Another Sharpening Thread...

[Jim Foster]

I use King, 800, 1200 and 6000 grit stones to hone, and the larger Tormek to produce a hollow grind. My honing results are OK, and I can get a chisel or plane blade sharp enough to shave or push into a paper edge. I'm not sure these two tests are really the best test for sharpness, and am wondering if I would get much benefit going to an 8000 stone? And maybe a stone in between the 1200 and 6000, like a 4000, which would have me at 1200, 4000, and 8000. Any thoughts on this will be appreciated.

[bridger berdel]

6000 is high enough for most woodworking. in between stones might save you some time on some blades, but balance that with maintaining the stones...

all it will cost you to find out is money. and since we're talking about your money, I say go for it. send Stu a check today. he'll send you some GREAT toys....

[Ron Kellison]

My first question would be what kind of steel you are sharpening? If you're using O1, then the two additions I would recommend would be either an 8000 or 10000 waterstone. I've used King but MUCH prefer the Sigma line of stones. Sticking with O1 steel, you can then put a wonderful edge on it with green compound on a piece of leather or MDF (.5 micron, roughly 15000 grit). You will end up with an incredibly sharp edge (assuming your technique is good) but it will only stay that sharp for a few swipes if you're working anything other than pine or poplar. If you're using A2 steel, I personally don't find the need to go beyond 10000. I use Sigma Power II stones and an A2 blade taken to this level will work oak, maple, etc. for quite some time before I need to resharpen. I use a micro-bevel on all my plane irons so I'll resharpen a couple of time on the 10000 stone (just a few quick passes on the stone) before I drop back to my 6000. I continue this cycle until I'm looking at a micro-bevel about 1/3 the size of the primary bevel. At this point I usually go back to the beginning and start the whole process again. I usually don't bother with the green compound unless I doing a blade for one of my smoother planes where I'm taking of tissue shavings (.001 or perhaps less) and the quality of the surface is critical.

Ron

[Jim Foster]

A while back I made a chart showing the different waterstone grits and relative sizes, but have not looked at it in a while. The diameters shown are microns. It seems like a big jump going from 1200-6000, 8000 is almost half the size of 6000. I suspect I should work the 6000 a little more than I am, and see if I get a sense of "better" results, and also add a stone to expand my experience with honing

Ron, I have a number of different blades, only one or two are O1, I've heard Sigma is a nicer stone to use. Maybe, I'll look at adding a 10000. I use primarily Oak right now and I'd like to see if a higher grit stone will help me keep an edge longer.

274438

[Mark Dorman]

I really like the chart thanks for sharing it.

[Jim Koepke]

The chart is a nice way to compare sizes visually.

For me, water stones at 1000, 4000 and 8000 works fine. Usually after the 8000 a blade may be swiped a few times on a strop.

There is a noticeable difference in an edge produced between a 4000 compared to an 8000 stone.

In your case my choice might be to forgo the 8000 and look for a 10,000 or 13,000 stone.

Is it there a lot of work going from the 1200 to the 6000?

If so, you may want a 4000.

Of course these answers come easy when one is spending other people's money.

IMO, having too much sharpening equipment is better than having to little.

jtk

[Archie England]

Based on some history, along with experiences shared with Chris Griggs..., a Chosera 800 followed by a 8000 stone should be plenty enough for normal sharpening. Now, for preference...., I much prefer intermediate steps from 1200 to 3000 or 4000 then 6000, finished by either 10k or 13k. For handplane work, I'll stop at 6k; for gnarly grain or end grain paring, I go to 10k or 13k. I use Sigma Power Ceramics (not Select IIs) primarily; but really like some other stones (Choseras are REALLY good but pricey), as well. For the budget conscience, a Bestor 1200 is very good (but far less so than the Sigma 1200 or Chosera 1000). The Chosera 3000 is superb; near as good, is the Gesshin 4000.

[David Weaver]

There are a lot of things you could do. If you're desirous and looking to spend money, you could replace all of your stones either with a shapton pro setup or a sigma power setup (stu's three stones and an atoma deal is probably the best dollar for dollar deal).

Personally, I wouldn't put more stones between what you have if you like your kings, I'd just add on a fine stone or some other fine medium. 1/2 micron diamonds or chromium oxide (stick from LV that's mostly actually al-ox), etc, will all step right up from the stones you have. As will the 13k sigma power stone (pick your source for that, by the time you pay shipping, stu is probably the cheapest and as a one-man operation and the original source for them, the sales mean more to stu than they do LV). The 13k is the finest inexpensive stone you'll find (by that, I mean not up in the stratospheric prices of the cho 10k or gokumyos (the first of which I know from experience is a very nice finisher, and the latter is by reputation on the razor boards also one).

Shapton pro cream isn't a bad option, either.

Speaking of, what are you using to flatten your stones right now? I wouldn't want to flatten the really fine stones with sandpaper, and if you need a diamond hone and a stone at the same time and you're looking to get out of this cheap, compound/diamonds on MDF or hardwood (or a piece of cast iron for the diamonds) may still be the best route.

All of that said, there is nothing you need to do in woodworking that you can't do with a 6k king, and that includes parers, smoothing planes, etc. There are ways to squeak a little more out of the stone, and you can strop afterward if needed.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Jim

If you like the Kings, and they do what you need, then you do not need a 8000. In any event, an 8000 is too close to the 6000. Usually one has either the 6000 or the 8000, but not both.

You can improve the edge without any extra stones - just allow the 6000 to dry out and then finish on this surface. This will act like a 10000.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Foster]

Derek,

Thanks for the tip, I'll try it.

[Prashun Patel]

I go from a 1000 to an 8000 shapton, and it seems to work fine for me. One can always get sharper. However, the test of sharpness is if you are able to work with it. Forget your arm or hair or paper. Take it to your wood.

[Daniel Rode]

Rob Cosman - 1k + 16k shapton stones (primary, secondary, tertiary bevels)
Chris Schwarz - 1k + 8k shapton stones (primary + secondary bevel) I suspect he uses 16k in place of the 8k at times.
Paul Sellers - coarse/fine/x-fine Diamond stones (250/800/1200) + stropping (15k-ish) (Single convex bevel)
I haven't watched David Charlesworth's DVDs yet

Despite the apparent differences, Cosman and Schwarz are actually quite similar. Both use shapton stones, both use a micro bevel and neither appear to use a strop or stropping compound.

Sellers is entirely different. His honing stops at the 1200 grit diamond stone but he strops aggressively. From what I can see, his stropping motion is identical to his honing sans the push stroke. So, it appears that he's honing and polishing to 15k using the strop. Different tools, different bevel, different process.

In addition to these three popular woodworking figures, I read posts and articles that describe many other techniques. Ignoring the freehand vs guide issue, I see a wide variety of stones and papers recommended, different methods caring (water soak, water on surface, oil on surface, glass cleaner on surface) for them and honing differences. Single bevel, micro bevel, hollow primary bevel, etc, etc, etc. Add on to that the various grinding and/or sharpening machines and it's a confusing mess. Some are trying to sell stuff that may or may not be needed. Others are pure of motive but one of many "good" solutions and much depends on one's needs and skill.

Sharpening is critical to good hand work but finding the right system is difficult and potentially expensive. It's not like I can just "give the shaptons a try". A couple stones, holder and a flattening plate is over $500.

I don't have an answer or even a question really, just a explanation of why sharpening threads are so common and never seem to point to a clear solution for me.

[Don Dorn]

I seem to have run the gammit. I started with the system Deneb Pulchalski does with the guide. Then I switched to the method Cosman uses and had good luck with that too, and didn't see myself changing as it produced an edge very sharp and I jettisoned the guide. Then, along comes Sellers who was successful at convincing me that the a convex bevel has good edge retention. I tried it, found that I really liked it and for the past two years, I'm using that method with diamond stones. My feeling is that it doesn't produce any sharper of an edge that I got before, but in my experience, it has strenghend the edge, especially with chisels. While I won't rule out switching again, I've gotten very used to this system - it's fast, no stones to soak and gives me the edge I need.

Lastly, I agree with Prashun - for awhile, my forearm had no hair and I was saving receipts to prove sharpness to myself. Now, I just sharpen those items I use on a project at the end, and put them back.

[Leon Jester]

My Arkansas black produces an edge that will shave; it's good enough for me. I'll point out that in the 18th Century it was good enough for the likes of Chippendale, Sheraton et al. and I'm not even close to their class.

The few times I've gone past that I've used WoD SC paper at 600, 800 and 1,000 and a bit of 10W-30. If I want a polished edge I'll buff it with rouge and then white. I'd rather be making shavings and sawdust than metal filings.

[Stuart Tierney]

My Arkansas black produces an edge that will shave; it's good enough for me. I'll point out that in the 18th Century it was good enough for the likes of Chippendale, Sheraton et al. and I'm not even close to their class.



Leon,

Can I point out that they also used the best tools for the job that were available at their time.

Whenever someone brings up the idea that "it was good enough for >insert highly regarded, long dead fellow<" it ignores several years/decades/centuries of advancement, refinement and improvement, and cheapens the memory of >insert highly regarded, long dead fellow< as though they would have shunned any new technology that came along that made their work faster/easier/better.

Having actually worked 'on the tools' myself, you never disregard anything that makes your job faster or easier. You may not adopt something new, but you never ever disregard it without a thought and you never ever think "my widget is good enough for me" if the new thing is obviously better and easily available to you.

That also extends to wondering/testing whether your existing widget is actually good enough. Peer pressure means that anything cheap/old/marginally effective attracts scrutiny by others who will not hesitate to tell you how silly you might be. You'd better have a better excuse than "it was good enough for >long dead guy<" or you'll get light ribbing at best, asked to find alternative employment at worst. No, you won't lose your job for owning an marginal tool, but sticking to something that's not up to the job usually means your performance is lacking in other areas too.


Stu.

[Chris Griggs]

"it was good enough for >insert highly regarded, long dead fellow<" it ignores several years/decades/centuries of advancement, refinement and improvement, and cheapens the memory of >insert highly regarded, long dead fellow< as though they would have shunned any new technology that came along

Sawing off infected limbs without anesthesia was good enough for the very best surgeons in the 18th century, I don't see why its not good enough for us today. :D

[George Beck]

In the last year or so I have narrowed my honing down to two stones. I learned on the hand crank grinder followed by soft arkansas to hard arkansas. Now I have a fancy Tormek and establish the hollow with it. I go to a 2000-3000 grit stone to a 15,000 grit stone and thats it. On straight edges without a camber I go 5000 to 15000. The purpose of an 800 or 1000 grit stone is to remove metal quickly. Since a burr has been formed on the Tormek the geometry is correct so only honing is needed. I am trying to remove as little metal as required since I will re hone maybe 6 times to each regrind. When the blade is done there is maybe 1/32 of shinny edge which is all that is required. This process yesterday took about 6 minutes. When I just have to hone, maybe 2 minutes. Don't get me wrong you need coarse stones for new blades and knicks but not for final honing.

[Jim Foster]

I've been paying a little more attention to my sharpening since this post and last night I was sharpening a blade from a #8 plane and even though a good hollow grind was in place, it took a significant amount of time to get the scratches resulting from a 1200 waterstone removed with the 6000 waterstone I have. In fact, I'm sure I quit before completing the task (reading glasses are doing wonders for my sharpening :) ) I have also tried going right to the 6000 stone after placing a hollow grind with the Tormek and seem to get better results than starting with a 1200 and then jumping to the 6000.

I use King stones and my thoughts are to shift the honing from the Kings to Norton 4000 and 8000. Does anyone have any feedback on the Norton Stones in these grits compared to King?

I also made a graph of grit vs size and thought it interesting enough to add to the post.

274812




I use King, 800, 1200 and 6000 grit stones to hone, and the larger Tormek to produce a hollow grind. My honing results are OK, and I can get a chisel or plane blade sharp enough to shave or push into a paper edge. I'm not sure these two tests are really the best test for sharpness, and am wondering if I would get much benefit going to an 8000 stone? And maybe a stone in between the 1200 and 6000, like a 4000, which would have me at 1200, 4000, and 8000. Any thoughts on this will be appreciated.

[Roy Lindberry]

I use King, 800, 1200 and 6000 grit stones to hone, and the larger Tormek to produce a hollow grind. My honing results are OK, and I can get a chisel or plane blade sharp enough to shave or push into a paper edge. I'm not sure these two tests are really the best test for sharpness, and am wondering if I would get much benefit going to an 8000 stone? And maybe a stone in between the 1200 and 6000, like a 4000, which would have me at 1200, 4000, and 8000. Any thoughts on this will be appreciated.

Sometimes I think our modern obsession with sharpening can get over the top. I think the best advantage you are going to get by going from a 6000 to an 8000 is edge retention. If your irons are not sharp at 6000, then I'd guess that there is a problem with your technique. I sharpen to 1200 and then strop with chromium oxide and don't have any problems.

In related news, I ran across this video the other day, where Paul Seller's demonstrates the ability of an iron sharpened to 250 to plane a smooth surface, and puts it up against some finer grits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbAo4RpM7oM
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbAo4RpM7oM)
Again, I think the big issue here would be edge retention. Seller's says the surface with the 250 isn't quite as smooth, but plenty smooth. So it's not the surface or the ability to take a shaving that's an issue. My assumption would be that a person sharpening to 250 would be going back to the stone(s) more often.

[David Weaver]

It helps to do a test like that with pine.

You can plane with less well sharpened irons, and doing so is a good way to see if you're doing the right thing with higher polishes.

As far as the question about working the metal too long, if you're working the hollow flats with a 1200 grit stone and the 6000 is too slow following it, something is amiss. I'd try the following:
1) freshen the surface of the 6000 stone, and leave a little bit of slurry on it
2) do all of your work to remove wear at your basic angle with the 1200 and then (I can't remember if you're working with a guide) lift or microbevel the final bit just a few degrees with the 6000 stone.

There's no reason to polish parts of the edge that will never come in contact with wood.

You can use a coarser stone as a test - it's easier to raise a wire edge and confirm you've gotten all the way there with a medium stone (fine india or 1200 waterstone, etc). If a finishing stone (including a 6000 grit stone) doesn't feel substantially smoother in something like a heavy smoother cut, then you know you've not done the job properly with it.

You can use the coarser stone as a starting point (make sure you remove the wire edge by stropping it off), and then check the feel with the 6k stone (or look at the edge under a loupe). But, you do want to be able to use a polish stone. If nothing else, the surface will be better from your smoothing plane, and chiseling will be better (a duller chisel has that same slightly gritty feel in a cut, and you can see by the quality of the surface that it leaves that it's less sharp).

One other thing to consider, while you can work with a 250 or 500 grit stone, you will be sharpening more often. It's likely not to pan out for you if you're doing it to save time and you have to take a plane apart to sharpen an iron. It's a novel trick, but it's no less of a parlor trick than it is to sharpen to a tenth of a micron. The practical time-economy way to sharpen for most people is still going to be to grind the primary, remove the wear with a medium stone and then lift the edge a little to remove the medium stone's burr with a polish stone and polish the back of an iron. It's an extra 20 seconds on top of one step, and it will be repaid in use easily.

You can spend more time than two stones, but with experience, it won't yield any additional sharpness, and it will definitely take more time. You can use a single stone, and you'll be back to the stones a little more often (especially if you're using a single stone that's fast or brash enough to tolerate diemaking steel irons), etc. Two stones is a good balance, though, especially if you're trying to finish a surface that comes off of a plane iron without scraping and sanding.

[Roy Lindberry]

Sawing off infected limbs without anesthesia was good enough for the very best surgeons in the 18th century, I don't see why its not good enough for us today. :D

Interesting, I didn't get the impression that this is what Leon was getting at. I think he was just making the point that it is very much within the realm of possibility to do great woodworking with far less than we have - not to say that there is no purpose in advancing. And of course, surgeons today don't look at surgery of the 17th century and admire the work, and aspire to do as well, and think it the pinnacle of the trade.

I would go so far as to say that a great woodworker of the past (or even many today) would surpass my work even if he only had two chisels one plane, a hatchet and a dovetail saw, and I have 10 times the number of tools. Great work, while great tools help, is the result of great skill. I've decided recently that I'd rather put my time into developing skill, than into more tools that might not be necessary. Obviously, this is not a one-size-fits-all approach, and every woodworker will approach it differently depending on their goals, abilities, time, finances, etc.

But I think there is great merit and value in recognizing that artisans of the past created great work without some of our modern tool advances and obsessions with sharpening. It doesn't mean that there is no reason to pursue better tools and techniques, but rather it gives assurance to people like me that I needn't break the bank to do high quality work.

[David Weaver]

That may be true for some woodworkers, Roy, but I don't think it was true for all of them (not many tools). I don't remember where I read it, but I saw somewhere that a furnituremaker who does a significant amount of carving would typically have had 100 gouges, and a trade carver may have had 4 times that. Jack of all trades joiners may have had few, but I don't think that inferior sharpening goods were part of the menu.

When you look at what the english used a lot of (charnley and hone slates), they are very fine stones, and if anything, their speed is a problem, but not fineness. And over here, the market for novaculite stones was pretty strong, and subsequently the english market because novaculites are fast compared to hone slates and charnley type stones.

I get the sense from the few vintage oilstones that I've used that the quality of the finishing stones was generally better, too. Certainly the soft ark stones, especially the pike mine stones, were much better than anything labeled soft ark right now.

But for practicality's sake, you can get a medium and finishing ceramic stone and sharpen faster and finer and for less money than it would cost to get a decent washita and a good finishing arkansas stone. I would imagine that if those stones were available 200 years ago for half a day's pay (catalogs of old stones I've seen suggest a finish stone was about 1-4 days wages, depending on the size and grade), I'd imagine they would've used them and not argued with each other that someone else could do better work with lesser tools.

I'll bet most of them sharpened as quickly as they could solely because it affected how much money they could make, but I also doubt too many used dullish tools.

[Chris Griggs]

Interesting, I didn't get the impression that this is what Leon was getting at. I think he was just making the point that it is very much within the realm of possibility to do great woodworking with far less than we have - not to say that there is no purpose in advancing. And of course, surgeons today don't look at surgery of the 17th century and admire the work, and aspire to do as well, and think it the pinnacle of the trade.

I would go so far as to say that a great woodworker of the past (or even many today) would surpass my work even if he only had two chisels one plane, a hatchet and a dovetail saw, and I have 10 times the number of tools. Great work, while great tools help, is the result of great skill. I've decided recently that I'd rather put my time into developing skill, than into more tools that might not be necessary. Obviously, this is not a one-size-fits-all approach, and every woodworker will approach it differently depending on their goals, abilities, time, finances, etc.

But I think there is great merit and value in recognizing that artisans of the past created great work without some of our modern tool advances and obsessions with sharpening. It doesn't mean that there is no reason to pursue better tools and techniques, but rather it gives assurance to people like me that I needn't break the bank to do high quality work.

Well said Roy. Yeah, I don't really disagree with anything you just said. I was mostly just using it as an opportunity to make a goofy comment.

Though looking back at the comment I don't know what Leon was getting at. Was it that we worry to much about sharpening in general? Was it that the OP should get a black arkansas? Was it that that the 6k he has is good enough? Anyway, I don't care to guess at his intent, and didn't even really pay much attention to his comment at first...really I was just being goofy. You make good points though, no disagreement from me about anything you just said.

[Jim Foster]

The 1200 diamond (9 microns)you start with is finer than a 1200 grit waterstone (11 microns) when comparing in microns, and the chromium oxide (.5 microns) is a significant difference in microns compared to an 8000 (1.2 microns) or 6000 grit stone. I am getting a good polish with the 6000, but as I mentioned, I'm questioning the 1200-6000 jump, and looking at the results I can get going right from hollow grind to 6000, using a process of hollow grind to 4000 to 8000 seems like it could be a beneficial change.


Sometimes I think our modern obsession with sharpening can get over the top. I think the best advantage you are going to get by going from a 6000 to an 8000 is edge retention. If your irons are not sharp at 6000, then I'd guess that there is a problem with your technique. I sharpen to 1200 and then strop with chromium oxide and don't have any problems.

[David Weaver]

For reference, you should get about the same edge off of a broken in fine india (IIRC, someone here said that's what they use at the NBSS) that you can get off of a 1200 waterstone. If you're skilled with using stones that are broken in, you can actually get a better edge off of it. The grit rating for a fine india is a bit misleading unless it's absolutely fresh off of the diamond saw with very sharp particles.

AS for jump, until I got fascinated using a single stone to sharpen things (and still now if I sharpen an iron that is more difficult than plain steel), I made the jump from whatever a shapton pro 1000 is to 15000 and never had any issues. That's a fantastic combination, because the 15000 part of the job works in about the same time as it takes to strop something, and you can skip stropping.

Large jumps are purely a matter of working only the part of the edge that counts.

[Jim Koepke]

Sometimes I think our modern obsession with sharpening can get over the top. I think the best advantage you are going to get by going from a 6000 to an 8000 is edge retention. If your irons are not sharp at 6000, then I'd guess that there is a problem with your technique. I sharpen to 1200 and then strop with chromium oxide and don't have any problems.

In related news, I ran across this video the other day, where Paul Seller's demonstrates the ability of an iron sharpened to 250 to plane a smooth surface, and puts it up against some finer grits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbAo4RpM7oM
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbAo4RpM7oM)
Again, I think the big issue here would be edge retention. Seller's says the surface with the 250 isn't quite as smooth, but plenty smooth. So it's not the surface or the ability to take a shaving that's an issue. My assumption would be that a person sharpening to 250 would be going back to the stone(s) more often.

The OP seems to have sharp at 6000. It seems his post is about the thrill of getting a bit sharper.

Working with oil stones or diamonds is different than working with water stones. Many grit charts put a hard Arkansas stone at 1200 grit. My Arkansas stones may have acted like that when new, but over time the grit goes smooth and leaves a surface on the metal smoother than my 1200 water stone. Oil stones do not let go of their grit like a water stone.

What made me wince in the Sellers video he says it doesn't have to be any smoother because he is going to come back with 250 grit sandpaper after his smoothing plane works the surface.

I still use sandpaper, but not like I did before learning how to sharpen my plane blades.

jtk

[David Weaver]

I thought the comment about having to scuff the surface of pine to get finish or glue to adhere was bizarre, too. I think that's an OWT. I've glued (and finished) gobs of pine, fir (cherry, maple, oak for that matter, too) straight off of the plane and I've never had a glue joint fail on anything. Nor have I had any trouble with finish in the cases where the finish was applied straight off the plane.

The only time I've intentionally sanded a surface uniform was to apply stain, or if the wife wants the "store bought" look. Otherwise, I normally burnish anything I can with its own shavings.

[Jim Foster]

I flatten the 6000 with a large diamond stone (DMT Course DuoSharp) prior to every use and leave the slurry on it.

Not working with a guide, so currently I use the front and back edges of the hollow grind to lock in the angle on the stone.

With the 1200 I flatten with the extra course DMT, and just dragging a blade once across usually removes a noticeable amount of material, I've tried flattening with the "course" diamond stone, but results seem to be the same. Last night I ran a blade over the 6000 stone for several minutes and did not get all the scratches from the 1200 out. The blade acted plenty sharp based on the results in use afterwards.

Thanks for the advice, I'd like the "two plane" process and am close or good with the 6000, but not sure of the 1200.


It helps to do a test like that with pine.

You can plane with less well sharpened irons, and doing so is a good way to see if you're doing the right thing with higher polishes.

As far as the question about working the metal too long, if you're working the hollow flats with a 1200 grit stone and the 6000 is too slow following it, something is amiss. I'd try the following:
1) freshen the surface of the 6000 stone, and leave a little bit of slurry on it
2) do all of your work to remove wear at your basic angle with the 1200 and then (I can't remember if you're working with a guide) lift or microbevel the final bit just a few degrees with the 6000 stone.

There's no reason to polish parts of the edge that will never come in contact with wood.

You can use a coarser stone as a test - it's easier to raise a wire edge and confirm you've gotten all the way there with a medium stone (fine india or 1200 waterstone, etc). If a finishing stone (including a 6000 grit stone) doesn't feel substantially smoother in something like a heavy smoother cut, then you know you've not done the job properly with it.

You can use the coarser stone as a starting point (make sure you remove the wire edge by stropping it off), and then check the feel with the 6k stone (or look at the edge under a loupe). But, you do want to be able to use a polish stone. If nothing else, the surface will be better from your smoothing plane, and chiseling will be better (a duller chisel has that same slightly gritty feel in a cut, and you can see by the quality of the surface that it leaves that it's less sharp).

One other thing to consider, while you can work with a 250 or 500 grit stone, you will be sharpening more often. It's likely not to pan out for you if you're doing it to save time and you have to take a plane apart to sharpen an iron. It's a novel trick, but it's no less of a parlor trick than it is to sharpen to a tenth of a micron. The practical time-economy way to sharpen for most people is still going to be to grind the primary, remove the wear with a medium stone and then lift the edge a little to remove the medium stone's burr with a polish stone and polish the back of an iron. It's an extra 20 seconds on top of one step, and it will be repaid in use easily.

You can spend more time than two stones, but with experience, it won't yield any additional sharpness, and it will definitely take more time. You can use a single stone, and you'll be back to the stones a little more often (especially if you're using a single stone that's fast or brash enough to tolerate diemaking steel irons), etc. Two stones is a good balance, though, especially if you're trying to finish a surface that comes off of a plane iron without scraping and sanding.

[David Weaver]

The king 6000 was the first finish stone I ever had. I normally wouldn't say something like this, because you can use it just by lifting the iron a little bit...but..

.. it's the least impressive finish stone I have used in terms of it not being very fine compared to other stones, and at the same time, it is not very fast, either, which is not a good combination for a softer stone. I became less happy with it (though I was initially not very pleased, anyway) after using a friend's king 8000 back then, which was both faster and finer. And I'm not advocating buying a king 8000, either, they cost as much as the better modern stones now -for a while, they were the commonly peddled last step.

But try lifting, the 6k, despite being unimpressive in relative comparison, should be perfectly capable of finishing anything to and through A2. It should have, in a matter of several minutes, removed the scratches from an entire flat bevel of 1200 grit. Something is out of whack, but lifting a little and with only a few strokes on the 6k will stack the odds in your favor.

[Jim Koepke]

One thing about the Seller's video that came to my notice was the audible difference in the shavings being made.

If one can hear he difference making the shaving, one can see the difference looking at the surface left after taking the shaving.

If one is going to slap a coat of paint on something, then degree of sharpness is not a big deal.

But then there is the ease of pushing the plane related to the blade's edge.

For many it stops at "good enough." For a few it is all in the challenge of getting to "the best of my abilities."

jtk

[Roy Lindberry]

The OP seems to have sharp at 6000. It seems his post is about the thrill of getting a bit sharper.

Working with oil stones or diamonds is different than working with water stones. Many grit charts put a hard Arkansas stone at 1200 grit. My Arkansas stones may have acted like that when new, but over time the grit goes smooth and leaves a surface on the metal smoother than my 1200 water stone. Oil stones do not let go of their grit like a water stone.

Actually, the reason I went diamond was because my oilstones were just not cutting my A2 and Chrome Vandium very well, and I hate flattening waterstones. On my O1 blades they were great. And you are correct: every sharpening medium is different.


What made me wince in the Sellers video he says it doesn't have to be any smoother because he is going to come back with 250 grit sandpaper after his smoothing plane works the surface.

I still use sandpaper, but not like I did before learning how to sharpen my plane blades.

jtk

I had the same thought! I can't imagine getting a pristine surface off of a sharp iron, and then turning around to scuff it up. Granted, I rarely use stain, but I have never had a problem with finish adhering to the wood off of the plane.

[Roy Lindberry]

That may be true for some woodworkers, Roy, but I don't think it was true for all of them (not many tools). I don't remember where I read it, but I saw somewhere that a furnituremaker who does a significant amount of carving would typically have had 100 gouges, and a trade carver may have had 4 times that. Jack of all trades joiners may have had few, but I don't think that inferior sharpening goods were part of the menu.

When you look at what the english used a lot of (charnley and hone slates), they are very fine stones, and if anything, their speed is a problem, but not fineness. And over here, the market for novaculite stones was pretty strong, and subsequently the english market because novaculites are fast compared to hone slates and charnley type stones.

I get the sense from the few vintage oilstones that I've used that the quality of the finishing stones was generally better, too. Certainly the soft ark stones, especially the pike mine stones, were much better than anything labeled soft ark right now.

But for practicality's sake, you can get a medium and finishing ceramic stone and sharpen faster and finer and for less money than it would cost to get a decent washita and a good finishing arkansas stone. I would imagine that if those stones were available 200 years ago for half a day's pay (catalogs of old stones I've seen suggest a finish stone was about 1-4 days wages, depending on the size and grade), I'd imagine they would've used them and not argued with each other that someone else could do better work with lesser tools.

I'll bet most of them sharpened as quickly as they could solely because it affected how much money they could make, but I also doubt too many used dullish tools.

Thanks for the input, David. I haven't looked at traditional sharpening closely enough, and wasn't trying to speak to that directly. I was simply trying to expand on the principle of improving skill v. buying a new tool.

You are most certainly correct, in my estimation, that the craftsmen of the past would likely not be using dull tools. The question is how sharp was sharp enough for them to make the beautiful masterpieces that we often admire? And, as you point out, how much time would be spent to get and extra sharpness that didn't really improve the work? I don't really know. I'm a former cabinet/furniture shop employee who used nothing but power tools, trying to produce good work in my home shop mainly by hand. I'm learning a lot, but I constantly feel like there is a huge marketing campaign that is telling me not to be satisfied with the edge I have, even though it produces the results I want. I guess I get a little jaded.

[Roy Lindberry]

Well said Roy. Yeah, I don't really disagree with anything you just said. I was mostly just using it as an opportunity to make a goofy comment.

Though looking back at the comment I don't know what Leon was getting at. Was it that we worry to much about sharpening in general? Was it that the OP should get a black arkansas? Was it that that the 6k he has is good enough? Anyway, I don't care to guess at his intent, and didn't even really pay much attention to his comment at first...really I was just being goofy. You make good points though, no disagreement from me about anything you just said.

If it makes you feel any better, I actually laughed when I read your comment. It just occurred to me that we both read Leon's comment and appeared to come to different conclusion about what he was getting at.

[David Weaver]

Thanks for the input, David. I haven't looked at traditional sharpening closely enough, and wasn't trying to speak to that directly. I was simply trying to expand on the principle of improving skill v. buying a new tool.

You are most certainly correct, in my estimation, that the craftsmen of the past would likely not be using dull tools. The question is how sharp was sharp enough for them to make the beautiful masterpieces that we often admire? And, as you point out, how much time would be spent to get and extra sharpness that didn't really improve the work? I don't really know. I'm a former cabinet/furniture shop employee who used nothing but power tools, trying to produce good work in my home shop mainly by hand. I'm learning a lot, but I constantly feel like there is a huge marketing campaign that is telling me not to be satisfied with the edge I have, even though it produces the results I want. I guess I get a little jaded.

I guess, and every time I get caught up in one of these discussions, it's like the posts above where folks talk about planers that are out of square 7 thousandths of an inch or setting up table saws to 1 thousandths of an inch.

What is really missing in all of it is experience pretty much tells you what you want to know. Marketers will always sell something to people to make things easy (or at least say they will) and the woodworking tool market in terms of retail one-man type of stuff is driven by beginners, they are the ones who spend money. What the rest of us see is a bunch of stuff in magazines, on blogs, etc, and then our own experience which tells us often that what's easiest or what's most marketed is often not necessary.

My head is just swimming with using stock plane irons and a single washita stone lately, lately being for like the last 4 or 5 months. I'm completely enamored with it. I think it has a ton of merit (with a grinder) to be the only stone in the entire shop. But I don't think I could've used it without as much experience screwing around with various stones. It does a great job of illuminating exactly why irons were thin and why they were the hardness they were (and casts aside all of the garbage floating around that old irons are low quality and new ones are so so much better). I literally hung and split a hair straight off of the washita stone last week on a vintage butcher chisel.

I don't think, though, that I could communicate what to buy and how to get it working "right" to a beginner, though. I can easily tell a beginner to buy david charlesworth's plane sharpening DVD, an eclipse guide and two stones and they should be able to sharpen anything widely available now and to a very high degree of sharpness on the first or second try. It seems that you can get to a point where you work so well with what you have (because of experience) that it's easy to believe anything more is marketing hype. Sometimes, I still get that feeling, but as much as I'd always like to say "what you lack is experience and not tools" to folks, it's also easy to remember how much nicer the premium tools, stones, irons etc were to work with as a beginner. They were, and I don't think that's too bad as long as it's presented in that context ("it will be easier to get started with this"), as opposed to need.

I don't know, we all think about a lot of this too much. If you or me even gets excited about sharpening advice that we will never use, then we've already thought too much about it.


even though it produces the results I want

That experience tells you enough right there.

[Jim Matthews]

Sellers is entirely different. His honing stops at the 1200 grit diamond stone but he strops aggressively. From what I can see, his stropping motion is identical to his honing sans the push stroke. So, it appears that he's honing and polishing to 15k using the strop. Different tools, different bevel, different process.

That last step, stropping was a source of frustration for me until a demonstration made sense of it.
You're bearing down with considerable force to compress the leather and polish under the bevel.

This is done in a lateral motion, keeping a constant angle between the steel and the strop.

This makes for a high degree of friction, and you can feel the heat generated in the steel. It gets quite warm, but not so hot as on a grinder.
I was continually admonished not to rock or roll while stropping - as this is thought to round over the cutting edge.

That's the opposite of the grinding/honing steps where you're pushing the blade away from your body in a natural arc, to create the convex bevel.

It bears mentioning that a great deal force to work in this method, and the use of guides reduces the downforce required as the area abraded is much smaller.

[Earl Sullivan]

I thought the comment about having to scuff the surface of pine to get finish or glue to adhere was bizarre, too. I think that's an OWT. I've glued (and finished) gobs of pine, fir (cherry, maple, oak for that matter, too) straight off of the plane and I've never had a glue joint fail on anything. Nor have I had any trouble with finish in the cases where the finish was applied straight off the plane.


Bowed instruments seem to do okay with planed/scraped surfaces as far as applying glue and finish as well. Those aren't exactly lacking in lifespan, beauty, or durability either.

[Jim Matthews]

What made me wince in the Sellers video he says it doesn't have to be any smoother because he is going to come back with 250 grit sandpaper after his smoothing plane works the surface. jtk

It's worth noting that in his courses he makes use of diamond stones to 1200 grit, followed by stropping.
I believe he was making a point, that you can get started with a blade sharpened on lower grits - it that's all you can afford.

Keener edges are easier to steer, and take less effort to manipulate.

The observation about sanding is important, as some materials (like pine) take on a burnished glaze when planed with keen and sharp blades.
That makes adhesion difficult with finishes that form a film. It's pronounced at edges, where surface tension will pull the drying film away from edges
on finely burnished surfaces.

As with so many of the "thought grenades" Mr. Sellers publishes, it's a challenge to established notions.
If it works, he's proven correct. It's merely a wake up call to newbies not to get caught up in "must do's" that could stop them in their tracks.

Pointed mention of basic, inexpensive sharpening media is made and buried in the demonstration. That's the thrust of the method shown,
you can get started with basic materials and make furniture at a lower level of skill, which will only grow with experience.

Given that his described honing method is so fast, I expect Mr. Sellers will continue to instruct classes with the three stones and a strop at the sharpening station.

[lowell holmes]

It works for me. That's how he taught it 10 years ago. I keep the fine diamond and the strop out on the bench.

[John Powers]

Another thread running here had the Sellers process. I'm watching it again and he's rocking the blade and rounding it, concaving it. The TFWW tutorial has you lock you're elbows and rock your body to maintain a consistent angle. Everyone but Sellers seems to grind the concave edge and hone the micro bevel. Radical differences from acknowledged heavies. I'm going to make up my own method.

[Harold Burrell]

I'm going to make up my own method.

You know...seriously...that's kind of what we all end up doing to one extent or another. I mean, we glean info from other sources, put them all together and then kind of do our own thing anyway.

Like, for me, I have been doing a combination of several methods and means. Sometimes I'll do it one way for a reason...and sometimes another, just because I feel like it.

[Jim Koepke]

Go for it, maybe you will be able to make money on videos.

jtk

[Jim Neeley]

Like, for me, I have been doing a combination of several methods and means. Sometimes I'll do it one way for a reason...and sometimes another, just because I feel like it.

I'm with you there, Harold. For a given job, sometimes I'll use my #8 & #4-1/2. Another time I'll grab my #6 and #4. Just because I feel like it... or maybe because I feel more or less energy. I doubt I'm alone in that. My *opinion* is that there's a fair amount of artistic expression in woodwoorking and some focus way too much on the mechanics of it by trying to follow the steps. <g>

Just my $0.02.. YMMV.

Jim