Our ancestor's sharpening technique

[Mike Henderson]

I occasionally purchase an old chisel or plane - and I've NEVER found one with a back flattened or polished in any way. Did our ancestors not realize that an edge (arris) is made up of two surfaces and that both have to be smooth to get a sharp, straight edge?

And yet, they did some great woodworking.

Any opinions about why they only sharpened the front bevel of a chisel or plane blade? And never touched the back?

Mike

[David Christopher]

Mike, maybe they just more talent than we do ( more skill duller tools

[harry strasil]

I don't waste time flattening the backs, they are already flat, I just barely hit the back sides to remove the burrs, but I do strop both sides.

Average about 5 minutes to redo an edge on a chisel, unless I drop it on cement.

[harry strasil]

Also I use no jigs or fixtures, just my hands and eye, I have a worksharp 3000, but it takes longer to hook it up and get ready than it does to touch up the edge on a chisel.

[harry strasil]

Old Chisels and plane blades stay sharp longer too, especially the laid on ones as the laid on part is much harder and holds an edge much longer than newer ones.

[Mike Henderson]

Almost all the ones I get are not laminated - they're solid steel. The back is usually rough, with the original grinding lines from when the chisel or plane blade was made. Those grinding lines extend into the edge, which causes the edge to be serrated, rather than smooth.

Any ideas why they only sharpened one side? Was it lack of knowledge? Or what?

Mike

[Anyone ever get an old chisel or plane blade that was flattened, or even had the back polished (even if not flat). The only tool I ever got that was flat was one I got from a woodworking friend who flattened it before selling it to me.]

[Adam Cherubini]

I occasionally purchase an old chisel or plane - and I've NEVER found one with a back flattened or polished in any way. Did our ancestors not realize that an edge (arris) is made up of two surfaces and that both have to be smooth to get a sharp, straight edge?

And yet, they did some great woodworking.

Any opinions about why they only sharpened the front bevel of a chisel or plane blade? And never touched the back?

Mike

I wrote an article on this subject a few years back that might be worth revisiting, They lacked a good coarse abrasive. So continuously flattening a back really wasn't practical.

What I think they did is grind the bevel when the edge was really bad using a sand stone grinding wheel. These leave a fairly fine surface most of the time. My wheel may be 300-400 grit. They'd grind low, then hone high so they didn't have to hone a lot of material. They had ine stones, but they were slow cutting. They didn't have good coarse stones like we do.

The burr on the back would get honed away on their finest (only?) stone. If they couldn't remove it with the back flat on the stone (who knows how flat their stones were) they'd probably strop or lift the tool, creating a back bevel.

A back bevel of a few degrees is really nothing to sneeze at. It can be very helpful in fact. It certainly would reduce the time required to hone.

The result in my mind are tools set up more like carving tools. I picture elliptically shaped edges. These can be really very nice to work with. I think we've been very close minded about what defines sharp edges or what sort of edges are required for woodworking.

Adam

Even

[Doug Shepard]

...
Any ideas why they only sharpened one side? Was it lack of knowledge? Or what?
...


Well for one thing, Leonard Lee hadn't come along yet to show therm what that edge really looked like under magnification. Motorized sharpening was a thing of the future, sandpaper grits above 220g were probably tough to come by, Scary Sharp was a thing of the future...
A lot of the current sharpening probably could have been done back then but at a lot more effort and expense.

[george wilson]

I'm sort of confused. I've seen plenty of ground backs on 18th and 19th.C blades.I've had access to the extensive Williamsburg tool collection for decades.Please explain further.

[Robert Rozaieski]

A back bevel of a few degrees is really nothing to sneeze at. It can be very helpful in fact. It certainly would reduce the time required to hone.

I'm with Adam on this one. I've done things both ways. On some of my tools I've spent an inordinate amount of time lapping the back of a chisel or plane iron (with very coarse modern abrasives) prior to grinding and honing. On some others I decided to try it differently and cheat either using the ruler method that David Charlesworth recommends or just lifting the back ever so slightly. I've seen no difference in performance of my tools and the result is being able to set up an old tool much quicker. For a new tool it may not be an issue as the backs are typically pretty flat, but now when I get a "new" old tool, I don't bother lapping the whole thing flat. I think it's a waste of time. I concentrate on just getting the edge sharp.

And as Adam mentions, with chisels, a slight back bevel allows you to steer them like a carving chisel. If you try to do this with a perfectly flat backed chisel it doesn't work. When a flat backed chisel is laid flat on it's back on a flat surface, it won't cut. If it hits a high spot, it will grab and want to dive however, because of the flat back there is no fulcrum and therefore no way to steer it out of the dive and it will have a tendency to dive deeper. With a slight back bevel, you can steer it out of the dive. And personally, I've never used the back of a chisel as a reference so I'm not sure that arguement holds much water.

With regard to period sharpening, I don't think their abrasives were as refined and high tech as ours. They had natural stones and sandstone wheels. These are fairly slow cutting abrasives. I personally would not want to lap the entire back of a chisel on a soft Arkansas stone. It would take eons to finish. Plus, stones were expensive so they didn't typically own very many. Maybe only a fine finishing stone (Turkey stone) but for a lot of craftsmen this might have been their only stone. In the more well to do shops, they may have had two grades of stones. I doubt many had more than that (except the French maybe) and they probably didn't varry in grade as much as ours do today. Think soft Arkansas, and hard Arkansas and that's probably about it.

Sandstone was used in the grinding wheels but it still cut pretty slow relative to what we would expect today. Therefore you grind low and hone only the edge. Texts like Moxon cite a very low grind. If memory severs me well, something like 15 degrees. We all know that no edge would hold up to heavy use at 15 degrees but hone a secondary bevel and the edge improves. Plus the low grind means very little honing since the honing is removing very little steel.

[Larry Williams]

...Any opinions about why they only sharpened the front bevel of a chisel or plane blade? And never touched the back?



Mike,

Why flatten the back? Well, flattening the back is for repeatability as you move between stones. If the stones don't have the same topography you waste all your honing time making the tool conform to the stone.

I think the old guys solved the repeatability issue by only using one stone. Yes, it's slower than what we do but it's faster than wasting time making tools conform to radically different stone topographies. The reality is that they sharpened the same way we do except they didn't use multiple stones on each tool. For coarse tools like a jack plane that's used a lot use a coarse stone, for fine tools where finish is important use a fine stone.

When I look at the backs of these old tools I only see one abrasive signature, not several in different grits and locations. I also think they tended to sharpen more often so as not to have to work too hard to restore an edge on just one stone.

[Mike Henderson]

I wrote an article on this subject a few years back that might be worth revisiting...[snip]

Adam

Even
Thanks, Adam, for your note. Can you provide a link to that article, please?

And thank you to everyone else who posted. Your comments make sense - that our ancestors would have put a "microbevel" on the back.

Mike

[Wilbur Pan]

I also think they tended to sharpen more often so as not to have to work too hard to restore an edge on just one stone.

I think that is absolutely true. The best thing I ever did in my shop was to leave a fine grit waterstone out on a stand so that if I ever needed to touch up an edge, it was right there ready to go. I find that I actually spend less time with sharpening since I touch up the blades more often.

It's easy to get into sloppy sharpening habits when you have access to a powered grinder.

[Mark Singer]

My father taught me to use oilstones and a file for rough sharpening. We free handed chisels and planes . A sanding block was often used. This is a good subject .... I see sharpening and flatness over thought currently . I never even though about how flat a plane sole was for years, I just checked the work with a straight edge until no light was seen . I have very good sharpening tools now, but I just do it and get on with the woodworking... it is just a means to n end .
Wooden jointers and jointer planes of old would never have flat bottoms. Yet the work they produce was perfect,
on old drawers it is not often you see really fine dovetail work....this has been elevated to a higher level as it has become a detail viewed with a critical eye and not just a means of connecting parts.
Good sharpening really helps but it should be done efficiently IMHO

[Pam Niedermayer]

...And as Adam mentions, with chisels, a slight back bevel allows you to steer them like a carving chisel. If you try to do this with a perfectly flat backed chisel it doesn't work. When a flat backed chisel is laid flat on it's back on a flat surface, it won't cut. If it hits a high spot, it will grab and want to dive however, because of the flat back there is no fulcrum and therefore no way to steer it out of the dive and it will have a tendency to dive deeper. With a slight back bevel, you can steer it out of the dive. And personally, I've never used the back of a chisel as a reference so I'm not sure that arguement holds much water....

I flatten the backs of all edges; and when I encounter the above situation with a chisel, I simply work the area bevel down, which eliminates all tear out.

Pam

[David Christopher]

I do know that I see alot of people running their plane back and forth. when I was younger my grandpa would fired you on the spot if you slid a plane backwards.. you had better pick it up on the back stroke and cut on the front stroke....he would not you use his chisels, plane or handsaws. and it seemed like they stayed sharp all the time and I dont remember him sharpening them very often ( maybe better steel ) I dont know

[Larry Williams]

Well for one thing, Leonard Lee hadn't come along yet to show therm what that edge really looked like under magnification.

Are you aware that Van Leeuwenhoek was examining cutting edges at 200X in the 1600's and writing about it? Do you know he replied to the British Royal Society when asked about it and talked about the abrasives he used to get the best edges? I think you'd be familiar with those he mentioned. Hmmm, come to think about it have you considered what abrasives and what accuracy would be necessary to grind the lenses for the microscopes he made? I really wish there was a way to eliminate the notion so many have about how primitive people were in the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries.

[Robert Rozaieski]

I really wish there was a way to eliminate the notion so many have about how primitive people were in the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries.

Larry,
I don't think it's so much a notion that they were primitive, which they were obviously not considering they developed some of the very first vaccines in the 18th century. However, what was typical, affordable and readily available was different. Sure, they probably had the abrasives we have today (silicon carbide is basically a form of sand) but they hadn't the technology to turn it into a man made stone very easily or inexpensively. Plus, they didn't need a man made stone. The natural ones worked just fine. They would also be much cheaper than a man made stone (totally opposite today however). But mostly, they were simply interested in getting an edge that was good enough and getting back to work.

As a scientist they may have been interested in the microscopy of the edge but as a cabinetmaker they could care less. They knew how to sharpen "good enough" quickly and get back to work because cabinetmaking put food on the table not sharpening to the nth degree. Natural stones were readily available and they got the job done so that's what they used.

I think there is a huge difference today in that so much more is readily available to us in the form of product and information. So much so that we take things like sharpening to an unnecessarily complex level simply because we can afford to. Most of us don't rely on building furniture to pay the bills but rather we do it as a hobby. If our ancestors knew how long some of us took to hone an edge or build a piece of furniture they'd probably have a heart attack.

I think the main difference between how they honed in the 18th and 19th centuries and today was priorities, not necessarily technology. Our ancestors honed so they could get back to work and pay the bills. We hone to see how many hairs we can scare off of our arms before the edge actually reaches them. I think it's kind of like the fussing over how thin of a shaving one can get from their plane and measuring it with a micrometer. It's a trivial activity with basically no actual usefullness in working with wood but it's what gives a lot of folks enjoyment when they aren't doing their day job. Who am I to argue with what someone else does with their free time. Me, I like to build stuff so "good enough" is good enough for me ;).

Now to get those darn doors done :rolleyes:!

[Jim Nardi]

Any well used tools that I have bought are in good shape and very well tuned. My favourite planes to seek out on e-bay have short blades. I've always suspected long chisels and full blades in planes to have never seen a craftsman's hands.

[Joel Goodman]

I have the same suspicion of old planes with full blades -- it seems that in the last 75 years or whatever if the plane was good someone would have used up a lot of the blade.

[Mike Henderson]

I've bought planes that we know are good - that have a high reputation today - and had short blades, or replaced blades. None of those had the back flattened, or the back edge polished (such as with a microbevel). Maybe those planes went from professional use to abuse but you'd think I would have run into one that was sharpened well (by today's standards).

Additionally, no one has yet reported (in this thread) that they bought an old plane with a flattened back on the iron (that hadn't been done in modern times).

I think our ancestors just sharpened differently than we do (as suggested by several posters).

Mike

[Jim Koepke]

I've bought planes that we know are good - that have a high reputation today - and had short blades, or replaced blades. None of those had the back flattened, or the back edge polished (such as with a microbevel). Maybe those planes went from professional use to abuse but you'd think I would have run into one that was sharpened well (by today's standards).

Additionally, no one has yet reported (in this thread) that they bought an old plane with a flattened back on the iron (that hadn't been done in modern times).

I think our ancestors just sharpened differently than we do (as suggested by several posters).

Mike

All but a few of my planes were bought used. Some of the blades looked like they were butchered. The blade would still cut wood, just not as well as I would like. Some of my planes were from a retired cabinet maker. The blades were sharp and an original type 10, but not worn down. I have seen a blade taken down incredibly fast by someone who thought they knew how to sharpen on a grinder. They would have likely done better by trying to beat an edge on it with a hammer.

Some of my used planes did have blades with the backs showing evidence of flattening or maybe someone's attempt to remove pitting.

I have also noticed a blade can be pretty dull or in bad shape and still cut wood. For trimming the edge of a door, this is likely good enough. For leaving a glassy surface on the face of a board, it isn't.

If a blade is sharpened regularly with care by someone who knows what they are doing, I think it would take a long time to wear it down to replacement time.

Just my opinion,

jim

[Jim Koepke]

I've bought planes that we know are good - that have a high reputation today - and had short blades, or replaced blades. None of those had the back flattened, or the back edge polished (such as with a microbevel). Maybe those planes went from professional use to abuse but you'd think I would have run into one that was sharpened well (by today's standards).


Just another thought on this. When an edge is established, there is the burr or wire edge that is typically taken down by flipping the blade and dragging it on the stone or by honing. The micro area that was polished by this would likely be as effective as flattening the whole back.

Some of my chisels have shown signs of honing on the back. There is no way to date when this may have happened.

jim

[David Keller NC]

"Almost all the ones I get are not laminated - they're solid steel. The back is usually rough, with the original grinding lines from when the chisel or plane blade was made. Those grinding lines extend into the edge, which causes the edge to be serrated, rather than smooth.

Any ideas why they only sharpened one side? Was it lack of knowledge? Or what?"

Mike - One note on this subject is that the composition of the blade sensitively depends on the age of the tool. Most 18th century tools did not survive - they were sharpened and used into oblivion. Molding planes and a few bench planes are the exception - I've a bunch of them by certifiably 18th century makers. Every one of the irons are laminated. And in the Seaton chest (also certifiably 18th century - though very late 18th century), the chisels and gouges are laminated.

During the 19th century, the composition of tools gradually changed as steel making was industrialized. However, even late 19th century large framing slicks, timber framing chisels, and the like were laminated - I've a few examples of those as well.

However, you're quite right about the backs not being polished, though they are quite flat. Examined under a magnifying glass, one can see that the backs of molding plane irons that saw little use have been ground flat, most likely by the cutler. The Seaton chest book also describes "glazing" which was a much finer grind on the front and back of the tool, at extra cost. Also evident is that the cabinetmaker's sharpening (or perhaps the blacksmith down the street) involved honing the bevel and putting a very slight back-bevel on the blade. Like you, I've observed only a very limited number of irons from the early period that have flat and polished backs.

[Harry Goodwin]

Mike maybe you have been buying either bad tools or bad flea markets. If nothing else my fellow patternmakers and I could do we could sharpen tools and polish the backs of chisels. No question. My carpenter father did the same. To put a rule under a plane blade makes us flinch. Harry

[David Keller NC]

Another comment about 18th century sharpening:

I rather strongly suspect the typical honing was done after the grindstone by stropping. There are records that indicate that a "Turkey Stone" was quite an expensive commodity in the 18th century. However, tripoli and rottenstone (pumice and crushed limestone) were common and cheap.

Carvers have been using a leather strop embedded with rottenstone mixed with a little tallow for many hundreds of years, and I rather suspect that cabinetmakers would've returned their plane and chisel edges to sharpness in the same way. This is, in fact, what I do in my own shop - the waterstones typically don't come out unless I've nicked an edge, or the hollow grind has dissappeared on the bevel. And it's very, very fast - 3 or 4 strokes, without even removing the cap iron, and the plane is just as sharp as it was when it came off of the 8000 grit waterstone.

As to why these strops have not survived, one reason is that the utility of a piece of leather, which was relatively much more expensive than it is today, would've pretty much mandated that it be put to a secondary use when found among grandfather's tools be descendants that weren't interested in cabinetmaking.

[Mike Henderson]

Mike maybe you have been buying either bad tools or bad flea markets. Harry
I've learned quite a bit about old tools, and I feel confident that the tools I select to purchase are quality tools - or at least were once quality tools. I don't know what a "bad flea market" would be. I can't imagine there are flea markets which only carry "good" tools, and other flea markets which only carry "bad" tools.

In any case, many of the tools I've purchased have been on eBay, which represents a pretty good cross section of sellers and tools.

Of course, there's always the chance that I've always gotten the worse tools available, but statistically that's fairly unlikely.

Mike

[Ian Gillis]

Additionally, no one has yet reported (in this thread) that they bought an old plane with a flattened back on the iron (that hadn't been done in modern times).

I think our ancestors just sharpened differently than we do (as suggested by several posters).

Mike

Hi Mike,

I was examining an old razee jackplane today with a view to inletting a new piece into the sole to close the mouth. The plane came to me at an auction along with a toolchest and a few boxlots of assorted tools. I was able to date one Stanley Bailey plane in the collection to the 1880's, and some auger bits to the same period. Undoubtedly he added tools throughout his career, and I can't date this wooden jack with any certainty. It's pre-war... maybe pre-Boer War.

I pulled the iron out to have a look. It's a laminated iron, better than 3/16" thick at the business end. The blade had been lapped to a near mirror finish. I say "lapped" because there is a bit of dish in the back that is untouched. The bevel is rounded but finely honed -- the iron passes the thumbnail tests for both sharpness and smoothness.

The fact there's no rust is not surprising, I have lots of cutting tools from the same toolchest, which is a bit musty, but apparently protected its contents for a generation after the original owner's death.

So, there's one for ya! I'm sure if I pull apart more of this fellow's woodies I'll find the same thing. It wouldn't have struck me as unusual the first time I scoped them out because I'd sort of expect it.

Cheers, Ian

[Mike Henderson]

It's good to hear, Ian, that there's at least one ancestor craftsman who flattened and polished the back of a plane iron. It appears to not be very common, however. Certainly I've never seen one.

Mike

[Ian Gillis]

Me again,

I was in the shop tonight anyway, so I dug out some tools from the same batch and had a look.

My apologies for the photos, reflective surfaces are a bear to photograph.

However, I think you'll get the idea. I did no cleaning or polishing of any kind on these pieces.

Bottom left is the jackplane iron I mentioned earlier, bottom right is a gutter plane iron. Top left is a firmer chisel, and the one on the right is a broken bevel firmer that someone must have used to jack up a house. The soft iron shaft bent ok, but the brittle "bit" snapped.

Cheers,
Ian

[Joe Cunningham]

Carvers have been using a leather strop embedded with rottenstone mixed with a little tallow for many hundreds of years, and I rather suspect that cabinetmakers would've returned their plane and chisel edges to sharpness in the same way. This is, in fact, what I do in my own shop

I'd be interested in learning more about this. Do you use the same rottenstone that is used for polishing out a finish? Do you charge the strop with some tallow and sprinkle the rottenstone on it, or is the tallow & rottenstone mixed up first? I use rottenstone and paraffin oil for rub-outs, I wonder if I could use that on a strop as well (since I already have it)...

[george wilson]

Ian,razee jack planes were pretty late,and were used in schools for manual training-shop class. You probably knew that.But,did you also know that a razee was also the name given to a wooden warship that had had its top deck removed. I suppose to make it sail better?

As far as I know,razee planes were supposedly made easier for boys to handle.

[David Keller NC]

"Of course, there's always the chance that I've always gotten the worse tools available, but statistically that's fairly unlikely."

Mike - Blades that were made after about 1870 that were small tended to be a single piece of cast steel, especially the smaller blades and those made by British Sheffield manufacturers. Gradually as steel became cheaper the laminated blades all but dissappeared except for Japanese blacksmiths. A solid cast steel blade can be every bit as good or better than a piece of cast steel laminated to soft iron - it just depends on the quality of the cast steel and tempering/hardening it went through.

"I'd be interested in learning more about this. Do you use the same rottenstone that is used for polishing out a finish? Do you charge the strop with some tallow and sprinkle the rottenstone on it, or is the tallow & rottenstone mixed up first? I use rottenstone and paraffin oil for rub-outs, I wonder if I could use that on a strop as well (since I already have it)..."

Joe - Regular rottenstone used for rubbing out a finish will work just fine on a strop, though I would suggest getting a very fine sieve of the type used to strain paint (you can get it at a Sherwin-Williams store, for example) to make sure you don't have any large chunks. While you can, of course, use tallow (just rub a bit into the leather, then butter the rottenstone into it), I would suggest using a non-organic grease - lithium grease works well.

Obviously, such a grease as lithium would not have been available to our ancestors, but tallow, pig fat, etc... can turn rancid. Won't hurt the tool, but it will stink up your shop.

[george wilson]

David, I just use Simichrome metal polish.It is a paste. Just rub a bit onto the strop.it sticks,no fuss,no muss. About the same fineness as rottenstone.

[David Keller NC]

George - There's a lot of alternatives when it comes to stropping. I was just speculating on what an 18th century guy would've used. There's a lot of references to rottenstone and tripoli in the records from the time period.

[Doug Shepard]

Are you aware that Van Leeuwenhoek was examining cutting edges at 200X in the 1600's and writing about it? Do you know he replied to the British Royal Society when asked about it and talked about the abrasives he used to get the best edges? I think you'd be familiar with those he mentioned. Hmmm, come to think about it have you considered what abrasives and what accuracy would be necessary to grind the lenses for the microscopes he made? I really wish there was a way to eliminate the notion so many have about how primitive people were in the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries.

Nope. Didn't know that. I stand corrected.
Still think I'm right about Leonard Lee not being around though:D

[george wilson]

David,I do remember learning somewhere that the old timers seemed to rub tallow on their wooden tools. I've wondered where that brown coating on especially British wooden tools came from. Tallow? I can tell you that it is not the least bit water resistant,whatever it is,so I don't think it is linseed oil. Once I was forced to use a wooden brace in the rain. It took the old brown patina right off of it,especially the non rotating handle.

[Ian Gillis]

Ian,razee jack planes were pretty late,and were used in schools for manual training-shop class. You probably knew that.But,did you also know that a razee was also the name given to a wooden warship that had had its top deck removed. I suppose to make it sail better?

As far as I know,razee planes were supposedly made easier for boys to handle.

Nope, I didn't know that, George. There's a lot of stuff knocking around in your brain that I don't know ;) School use might explain why it looks so unloved.

The plane iron is a mismatched Sargent cast steel (narrower than the cap iron). There was a lot of trade between Nova Scotia and New England going back to colonial times. I imagine a Yankee plane iron would have been a bargain in the 19th or early 20th century compared with English products.

The plane I rested the chisels on in the photo is another razee style, as you can see. I can't see this one being a school plane, though. It appears to have the profile for planing the tops of bannister railings. Nice piece of fruit wood (apple, most likely) with an ugly chunk missing out of the sole. And the iron has been ground to its absolute limit -- just a a few honings left in this one.

Take care,
Ian

[george wilson]

Ian,and others,when I started teaching wood shop in 1963,the larger wood shop across the hall had a whole toolroom full of wooden tools that would now be worth a lot of money. Most of those tools looked unused. There were Stanley transitional planes of all sizes,wooden spokeshaves,wooden bow saws, a large collection!! Dozens of each tool. I can't recall everything. the school bought all new tools,and threw the entire toolroom away. What a waste!!

When I was very young,my step father was in the coastguard. We lived on 3 different lighthouses. One was Destruction Island,about 10 miles off the coast of the Olympia Mountains. Being the smallest service,the Coast Guard always got the leavings of the other services. There were wooden planes,and other 19th.C. tools on the station. Here's how archaic the station was: I used to go down to the dock early in the morning in the cold with my step father,and watch him start the "donkey" engine that operated the big wooden crane. That's how we unloaded supplies. This engine had 1 big horizontal cylinder,with a firebox cast in solid beneath the cylinder. He would build a fire in the firebox,and when the cylinder was hot enough,he would spin the 6' diameter flywheel. The engine would start ka-tonk,ka-tonk,one per turn of the flywheel VERY slow. We had to ride up from the dock over a real deep gorge on a trestle in a little iron mine type car,like the one in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. It was towed by a cable.

That was in 1945,I was 4 years old. I think everything on that island had been there since the lighthouse was built in the 19th.C.. The 2 other light houses,Point no Point,and Lime Kiln,were about the same. I was using those old tools from an early age. We had hand cranked bench grinders and sandstone treadle powered grinders,all real old stuff.