even steeper microbevel will just make the tool that much harder to work.Woodworkers (hmmm - not the best choice of terms, but you know what I mean) are frequently faced with the need to work in situ - that is, they can't take the work to a bench, or turn it to a more advantageous angle. For example, when setting a new strike plate for an installed door, you can't very well take the jamb to the bench for better access, nor can you rotate the house so as to see it better. (Er, ditto for a very large cabinet on the shop floor.) Sometimes, the back edge is easier to see, sometimes the bevel edge. In such cases, it's essential to have a clear line of sight directly to the cutting edge, and from both sides of the tool - a microbevel will essentially hide the cutting edge from view.
----------------------
Although chipbreaking has been an issue in hand plane design "forever", there's at least one recent study demonstrating that chipbreaking actually takes place in the first few thousandths of an inch. The plane's "chipbreaker" doesn't really do that - it just guides the curly stuff out of the throat.If using a chisel in a planing situation, the same is true - the chip will curl very near the cutting edge. If the cut is so deep as to be splintering or compressing, then a micobevel would ease the load on the blade for only a few thousandths before the main grind was engaged. As with carving, the frequent idea with a bench chisel is in general to first create a parting line - whether with chisel or saw - and then pare, chop, or cut to that line, in which case splintering is a non-issue as the fiber ends are pre-cut.For those reasons, I can see little or no actual advantage in providing a microbevel for chopping cuts, nor for paring cuts in the "flat-down" position.
-----------------------
Again, I appreciate your insights with regard to using a chisel in carving-like (e.g. "reverse", to me, wearing this hat at the moment) situations, and intend to follow up with the technique on certain of my tools.Hmmm - the more I ponder this reversal of tool geometry, the more I'm thinking that there ought to be a "Carver's school for cabinetmakers" that addresses situations in which straight-line joinery will benefit from carving tool geometry and techniques. There's some really fuzzy territory here in which the favored techniques and tools of both areas of interest can be married with good results for everyone.Finally, and in truth, I'd give my left arm for the opportunity to receive any amount of carving instruction from you. If I can find a way to attend, I'll be at Montana Fest, with the hopes of shaking your hand on friendly terms and enjoying the fun.
John, it occured to me I had left some questions of your unanswered.
"I think that the first thing I'd like to point out is that carver's tools are sharpened and used "upside down." Er....maybe you carvers (for whom I have the utmost respect) think that bench chisels are usually used upside down. Regardless, the point is that the tools are opposite in their nature and usual application."
I disagree, in the course of my day a bench chisel gets used with both faces down often. I've cited a few instances, there are many more. The "flat side down" is only one use of a chisel.
"A carver will use a #3 gouge "flat side up" to clear a field"
Nope, there is no flat side, a properly sharpened carving tool has microbezels on both faces. That gouge will just as often be turned over to round a bead or leaf or shell.
"Use of a microbevel provides a shadow line which decreases visibility of the mark - it's much harder to see where the edge lies in relation to the line."
Umm, you're kidding on this one, right? A microbezel is only a few degrees off the main grind and is only a 64" or so. I've never had sight issues as long as I can find my glasses and the light switch.
About that chopping thing..., it's the angle at the edge that's important whether it's the product of the grind or a microbevel. Assuming the tool has a microbevel I can chop in one stroke and clean the ground with the bevel down. Without a microbevel you can't clean the ground unless the chisel can lay flat. Which is more efficient?
You need to think of a chisel as having two cutting faces. They do, two very useful cutting faces. Without a microbevel you're only getting half that tool's potential. Now, remember, you're talking to a guy in the field, I need to sharpen quickly and move quickly though my tasks. I need to be efficient and multiple sets of specially sharpened chisels are not efficient. One chisel that performs multiple tasks is efficient.
You said somewhere you spend 25% of your chisel time sharpening. Now, don't take this wrong but that's just plain nutz! Unless you like sharpening..., is that it?. A microbezel shortens sharpening time tremendously and makes a chisel useful from either face. So what's the downside of this? Oh, yeah, more sharpening time. The other upside to a microbezel is that it strengthens a hollow grind.
So far your only arguement that microbezels are bad is that it weakens the edge. Well, John, the edge is strong enough! I work hardwoods every day, bubinga, white oak, beech and others. I've never rolled an edge with my properly sharpened chisels.
Lee
MontanaFest
As long as your still kicking around on this subject, I have a micro-bezel(bevel) question. Personally, I think it makes a great deal of sense to use a micro-bezel, but I'm not expert in chisel sharpening (or using for that matter).
One problem I seem to have however is when I go to touch up a chisel. With a full length bevel, it's easy to register the bezel on the stone. with a micro-bezel, I have trouble matching the micro-bezel and, as a result, my micro-bezel gets steeper as time goes by. Any simple solutions? I'm starting to think maybe my micro-bezel is too long intially and therefore not easily 'erased' come touch up time.Thanks for any thoughtsMatt
Matt,As you resharpen the microbezel (microbevel, secondary bevel, etc.) does become longer and does grow steeper. Once it exceeds the maximum angle you want it's time to regrind. The best system for most is a hollow grind at a fairly shallow angle, around 25 degrees. You'll need to experiment with angles and it takes a large wheel, at least 10" to produce a good hollow. Hollows are not necessary but they mean less honing as you sharpen. Start your microbezels as close to the grind angle as you can, 2 or 3 degrees up, and try to stay on top of the previous one as far as angle goes. Your first hone should be just barely visible and grow slightly each time. I regrind my bench chisels only once every year or two, some much longer than that, 5 years or more.Another trick to lengthen times between grinding is to seat the chisel on a very coarse stone with the heel of the grind and the fulcrum between the primary grind and edge in contact with the stone. Hog off the fulcrum and you're good for another group of honings, like 10 or 15 at least. I think John said his chisels arrived with several 64ths width of microbezel, that's just way, way too much for the first honing. The first microbezel can be measured in thousandths and still be effective.You know, pictures make this so much easier and in person you'd get it immediately. I hope this explanation makes sense.LeeMontanaFest
Thanks for the reply. Your response does make sense. It seems pretty clear that my micro-bezels are not nearly "micro" enough, limiting the number of touch-ups I get before re-grinding.Thanks again for the input.Matt
Lee, why do you recommend making the microbevel a steeper angle than the grind itself? Don't you just use the hollow grind a steady reference to create the microbevel? Am I making sense?
That would work fine for the first few honings if it's a hollow grind. If it's a flat grind you have to increase the angle to make the microbevel and the fulcrum. One of the ideas here is to not hone a large surface making the whole process quicker. The other idea is to make a fulcrum which the tool rides on as you're cutting.Lee
MontanaFest
Lee,
This is nothing to do with woodworking , but these days in a new country I am often suffering from sense of humour failure , to put it mildly.
So when I read your profile I had a good laugh -thanks
"About that chopping thing..., it's the angle at the edge that's important whether it's the product of the grind or a microbevel. Assuming the tool has a microbevel I can chop in one stroke and clean the ground with the bevel down. Without a microbevel you can't clean the ground unless the chisel can lay flat. Which is more efficient?"
Lee, I just want to make sure I understand. Are you saying that you use a mirobezel on both sides of what most of us would refer to as a conventional chisel? I understand the concept of levering off the fulcrum created by the microbezel, but up until now, I have limited that to the bevelled (macrobevel?) side. If you are advocating for both sides on a traditionally used chisel, as opposed to a 'carving' chisel, then I will need to give that a try. Or, perhaps you are just saying that all chisels are carving chisels, only that some are not sharpened properly, i.e., with two microbezels?
Greg
Greg, the only chisels that get a microbezel on both faces are carving tools. Actually, the proper name is carving tools, there really is no such thing as a carving chisel but our language evolves and common usage has allowed us to call carving tools chisels.Bench chisels, I'm sure you have some of these, have a very flat back and all of the sharpening is done on the beveled side. Bench chisels can come in a variety of shapes. Paring, beveled, firmers, framing, mortising are all bench chisels and get treated the same way. Different grinding and honing angles can be used depending on the purpose of the chisel but the sharpening techniques are basically the same.The flat backs of these bench chisels make it easy to cut straight sides in mortises, gain hinges, and do joinery work that requires flat and straight surfaces such as tenons.Lee
MontanaFest
Lee,
That was my original understanding. The somewhat casual interchanging of the terms (carving tools vs. chisels) was what I wanted to clear up. FWIW, I find the micro bevel very useful on bench chisels (bevel side, of course). I had never heard of anyone advocating anything other than a flat plane on the back, save the hollow back of Japanese design.
Greg
I used to be much more of a purist over terminology. I quit fighting those inane battles and just try to communicate these days, some days are better than others. Carving "chisels" is fine with me, it's kind of a strange distinction anyway.LeeMontanaFest
I'm seeing the terms "bevel" "bezel" in this thread. Are these terms interchangeable in this context?thanks
--Tom
[Avoid schadenfreude]
Trappist, Yes, they are interchangable. Microbezel, microbevel and secondary bevel all refer to the same thing. I quit using the term "secondary bevel" because in the carving tool world this bevel is the primary and only bevel on one face of the tool. I use "bezel" now because an article appeared recently in which I used the term. It's six of one, half a dozen of another to me.LeeMontanaFest
"Bezel" actually was akin to the French word "Biseau", and then "Bis" in Latin, meaning "two times". It's used in jewelry, watches and for chisels. For correct English, it therefore refers to two bevels, one on each side.
"Bevel" refers to the angle or inclination of a line or surface, which meets another at any angle, but 90 degrees. For correct English, it therefore refers to the main bevel on a chisel.
From the above, "Micro-bevel" refers to one bevel of micro size. We can use this term where it suits us, but if used on one side only. Will be handy for those who put a few "micro bevels" on their plane irons.
From the above, "Secondary bevel" would refer to one bevel only, which has a different angle to the main bevel, but no back bevel, as used in many plane irons.
That was my English lesson for today, but I guess it is of little relevance as most of us here speak American.
Edited 4/14/2005 7:33 pm ET by Jellyrug
I would have agreed with you up until about a year ago when I took the trouble to look it up myself. All three English dictionaries I own, each by a different publisher, have almost the same exact primary definition for bezel: "a sloping edge or face, especially on a cutting tool." None of them say anyhting about one of two faces.
It still looks weird to me, having been brought up using "bevel", but I guess I'm gonna have to get used to it.
"Biseau" is French for "bevel" or "beveled edge".
FWIW
Michael R
Edited 4/14/2005 8:50 pm ET by Woodwiz
English..... what can I say here.... sigh....
Your dictionaries are not complete references, so lets use the example of using the word "Bezel" on something woodworkers buy their girlfriends to make them happy.
Ever heard of the "Bezel" angle of a diamond?
Or have you heard that a diamond from South Africa, has a steeper "Bezel" compared to one from Belgium, or Russia?
Does a diamond have two sloping faces, or one?
If you are not sure, give me a buzz, I'm well connected and can organize you a woman, who will educate you further.
On the other hand... Hey Foooreeeest Girlll! Pleeease help me out here!!!!
Edited 4/14/2005 9:54 pm ET by Jellyrug
Ever heard of the "Bezel" angle of a diamond?
Or have you heard that a diamond from South Africa, has a steeper "Bezel" compared to one from Belgium, or Russia?
Does a diamond have two sloping faces, or one?
I spent a goodly portion of my youth cutting and polishing gems and making jewelry as a hobby, so my first exposure to the word were two meanings:
1. All of the facets or faces on a diamond or other faceted gem between the girdle and the table. On a brilliant cut this includes the star, kite, and upper girdle facets, 32 in all, not two.
2. The ring or rim which holds a gem or a watch crystal in its setting.
My point is that those definitions are listed secondary in all three dictionaries to the primary meaning of "a sloping edge or face, especially on a cutting tool", which I was unaware of until about a year ago, and thought to be an incorrect usage.
I don't happen to have a copy of the OED on hand, but I do have the 3000 page New Century dictionary, as well as the American Heritage and Webster Collegiate.
The French word "biseau" from which bezel is derived has almost the exact same meaning as the primary English meaning: bevel or beveled edge. One of the suggested derivations for "biseau" is the Old French "besel", not "bis"
"Bis" in French means "more" or "again"; in Latin "twice" or "two times" , and I don't see the relation to "biseau", no more than I see a relation between "the" and "theater"
So where does two come into the picture here? Every reference I can find just keys in on "A sloping face, etc."
As far as women go, I had a real good one but she died on me a couple of years ago and I'm not looking for another one yet, thanks.
Michael R
Edited 4/15/2005 12:35 am ET by Woodwiz
Probably French dialectal; akin to French biseau, from bis, two times, from Latin. See dwo- in Indo-European Roots.
Michael,
Sorry to hear about your wife.
I believe "Bezel" origininated from using two words being "Biseau" and "Bis", referring to two bevels?
But hell, I'm just a simple Engineer, your French is better than mine and you know more about gems than I do. If most dictionaries agree with you, who am I to argue?
You win
I am not sure....will give you a buzz.
In addition, when I look at my watch I see a rotatable bezel .
When I am at work I see bevels.
When I was in Zimbabwe some gentlemen referred to beffels, but then again they called screws scroofs so there you are then.
I have found this to be an entertaining post and would like to say that I am firmly in the camp of brother Lee.
Well brother Mook, did you bring the beer?From where did you come?LeeMontanaFest
Edited 4/15/2005 8:58 am ET by Lee_Grindinger
not pssible to bring beer- Southern Comfort yes, but not beer.
From where did I come? Please see my web site-http://www.collectablefurniture.co.nz and all will be revealed. I welcome all manner of commentary on this.
Jelly, ole buddy, I'll leave the battles over English and it's roots to you. I'm just trying to find a term we can all understand, right or worng.Language evolves, I'm just trying to keep up.LeeMontanaFest
Lee,
In the shops I've worked in, the distinction of a chisel was that the working edge was straight. In the carver's roll you'll have Vee chisels, skew chisels. I have a carver's chisel that has a 3/8" edge, ground square across, but it's bevelled on both sides. It's a Butcher, tang handled, very lightly made.
With a carving tool or a bench "chisel", it wasn't a chisel if it had a curved edge; it is, of course, a "gouge". I've got a couple firmer gouges on the bench- long heavy blade, socket handles, in-cannelled for chopping scribed lines in coping molding etc.
I agree that it's unfortunate that terminology has evolved (gotten sloppy!) over the years. I think that's just part of the "art and mystery" that has been lost with the modernization of the trade. How many craftsmen know what a cannel is, or care?
Cheers,
Ray
You're absolutely right, Ray. The #1 gouge is actually a straight tool but it is ground on both faces. I don't like this in a straight carving tool and when I need a straight edge I reach for my bench chisels while carving in spite of having two or three #1 gouges.LeeMontanaFest
Lee,
"....When the microbezel is against the workpiece such as when you're cleaning out a dado or groove....."
Had this in action the other day, I was trying to pare a tennon flat abd the chesel would not cut at all. Ran the back across the stone and discovered a micro bezel on the back which was probably caused by stropping. It took a lot longer to get out than I anticipated.
Guess I had better stick to stropping only one side (when I need to at all)
PS. I have no issues with your style, though this one wasnt neary as polished as the efforts on the boob cabinet.
Dave
John,
Are we talking about the bevel on the top of the chisel or the back ? I have to agree with Lee on that people seem to get all excited about something that is up to each individual on what they think is the "biggest bang for the buck". I always think its enteresting to here how other people do things but it doesnt neccesarily mean its the best way for me, just another option.I do think however that your summary of the angles for differant applications is interesting I might have to get another set of chisels so I can have a set for soft wood and a set for hard wood.It's alot easier to dress up a chisel that you have not chipped the cutting edge on by chiseling on a piece of white oak .
Tim
Hi, Tim...Sheesh - it's easy to get lost in all of this! I *thought* I opened this thread as a discussion of carpenter's chisels (as opposed to carving implements.) WHICH BEVEL?
Terminology is a bear - standard carpenter's chisels do have two longitudinal bevels along their topsides, and a bevel at the business end - the bevel that's sharpened. (Not preaching here - just trying to clarify exactly what it is that I think is the subject!) There are also straight carpenter's chisels, more often found in timberframe applications, that are heavier foursquare steel whose sole bevel is the at the cutting edge.The "bevel" of which I think we're talking is at the end - the sharpened part. The micro bevel is a second bevel added to the first at a slightly higher angle, so that the end of the tool is now more or less faceted - with a bevel arising from the sole (underside) for some distance (microbevel) and mating with the major sharpening bevel which extends unbroken to the top of the chisel.MORE CHISELS
Yup. I think most of us wind up working in a diverse range of materials and project types. The rules can change quite a bit as materials change, and I think that use of multiple sets of specific chisels can save some heartache. A small bevel angle always cuts more easily - more knifelike - so it's desirable to work with the least possible angle. BUT - that white oak you mention will break a small bevel all-to-easily. Thus, good reason to have an alternate set of tools for harder woods. Similarly, I like to have a set at 15-20 degrees that will pare fine shavings with lesser hand pressure. If I used them to chop *anything*, they'd be wrecked.White oak's pretty wicked stuff. If you work with it frequently, you might want to experiment with sharpening bevels of up to 40 degrees. Not worth much in softer wood (too slow), but that higher angle may allow you heavier mallet blows without damage.Them's my thinks, at least....
John,
Most of the stuff I chisel is soft woods , door mortise's ,scribeing fir beams etc. But I had to mortise some newls into white oak treads and "O my" my chisels didnt like that. Oh well get the stones out and clean them up. Personaly I usually have a straight bevel on my chisels, seems to cut better for what I do but I was thinking of those micro bevels if they would have helped.On another note ,nice response to Lee ,we can all learn tricks from each other ,he does do some nice work so he most be doing something right .Personally I'm looking forward to Montanafest to see all the tips and tricks from everybody and see if I can use any of them ,and maybe reveal a few to.
Tim
Hi, Tim...Sounds to me as though your normally successfully grind angle in softwoods didn't like the hardness of the oak. A microbevel at the very tip will improve strength only marginally - probably so little as to have no evident practical effect. Personally, I'd first get another chisel or two and grind/hone them at a much steeper angle - perhaps 35 degrees or so ... even 40 at the max..., and keep them aside for installations based on harder woods.For what it's worth, I think if you ground all of your everyday chisels to a steeper hardwood angle, you'd probably find them harder to use, thus making every day's work a little less fun. For that reason, I'd stick to what's working (it ain't broke, is it?), and seek a solution for the occasional problem with harder wood.Also - don't know your grinding habits. If you ever blue the steel at the cutting edge, it's guaranteed to break or bend sometime, somewhere, and to lose its edge quickly. If your angle is steep but you're still getting damage, look back closely at how you control the grind.Finally, one easily acquired bad habit is that of wiggling the blade in the cut to get it free. Any back and forth motion, particularly in an extremely strong wood, is likely to break the cutting edge. If you have the habit, try to banish it when working the hard stuff. Sort of like, "Cut shallower, and clean it out earlier" than with softwoods - takes longer....no surprise, eh?Lee's right - this sharpening issue has been worked to death. I think, though, that your comments are entirely to the point. Those who work primarily with hardwoods will just naturally gravitate to a steeper grind. The steep grind will work in softwoods, and seem so much easier that there's no evident issue. Therefore - "what's to discuss?" Conversely, a person working normally with softer woods - home construction is a prime example - will have gravitated to a lesser grind angle, and get smacked around around a bit when those chisels are used on hardwoods.Since you don't want to slow your daily work or make it harder, I think it's justifiable to have a couple of extra chisels ground specifically for the occasional hardwood project.And alla that, methinks, is a pretty decent example of sharing experiences and "tricks" amongst the bunch of us, even if you don't adopt the advice!
John,
I never use a grinder on my good chisels. I use a course diamond stone when things get real ugly. Dont know what angle I have on my chisels ,kept what the factory gave me I guess I'll have to check. Anyway thanks for the info.
Tim
Hi, Tim...Thanks for the tip! I've not purchased a diamond stone - in the last few years the market has just exploded with the bestest and mostest buy-me-now sharpening materials, and I though I'd let the dust settle a little before deciding which way to go. I *really* like the plate glass and SiC paper system - it's extremely fast, and the surface never gets out of flat.Tell me - how fast is that coarse diamond stone? How long would you estimate to work out a ding in a 1" chisel? Does it need any kind of liquid?I'd like to avoid the grinder as much as possible, and reserve it for the heavy jobs like changing bevel angle. If the diamond stone is the answer, I'll try it.Anyone else out there have info to share about this?
John,
I read all the posts and replies here, with more interest in human behavior, rather than sharpening itself.
Many, many moons ago, I did an apprenticeship with Mercedes Benz (not in the US) prior to college and had the experience of filing and sharpening for weeks on end, with an instructor who took joy in destroying each piece just before completion, as it was not perfect enough. I heard some mention about Tom Peters regarding this subject, but once one has the experience of helping someone change a wheel on their car, because they don't know which way to turn the nuts loose, perhaps there was method in the madness.
For us who are technically adapt, I believe we can learn sharpening quicker than the time it took in manhours to write all the threads in reply to your post.
Personally, I have my own ideas about how to get the job done as quick as possible, so do most others and in the end, we all have sharp tools, doing what we think works best.
The only thing I can add, is that it is almost impossible to get two edges to meet at a point, without a bevel, be it as it may, a MICRO bevel. Even if you use a jig. When you hone by hand, or you strop, you may get close to maintaining the same angle throughout your stroke, but it is impossible to do this perfectly. The result is a micro contour, which is in fact a bevel. If you use a jig on a stone (specially a water stone) the abrasive material building up in front of the cutting edge, actually causes micro rounding. If you use a strop, or a buff, the deflection of the media, causes a round edge, or a bevel.
In conclusion, I'm suggesting that even if you think you don't, you actually have secondary bevels on your chisels.
Edited 4/11/2005 12:36 pm ET by Jellyrug
I wanted to say how much I enjoy your posts about sharpening. I don't necessarily agree with everything you say (see below), but I enjoy the meticulousness you bring to the topic. It may not be necessary to be so meticulousness when working with wood but that's beside the point. I always find it interesting to hear someone analyze an issue to a high degree of thought and accuracy.
I don't agree on the hollow grind issue. Although your point makes sense intuitively, I believe if you actually measure the angles you'll find that a hollow grind decreases the blade angle only very slightly, not enough to affect the strength of the edge. Of course, this depends on the radius of the grinding wheel.
In the midst of all this hair splitting and agonizing about sharpening, a question comes to mind:
Has anyone taken a look at a freshly sharpened edge under a 100x lens, and then looked again after giving the chisel a few good whacks with a mallet? I think doing so might change a few people's focus from getting th ultimate edge, to more frequent touchup on a less perfect edge.
Most folks I know would rather make things than sharpen. Some times that perfect edge makes a difference, but they don't stay perfect long if you use them. Myself, I'm happy with "sharp enough" for whatever I happen to be doing. Some things are pretty important, like the back bevel on carving tools and knowing how cutting angles affect edge strength, but there is such a thing as "putting too fine an edge on it."
FWIW
Michael R
Woodwiz,
You are correct, our microscope camera is broken here, as I was tempted to post a few pictures of the subject.
I stick to razor sharp edges though, because it literally takes me 15 seconds and a looong time before I have to re-grind, which in most cases is never necessary. If anything else, it's nice to know the edge is "shaving" sharp.
I use a paper wheel on a bench grinder with white buffing compound and it takes seconds to get the edge back in shape. Link to the wheel posted below.
http://www.grizzly.com/products/item.cfm?itemnumber=G5939&
I stick to razor sharp edges though, because it literally takes me 15 seconds
I'm with you there. Sharp enough to shave hair is just basically sharp, and whatever gets you there quick is good enough for me. I just seldom have the need to get a blade sharp enough to shave a curl off of a hair, or to cut a suspended hair like I used to do when I still used a cutthroat razor. Sometimes, like for delicate paring or smoothing, you want a really sharp blade, but for most applications "shaving sharp" works for me.
For those who can't get enough of the details, here's a guy who has really put some effort into it. He has some interesting observations about stropping:
http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/overview.html
Michael R
"Has anyone taken a look at a freshly sharpened edge under a 100x lens, and then looked again after giving the chisel a few good whacks with a mallet? I think doing so might change a few people's focus from getting th ultimate edge, to more frequent touchup on a less perfect edge."
This is a good point. By way of non-scientific testing, I took my Lie-Nielsen low-angle jack to some very hard wood last night. Before planing, I could shave the hair on my arm. After about 60 strokes I couldn't shave anything. My blades have a wide hollow grind, so it's no trouble to find the right angle and re-hone freehand. About six strokes on the 1,000 grit waterstone to raise a wire edge, then six more light strokes on the 8,000 stone, then a few more on a piece of plywood with green honing compound, and I was back to shaving hairs. I suppose with removing the blade from the plane, re-honing, and putting it back it took about four minutes.
Anyway, your point is a good one. That perfect edge doesn't last very long when the blade is in use.
Mark,
I've never heard of the green honing compound you mentioned. What is it? And I assume you use it just to take off the wire edge, otherwise you'd use a flatter surface than plywood, right?
Thanks,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
It's just called honing compound. You can buy it lots of places - I bought a stick of it years ago from Lee Valley and it will probably last a couple of lifetimes.
I use the piece of plywood because. . . .no good reason, that's just what I used and I've never "upgraded" to a piece of maple. It seems to work fine.
It's not just for removing the wire edge. In fact, it might be too fine to remove a wire edge. It's just my third and last step of honing, like a 15,000 grit waterstone but a heck of a lot cheaper and no fuss. Just a couple of strokes on the bevel and a couple on the back. The compound is so smooth you don't believe any metal is being removed, but I find that the final step on the compound is what makes the blade sharp enough to cut hairs on your arm.
This final step is probably not necessary for woodworking. I know David Charlesworth stops at the 8,000 grit waterstone. But what the heck, it takes all of about 10 seconds and makes me feel good (no snide comments please).
In the article on sharpening in FWW a few years ago the author used diamond paste on maple. Same idea.
>> ... the green honing compound you mentioned. What is it?Chromium oxide.
Thanks, Unc.Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
After all the flak, I can't resist this ...no offense intended to yourself (or anyone else, for that matter.)Hmmm ... 60 plane strokes and 4 minutes sharpening recovery. Don't know exactly what you did, but allowing 4 seconds per stroke would amount to 240 seconds or so. Four minutes' recovery is, let's see...about 240 seconds. Er...that's 50% cutting time and 50% sharpening time ..... <G>Yah, yah, 240 seconds for 60 strokes is really flailing away. Even double that to 8 seconds per stroke, and you're still at 33% sharpening. Triple it to 12 seconds per stroke (slo-mo), and you're at 25%.I hope you can see the picture I've been yakking about. It isn't a high percentage of *shop* time that's reflected in the resharpening time proportion - it's the actual cutting time that's the basis for comparison with actual time required for re-honing, as a percentage. Heck, if you figure in thinking, scratching, and Miller time, then sharpening time becomes invisible...;-) (Er, no - I *never* combine Miller's and tools - treasure my hands too much for such idiocy.)Your observation of dramatically reduced edge quality rather early in the game is just the reason that we (I, anyway) need fast and efficient ways to hone - who wants to stop every whipstitch and spend forever getting the edge back?"I can't stop to sharpen the blinkin' axe - I got all these blinkin' trees to chop down..."---John
The 60 strokes was probably about 10-15 minutes, but I was conducting my non-scientific experient, not actually working with the wood.
John,
Depending on the ding ,a minute our two , then of course you have to go up in grits to get rid of the scratchs from the last stone to the sharpness your content with.I got a two sided DMT stone , course and medium ,and I like it . I use water to keep the stone lubricated and clean and then wash it with comet when I'm done, per the instructions with the stone .
Tim
This is intended for "ALL" - posting as response to avoid starting new thread. Didn't mean to fade away - gotta tend to biz now and then. Wow! Seems like once the dustup settled down, there are great discussions forthcoming, and good insights, too.Please let me back up just a sec and try to word a couple of things differently about my attitude and practices, and add some current comments along the way.1) I *hate* dull tools, and I *hate* sharpening. I read somewhere that honing can be meditative - not for this kid. I may zone out a bit from sheer boredom with the repetition, but there's nothing refreshing in it for me. It's the butcherin' that's fun, and time spent sharpening ain't making little sticks out of big ones. That 30% number was meant to illuminate the common truth that most of us tend to sharpen too little - which is both a safety and a quality issue. (See "MARKRODERICK"'s post #48 and my #70 reply, and Lee's comment re safety and sharpness.) On the other hand, I usually don't spend 100% of my hours in the shop literally *cutting* wood. If you were to cut oak, ash, ...blah blah...or particleboard on your tablesaw for 8 solid hours a day nonstop (e.g. production setting), you'd find that even tungsten carbide teeth don't last for so very long, and perhaps get a better picture of the pure working/sharpening time ratio to which I'm referring. (Um ... I do have a green wheel for the carbide touchups, Mookaroid...;-)2) Someone with perfect insight mentioned a while ago that I must have a German or two lurking in the background. Ummm ... er ... well ... I've two tons of Teutons back there - both sides of the aisle for centuries. My G'father was 1st gen immigrant abt 1880, and a bear for "doing it right". As result, I don't for example believe I've made a good freehand grind unless it's dead square and shows one - and only one - pass in the grind. Tough work on a big bench chisel with a shallow angle. Keeps my skills honed, but sure has gone thru a lot of steel over the years! As a techie, I have some genetically imprinted need to understand *why* I should do a thing before jumping on the train. Hence, all the reasoning. It really doesn't take all that long - some is all but universally intuitive - - but writing it is a bear! ("Jellyrug" #35 - yup - it's not all that hard, but takes bunches of words to try to get it sorted out verbally.) I'd not expected to spend this much time in discussion, but there are the usual goodies coming to light that make it far more than entertainment or good manners (and thanks to all for insights and comments.) G'pa taught to never stop learning, and be sure to share what you do know as it may be the only means of repayment. I'm here asking questions, and trying to pass on a truth or two that I may have stumbled across - and gratefully receiving corrections when they're appropriate.3) I've been sharpening tools manually for nearly 50 years, and had pretty good success with it. Don't like it - takes too much time and is fraught with opportunities for error, even if microscopic. I'm one of those many with a concrete floor and occasional lapses of sanity to contend with, so I've spent far too much time grinding out dings from that wayward roll off the bench, followed by the usual (old-fashioned) range of oilstones for honing - been using Wachita, plus soft/hard Arkansas. I don't trust stones implicitly, 'cause they always get out of flat somewhere along the line, and ya can't see it early enough. Always did believe there had to be a better way short of a commercial wet grinder, and have watched for years as each new whiz-bang method was touted. [ Another insightful soul in this thread pointed out that the *real* profit lies in selling tools. Amen! ] I'm leery of just up-and-buying the latest gadget, and tend to wait for a while until there's more good buzz than B.S. (agree with "Ed fom Mississippi" about "no more sharpening gadgets!") Hence, no diamonds, no waterstones of my own, etc., etc. Plate glass and SiC paper seemed like a pretty good idea, but ... maybe that's just guys wanting to sell sandpaper...? Long story short, I tried it, and find it to be exceptionally fast and accurate. *And* the surface is still flat when I toss the paper. Gonna try coarse/medium diamond stone per Tim's input to see if it's fast enough to avoid literal grinding of small nicks.4) Says the Prideful ol' Dutchman (me) - "I don't need no stinking honing guide." And I don't, but it surely has sped things up for me. Can return to and *hold* ground angle in a heartbeat, and concentrate all effort on attending the blade. It just hasn't missed for me, and I'll keep doing it. Useless, of course, for all but flat tools.5) Someone asked about "green compound" and was correctly answered with "chromium oxide." Take a look in the buffing compound sections of your catalogs. There are at least white, red, black, and green sticks - compounds in a heavy carrier, characteristically in a rectangular solid form - a "stick.". (I bought green from Grizzly because that's where I first spotted it in a catalogue.) Red and white are traditionally also carried as a semiliquid for automotive finish rubout. I frequently use white to rub varnish (rottenstone in oil is traditional for the purpose, but it's a bit on the coarse side.) Black carborundum is out there as valve grinding compound - particles suspended in a heavy oil/grease. Compounds vary markedly in behavior and design. It takes sharp, tough particles to grind/polish hardened steel, but those for sterling silver, for example, are not only very fine, but soft enough not to scratch it visibly - so soft that they'll disappear before doing much work on steel. Coarse are fast, fine are slower but cause less damage. The first of them were made from iron oxide, and were, naturally enough, reddish in color ... hence, "rouge." Practice has evolved so that most such in dry form or with thick carriers (e.g., stick form) are called rouge. Jeweler's rouge, red rouge, white rouge, green rouge... Slang "green stick", etc. Those in slurries or lighter media are usually called "compounds" - grinding compound, polishing compound, etc. Confusing, as with many elements of our language - it's all for the same general purpose and frequently involves the same chemical and mechanical properties, yet the nomenclature has become so intermixed that hairsplitting terminology ("rouge" versus "compound", e.g.) makes less rational sense than it once did.6) Hollow grinding. Lee rightly points out that a 10" or larger wheel is best for the job. I've the (perhaps mistaken) impression that *many* craftsmen have only 6" machines, and their small wheel diameters tend to make quite a dent in the intended grinding angle (reducing it at the edge.) Worse, some must make do with one machine for both tools and mower blades, and thus may not have a friable white wheel to minimize heat, much less a slow speed option. That's why I don't espouse the method. Hollow grinding does have its advantages, to the extent that it requires less work in removal of steel, and, since only the edge and heel contact the honing stone, it's much easier to orient by contacting the two straight lines on the stone - the miniscule clunk as it seats can be distinctly felt. It's difficult to hone a *flat* grind efficiently - the slightest (and unavoidable and unfelt) deviation from angle will instantly begin to round the surface, making the whole process somewhat haphazard. Someone earlier pointed out that at the micro level, you're getting a (form of) micro bevel whether it's intended or not. That's another thing I like about the honing guide - it's always "spot on", as the Brits might say, and thus helps to minimize inadvertant mis-shaping of the edge.7) Tool breaking. Come on - who's ever actually, literally, broken a chisel into pieces in normal use? The "breakage" occurs at the very edge, and isn't visible to the unaided eye. If the grind is too shallow, the edge may break microscopically, rather than wear (which is, in reality, just a slower form of breakage....controlled chaos.) The tangible result is that the edge seems duller sooner. Tools that see heavy blows and/or work in hard materials need a larger grind angle so that the edge is microscopically buttressed against breakage. The lighter the work, the lesser the angle *needs* to be. Hence, paring chisels at very low angles are suitable, but mortising chisels are best served with a much steeper angle. Lee offered the impossible image of chopping with a razor blade - great analogy. For very light cuts, a fine angle is desirable because it cuts with less effort and will generally facilitate manual accuracy. For heavier work (also meaning harder workpiece), the angle needs to steepen to hold the steel together.8) Angles. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That is, if your/my present practices are yielding good life and performance, why change them? A steep 35* grind will cut nearly anything, including soft woods. A 25* grind will cut soft woods more easily. I personally like a choice of angles because of the variety of construction-related work around the house. For example, letting a hinge mortise into an existing pine jamb: the jamb is only fastened at a few points, and will bounce a bit when struck. I find, or it seems to me, at least, that a grind at a finer angle, e.g., 25* cuts a bit more easily through paint and pine, and doesn't dance so much. Conversely, a 35* grind will last longer (not break at the edge) in hard materials, (especially if they ain't jumpin' around!) While building my redwood deck, a finer angle yielded deep cuts with little crushing, and saved a little banging around. In oak, they'd fail fairly early on, so I keep a different bunch at steeper angles.9) "Shaving quality" may not be all that sharp. Actually, a blade that's little better than fair will still cut hair. You guys joking about shaving with your shop blades are right on the mark. Careful honing can introduce a much keener edge and yield a few more cuts before it needs to be repeated. I've undergone a few (minor, thankfully) surgeries, and was each time amazed that I could actually feel "vibrations" as the burrs on the scalpel ripped away at flesh -about as aggravating as fingernails on a blackboard. Told the surgeons I'd be happy to take them with me and return them in better condition. By way of contrast, I've accidentally caught the edge of a finely honed tool and not even realized it until there was blood to clean up. Subjective comparison, perhaps, but tangibly real. Hmmm - maybe that's a good test - if you can damage yourself and not feel it, then it's really sharp. And, gosh, with enough sharpenings and tests, you can tell folks that the whole mess is a shark bite....10) Micro bevels. No wonder I didn't like 'em. Lee's postulate that a few thousandths - 15 perhaps - is adequate sounds just right, and certainly wouldn't impair visibility. I'm still not convinced of any advantage for bench chisels "flat side down", but can readily see the great advantage of a micro's fulcrum when the chisel is turned "bevel side down." Lee is far too expert and far too passionate about micro bevels for his advice to be taken lightly. I for one intend to try them, and fairly.11) I claim no great authority. In some ways unfortunately, I was brought up by depression-era parents, whose insistent advice was centered about getting a good education and finding a good job with a big company...which I duly pursued. Have had a great career, but deeply regret having missed the opportunity for youthful apprenticeship in woodworking. At my age, things need to get done while there's time to do 'em, and I'm impatient with the need to pay my dues in the passage to what I hope will become something more than outstanding mediocrity. Practice makes perfect, she said, and boy, I'm practicing. Perfect, however, remains an attribute evident only to my mother... Thanks to all of you for the additions you've made to my understanding. Like most everyone, what I know would fill a few books, but what I *don't* know fills libraries.Regards,---JohnEdited 4/14/2005 8:36 am ET by John
Edited 4/14/2005 8:38 am ET by John
A 6" wheel is fine. You don't have to change the angle of the grind if you don't want to. Peter-
Hi, Peter...Seems we're missing each other- either I didn't write clearly, or I'm not bright enough to follow along. Would you please add a few words, as in, "waddaya mean ya don't have to change the angle of the grind ...?" <G>
I didn't think I said you have to...???Thanks.---John
>> This is intended for "ALL" - posting as response to avoid starting new thread.Thank you. :o)If you didn't see how to address a reply to ALL, you probably don't have your preferences set to use the Advanced View. Look at the bottom of the message reading frame and see if there is a link that says something like "Switch to Advanced View". If there is, click it. If you see a link that says "Switch to Basic View", don't click it, you're already in Advanced View.The slow way to switch to Advanced View is through your personal preferences configuration. To reach that window, click on your name in the To: line to get your profile popup, and click on My Prefs. Or you can click on the My Forums button in the third row of buttons above and click on My Preferences. Once you're in the preferences window, select Advanced View, scroll to the bottom of the screen and click on Submit.Once you're in Advanced View, the To: line in the message composition window has a pulldown menu and ALL is usually the second menu item.
Howdy Unc...Ah, fer petesake. Thank you, kind sir. Wasn't paying attention to the options on the form, even though they're hidden in plain view - focus going instead to rapt anticipation of another grinding session ... har.---John
Sheesh - I edited that last treatise 3 times before I realized that the hall monitor thought the correct spelling of "Wachita" was a no-no, contained a no-no, or resembled a no-no now living or having once lived in this or another place....And I just learned how to post to ALL without jumping ship - thanks for the tip, UncleDunc!
Hi John,
I agree with all of your points, particularly those on differing edge angles, but save for your comments on hollow-grinding. About a year ago I invested in a Tormek cold grinding machine and now I even sharpen my own planer blades. Sunday nights I whip through all my chisels and the kitchen knives in about an hour.
Regards
John,
I agree with you about the micro bevel,( I'll never get use to calling it a bezel) being unnecessary or even detrimental, although I'm not as passionate about it. I've done, it worked, but I don't do it any more.
I disagree on the hollow grinding issue. I grind my tools on a hand cranked grinder, fitted with a fairly small diameter wheel (5"), and I'm very happy with the results. By results I mean what I can accomplish with the tool not the actual sharpening job. To me, although I take sharpening very seriously, it is just a means to an end. I also can't see myself spending 25-30% of my chisel time, sharpening, as that seems excessive to me. Yet pick up any tool on my bench other than my rough scrub plane, at it will be extremely sharp, ready for any task. I just finished a piece in maple, with 9 dovetailed drawers, and I may have honed my chisel once, in the 10 hours I spent marking, cutting, sawing, and removing the waste from those dovetails. Admittedly, I saw or router most of the waste away, and the actual time with chisel in hand was something on the order of 4-5 hours. That one honing could have only taken 10 minutes at the most and more like 5, which works out to around 2-3%.
I too have a set of "beater" chisels ( Stanley) , and a "varsity" Japanese set, but I almost never use the beaters, as the Japanese chisels hold an edge for a very long time, even when chopping in hard wood, and they are easy to hone, due to their composite nature.
Rob Millard
Hi, Rob ... and Sean, to whom I'm also responding here.I think that there can be a pretty fine line between theory and practicality with regard to hollow grinding. Mathematically, there's no question that a straight-ground profile is stronger. Geometrically, a hollow grind does deliver a smaller cutting angle, and thus a weaker cutting cross-section.BUT - if'n your materials and practices are such that you're not pushing the envelope of the tool's capabilities, then why change in the face of current success? What you're doing works. Don't fix it if it ain't broke.The person working with softer woods is probably not encountering too many problems. The one working with difficult woods is going to be up to his ears in problems, and anxious to discover the more esoteric points that might have an effect.There is a point that may or may not hold perceptible results for you:
A smaller cutting angle cuts more easily, and is therefore faster/easier/gooder/better/mofast. If you used a straight but lesser grinding angle to yield the equal of your present hollow grind, you might find that the tool is faster and/or easier to use.I've hollow-ground for a seeming eternity, and not had a problem with breakage. Now that I've time to really pursue, I intend to press my luck with speed and impact pressure to see if there really is a perceptible and practical interface for the argument. I've a hunch it will be a non-issue for most woods, and a dealbreaker in *hard* woods.Conversely, the utility of an extremely fine hone-and-strop routine can't be overemphasized. This is about cutting wood, and the sharper the tools, the better the results will be. Period.Think, finally, of this:
All of this yak about how fast and easy is of minimal importance to the weekend warrior. Those of us who pursue woodworking as a hobby are rarely going to have repeated the same motion enough times in succession to know whether it's easier or harder, and are unlikely to have a vested interest in cranking out production runs with mininal resharpening costs. For a few working in one hard spot or another, some of the more esoteric discussions may provide an answer to an uncommon but vexing problem.
Rob,
Where did you find your hand grinder?
Thanks in advance.
Kyle
Kyle,
I bought the grinder at a flea market in the late 1970's. I would think there are still plenty of them out there.
Sorry I couldn't be of more help.
Rob Millard
Kyle,
I got one off Ebay, $10 I think.
Steve
John,
If I had to spend 30% of my time sharpening chisels, I'd be earning even less than I do now! As a result of a recent Boy Scout project making knives, I started the day out last Friday by sharpening ALL my bench chisels. 17 in all, from 1/8" to 2" I was done, and back to work in a little over 1 hour. I hollow grind with one of those white soft wheels, to within 1/32 or so of the edge of the chisel. Angle? I aim for about twice as much bevel, as there is thickness in the blade. Guess that's about 30*, I grind steeper if it's a mortising chisel. Then to the bench (oil) stones. A couple minutes on the fine India, a couple on a soft Arkansas,and a couple more with a hard Arkansas.
I ride on the hollow grind, with more pressure on the edge side of the hollow. This goes very quickly, as there is very little metal to be removed. Once the backs of the chisels are flat, I only hone the backs with the hard arkansas stone. After a time they are quite highly polished. After several sharpenings at the bench, the flats on the bevel get wide enough that it takes longer and longer to re-establish an edge, so it's back to the griunder, to hollow the bevel again.
I very seldom have an edge to crumble, fold, or break in usage, unless I or a Boy Scout runs it into the blade of a knife as they are paring the handle down! Maybe my blades aren't of a high enough quality to require frequent sharpening??Makes are varied, from Stanley to Buck Bros, to Ioroi, Union tool, Greenlee, Butcher, Pexto, Pinetree, and Douglas Mfg. The Douglas is really soft, I'm wondering if it went thru a fire, but it's a 5/8" an odd size, and I don't need to use it often so I live with it.
It's interesting to me to read all the discourse on sharpening here, as I was taught the basics on my first day at work, in 1971. It seems to me that many people are more into acquiring that super-scary, ultimate edge, than in putting it to work. Like it's the end, not the means to an end. But there's nothing wrong with that, unless you are getting paid to produce woodwork, not sharp tools.
"What I dislike to see...A carpenter set down to whet his tools, and at the same time, begin a long story." Felix Dominy, 1825
Cheers,
Ray
"What I dislike to see...A carpenter set down to whet his tools, and at the same time, begin a long story." Felix Dominy, 1825What a wonderfully apt quote! If you made it up, please don't tell me.
Don,
From "With Hammer in Hand" , Charles Hummel's book about the tools and lives of the Dominy family of furniture and clock makers on Long Island NY. The Dominy shop was purchased by HF duPont, and is on display at the museum in Winterthur Del.
It is a great book, one of the first to read if you are interested in 18th century technology, IMHO.
Another of his dislikes: a woman who showed too much of her "ancles" in public.
Cheers,
Ray
It's always interesting watching these sharpening and honing threads. People seem to get all excited about angles, bezels, bevels, back bevels, hollow grind, flat grind, flat backs, mirror brightness, and blah-de-blah-de-blah.
Personally I think getting too excited about the topic gets in the way of what sharpening's for, i.e., to cut something, not unless it's your hobby or it's your job, and the latter job has and still exists.
Sharpening in my opinion should be quick and painless because as a furniture maker if I'm sharpening I'm not whacking wood. In the end, sharp is sharp and everything else is blunt, and for most work a few strokes on something like an 800 grit stone should do the job, although there are exceptions where something a bit more polished is useful.
I take a minimalist and simple line over the job. I have to teach groups of people how to sharpen on a regular basis. I teach the basics and discuss the fact that there is a lot more to learn. They can get on with learning and refining their technique once they've got the nuts and bolts in place.
I also teach that there are more opinions and myths about the topic than there are goose pimples on a naked model on an Antarctic photo-shoot, ha, ha. Again, I find it's best to ignore all the flim-flam, and just concentrate on getting the bloody thing sharp in a hurry.
The students all get a hand out, including this one, so in response to mvac's request, here it is. Slainte.
A Lesson in Sharpening.
A perennial subject in woodworking magazines is that of sharpening techniques. No other furniture making topic seems to generate so many words, resulting in the publication of innumerable articles detailing ‘infallible’ or ‘sure fire’ methods of doing the job.
Naturally, the subject is of great interest because blunt tools aren't much use. The opening preamble to many of these articles often cause a wry smile for they bring back memories of my initiation into the 'dark' art. Many authors make valid points about those that struggle at it, and possess a workshop full of dull tools. Conversely, it is often said that those that can do the job tend to be fanatical about grits, slurries and bevel angles. My experience is that there are really only two types of people when it comes to sharpening.
1. Those that can’t.
2. Those that can.
In the first group, those that can't, you'll sometimes see every sharpening system known to man arrayed around their workshop gathering dust. They have oilstones, water stones, ceramic stones, diamond stones, guides, pieces of sandpaper, jigs, etc.. Usually, every hand tool they own is chipped, dull and mostly useless.
In the second group, those that can, I haven’t observed much fanaticism about slurries, grits and bevel angles. In all the workshops I’ve worked in the only concern is to get the job done. It’s a case of, "Plane’s blunt, better sharpen it." Dig out the stone, sharpen the blade, shove it back in the plane, and get on with it. The equipment is minimal. A grinder, a stone and lubricant, along with a few slips for gouges and the like.
Going back to the early seventies when I trained, learning how to sharpen tools was undertaken within the first few days. I don’t now recall precisely the order of my instruction, but it went something like this. I was handed a plane by the cabinetmaker I was assigned to and told, "Git that piece o’ wood square." I didn’t know why, but I’d done a bit of woodworking at school, so I had a vague idea what to do. I fooled around with that lump of wood for twenty or thirty minutes, and got it something like. All this under the watchful eye of the crusty old guy and his ever present roll-up hanging out of the corner of his mouth.
"Okay, I’ve done that." I said, "Now what do you want me to do?"
I was told to hang about for a minute whilst he picked up his square and straight edge and proceeded to scrutinise my handiwork, followed by a non-committal grunt and some desultory foot sweeping of the plentiful shavings on the floor. (The wood was probably only about seventy five per cent of its original volume!)
"Now sonny, let’s do the next job," he announced. "Pull that jack plane you’ve bin usin’ apairt and let’s have a look at the iron." I did.
"Hold the iron up so’s yuh can see the cuttin' edge," he instructed. (He was a Scot.) Again I did as I was told.
"Now, can yuh see it? Can yuh see the ‘line o’ light’ at the shairp end there?" he wheezed, as he tapped off a line of ash onto the floor and stood on it. He was referring to the shiny reflection visible when cutting edges are dull.
"Aye," I said, after a little eye narrowing, and other pretence of intelligence.
"How shairp does it look to you boy?" he enquired.
I thought about this for a moment or two, seeking the right response to my tormentor, for I hadn't really got a clue what he was talking about, and finally replied rather hopefully and a bit brightly, "Pretty shairp, I’d say."
He laughed out loud, and hacked a bit. "Dinnae be the daft bloody laddie with me son. If yuh can see it, it’s blunt. I could ride that bloody iron bare-ersed to London and back and no cut ma’sel’. Git o’er here an’ I’ll show yuh something."
You can probably guess. Out came the oilstone from his toolbox, and quick as a flash the iron was whisking up and down the stone, flipped over, the wire edge removed, and finally stropped backwards and forwards on the palm of the hand. You could shave with it. I know, because he demonstrated how sharp it was by slicing a few hairs off his forearm. On went the cap iron and the lot was popped back in the plane, followed by a bit of squinting along the sole from the front whilst the lever and knob were fiddled with and that was it. He took a few shavings off a piece of wood and it went back in his toolbox. It took, oh,…......a few minutes.
"Now son, that’s a shairp plane. It’s nae bloody use to me blunt. Yuh may as well sling a soddin’ blunt yin in the bucket fur'all the use it is to me." He explained with great refinement. "I’ve aboot ten mair o’ them in that box, an’ they’re all blunt. Ah’ve bin savin ‘em for yuh. There’s a bunch a chisels too. Let’s get yuh started."
For what felt like forever I sharpened his tools for the one and only time under his rheumy eyed and critical stare, and things gradually got better. After a while he stopped telling me what a "completely daft stupit wee bastit, " I was, and a bit later he started offering grudging approval. I had to sharpen some tools more than once because he kept on using and dulling them. When I’d done the lot we stopped and surveyed the days work.
"Aye, no too bad fer a daft laddie's fust effort," he commented darkly, sucking hard on his smoke, "I think ye’ve goat whit it takes. Time will tell sonnie. Remember, ye’ll never be a bliddy cabinetmaker if yuh cannae even shairpen yer f—in’ tools. Lesson over. Dinnae ferget it."
I haven't
RJFurniture
Edited 4/15/2005 3:24 am ET by Sgian Dubh
Sgian,
My experience: Must have been near the end of the first week in the first shop I worked in. I was trying to get my brand new spokeshave to cut, and it wouldn't. I looked around the busy shop, then went over to Mr. Grim, the semi-retired old gent who never seemed to be in a rush (but got more work done in his half-day than anyone else did all day). "Mr. Grim, do you have time to show me how to sharpen this thing?" He took the blade out of my hand, looked at it, then kind of sighed. "Well, you won't learn any younger, will you?" Then the lesson began. Thank God for those old timers. Wait a minute...when did I get to be old??
Cheers,
Ray
Hi...What a great story - I'll not lose the image of riding to London on it! He sounds a bit like my g'father. Funny - one of gf's "tricks" was palm-stropping. I've used it constantly for seeming ever, but didn't post it for fear of getting more flak than was released in WWII. It works nicely, but is marginally slow, and a slip can result in a rueful "how sharp is it?" test. (As if the battle-scarred didn't already know that...)---John
Most of my students now, after a few months of training, get quite busy flipping their chisels and plane irons backwards and forwards on the palm of their hand John.
It's either that, or they're pretending not to flip the finger at me as I approach them to impart further pearls of my wisdom, ha, ha-- ha, ha, ha. Slainte.
RJFurniture
Edited 4/15/2005 6:58 pm ET by Sgian Dubh
Thanks, Richard ... nice to know I'm neither crazy (debatable) nor alone...
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled