Uneven bevel using Veritas Mk2 jig

[Mike Cherry]

293977

So I dont think I need to say much, this is the result of using my Mk2 jig and I cant figure out what I am doing wrong with it. I have lapped my Shapton ceramic waterstones using a dmt duosharp diamond plate. The funny thing is, I did all my chisels with this jig and as I look at the microbevels, the effect is more pronounced the wider the blades get. My 1/4" chisel has an almost even bevel.

Is this a technique problem, or a tightening of the blade problem? Maybe the jig needs to be replaced?

Thank you in advance for your help!

[David Barnett]

...I cant figure out what I am doing wrong with it.

You simply need to square your blade more accurately to the jig. Adjust your blade slightly until the bevel becomes even.

If it still persists on the same blade check the blade for variations in squareness and thickness.


...as I look at the microbevels, the effect is more pronounced the wider the blades get. My 1/4" chisel has an almost even bevel.

You would more readily see the error on the wider blade, of course.

[Prashun Patel]

I suspect this is the result of over-tightening. That jig does not like its nuts torqued down (do any of us?). You don't require much pressure. Tighten them alternately until the blade is snug but not tight. When sharpening, you don't need much pressure. Let the stone do the work.

I used to have the same problem until some users here told me the above.

[Mike Cherry]

You simply need to square your blade more accurately to the jig. Adjust your blade slightly until the bevel becomes even.

If it still persists on the same blade check the blade to see if thickness varies.


Isnt the point of the jig having a fence and stop so that the blade is square already? It sounds like you are saying that I can rely on the depth to be accurate for the intended angle, but the fence of the jig is a variable because of blade thickness or how square the side is in relation to the cutting end of the blade. Am I on the right track here?

[Mike Cherry]

I suspect this is the result of over-tightening. That jig does not like its nuts torqued down (do any of us?). You don't require much pressure. Tighten them alternately until the blade is snug but not tight. When sharpening, you don't need much pressure. Let the stone do the work.

I used to have the same problem until some users here told me the above.

Ill admit, my first hunch was that because I am a righty and have a tendency to crank down on clamps that I might have went hulk-mode a bit and caused the problem myself.

[glenn bradley]

I have used this jig for years. As Prashun states, even if all else is great you can skew the blade by uneven tightening; a few turns on each side till it snugs, then a 1/4 or 1/2 turn on each till you feel secure. You are correct that if the sides are parallel and the edge is perpendicular, the guide used to position the blade should be dead-on.

Other things that could happen:
1. You square the edge to the side while bevel forming BUT, the sides are not parallel (they taper away from the front as you move toward the handle).
2. You didn't get a good square front to side reference prior to moving to the jig.
3. The blade thickness varies a lot from side to side.

All things being correct we (and I mean us woodworkers) can still apply more pressure to one side of the chisel that the other but, you pic looks too consistently off to be just that ;-)

[Prashun Patel]

No. If you preferentially tighten one side, the blade will be square to the front of the guide (per the fence) but will now not be parallel to the stone. You can get the same effect (sometimes desirably) on a properly tightened blade by pressing harder on one side of the jig as you sharpen. This is how you can use your jig to get a small amount of camber on blades for your low angle planes so the corners don't dig into your work.

I learned this from Derek Cohen, and it has borne out in practice.

[Mike Cherry]

Ok this makes perfect sense thank you sir! So should I just take a couple strokes and check the bevel, then adjust the clamping pressure accordingly?


No. If you preferentially tighten one side, the blade will be square to the front of the guide (per the fence) but will now not be parallel to the stone. You can get the same effect (sometimes desirably) on a properly tightened blade by pressing harder on one side of the jig as you sharpen. This is how you can use your jig to get a small amount of camber on blades for your low angle planes so the corners don't dig into your work.

I learned this from Derek Cohen, and it has borne out in practice.

[Prashun Patel]

Yes - until you get comfortable clamping, which will happen quickly.

You might swipe the bevel with a marker so you can gauge yr setup easier.

[Mike Cherry]

Glenn - So basically I could be setting a non square blade up in a jig that assumes you are using a square blade? If that is the case, should I go spend the time to ensure the sides are parallel to each other and square to the cutting end? Or should I just adjust the blade in the jig accordingly?

[Mike Cherry]

Thanks again Prashun, Ill give it a go and report back.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

What others have said has been my experience too - too much pressure on one side can lead to this, as can over tightening one side, or tightening one side of the jig completely, and heavily, before tightening the other, rather than alternating the two screws, and blades that are thicker on side vs. the other, or have non-parallel edges also contribute.

Also - you're doing a secondary bevel there - did you use the same jig setting to do the initial bevel? If you're simply adding a secondary bevel to a factory grind, there is always the possibility that your new grind is actually square, and the original grind was off ( given that you're saying you see this in multiple tools, [and I'm assuming still "leaning" to the same side], I would guess this is not the case, but you never know.) Are you checking the squareness of the finished edge simply by the light reflected, or are you taking a square to it? (I use a small wooden square to avoid accidentally damaging the cutting edge.)

I would hazard to think that the condition of the stone could also possibly cause this effect - given that one may polish primarily on one end of the stone, with the roller riding primarily on the other, if the stone was in wind, couldn't that also cause this?

At the end of it all, though, how far out of square is this in reality? On occasion, I end up with edges that aren't as square as maybe I'd like, but look much worse gauging by the bevel than actually measuring with a square. At the end of it all, it's easily taken care of with a light rap of a hammer when doing the lateral adjustment, and honestly, there's probably more need for lateral adjustment in my planes do to poorly-assembled chipbreaker/blade attachments, imperfectly aligned frogs, or just plain old slop in my older planes. If it's not so far off as to dramatically effect the usage of the plane, and can be taken out by adjusting things, it's probably fine.

[Andrae Covington]

Along with being careful about locking down the nuts the same, make sure your blade is centered as close as possible in the jig. If it is shifted towards one side, heavy use can skew the blade as you sharpen.

If you use the micro-bevel knob... even if the blade has been set up perfectly square in the "base" position (i.e. the micro-bevel knob indicator is pointing up), I have found that if I turn the micro-bevel knob for a steeper angle, it can shift the jig slightly out of square... or at least the microbevel appears skewed compared to the primary or secondary bevel. It seems to look worse on the bevel than it really is checking with a square, as Joshua said.

[Mike Cherry]

Good food for thought guys. Thanks for the pointers, it makes me feel a little more relaxed about the situation. I just got done resharpening the blade and I think I did a bit better. I took the advice off adjusting the blade with a hammer when I noticed the bevel going skewed and that helped. The only downside is.....

293988

I appear to have jacked it up on the far end there. The microbevel, if you can call it that anymore on account of me trying to hone the bevel all the way across, is not all on one plane. But it is more even than before and the cut on my finger tells me its pretty sharp hehe.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

I took the advice off adjusting the blade with a hammer when I noticed the bevel going skewed and that helped.


While I have used a light hammer rap to adjust blades in the guide, I was actually referring to letting things slide, and that hammer-tap adjustment taking place when the blade is in the plane!

[ian maybury]

Whatever is happening Mike it's got to be down to a fairly simple alignment issue. Best to stop and think it through.

Could the blade be moving a little in the clamp? (see the other thread on the mk 2)

Presuming that it's not a lot depends on which roller set you are using. Is it the cylindrical or the camber/barreled one? (the latter is sold as an accessory)

The cylindrical roller (on mine anyway) produces nice square bevels on wide blade chisels provided they are accurately aligned in the clamp. (but it's not been tested on wider/more demanding plane blades yet) It's hard to get it wrong as the alignments are in this case entirely controlled by the guide. The benefit is that it (on the few tests made so far anyway) aligns them consistently enough so that re-sharpening doesn't require too much work on the bevel because its presented in (pretty much but not precisely - the sides of Japanese chisels are not necessarily perfectly straight anyway) the same alignment as when it was originally done. The side of the blade must always be set tightly against the fence and the edge to the stop on the angle setting accessory though...

The downside to this (cylindrical roller) set up is that it demands a lot of the accuracy of the guide parts - which in the end while very nice quality die castings might not necessarily be 'precision engineering' accurate. i.e. the line of the fence must be precisely at right angles in plan view (viewed from above) to the rotational axis of the support roller. The blade supporting surface in the body half of the clamp must also be precisely parallel to the rotational axis of the support roller when viewed horizontally/in the line of the surface of the stone - with the guide resting on the stone.

The other variable in this mix is the existing bevel on the plane blade - if it's not exactly square then it may not exactly match the alignment delivered by the guide.

The guide parts are good quality castings, but it's perhaps possible that using the cylindrical roller with a wide plane blade might as a result of one or both of the above bring to light some slight misalignment requiring a bit of ad hoc compensation/fine tuning of the alignment of the blade in the clamp - before any serious metal removal is done.

Not sure which roller most are using for plane blades, but the accessory camber/barrel roller while bringing the freedom to do cambered blades can produce square bevels too. In that case (as with traditional narrow roller guides) it's down to the user to check regularly for squareness, and to ensure that equal pressure is applied across the blade when honing. i.e. apply more pressure to one side and it will as intended cut more at that side.

The advantage is that it's got to be more accommodating of any minor misalignments in the blade or the guide - it's as a result very likely the better choice for doing plane blades.

Uneven clamping pressure/tightening of the knobs if moderate should not be a problem, but if it's marked enough that the blade is tipped/not resting flat against the body half of the guide then it might mess things up.

Don't forget too that the side of the blade that rests against the fence needs to be square to the edge/parallel. Some e.g. block plane blades are tapered, and even nominally parallel blades might not be exactly so....

[Sam Stephens]

my other thought would be technique. I sharpen free hand, but the same thought applies -pay attention to your finger pressure and direction you're pushing/pulling b/c it's very easy to skew the blade if you consistently apply slightly more pressure to one side.

[Scott Rud]

Hi Mike - Are you using the micro bevel feature in that jig? I have the same jig and have found that when ever I use that feature, I'm out of square when I starting honing. I went to great lengths to make sure the clamping pressure was even, and basically doing everything that all of the previous posters have suggested with no luck. Now to get a square micro bevel using that jig, I change the setting on the mounting jig/device.

[glenn bradley]

Glenn - So basically I could be setting a non square blade up in a jig that assumes you are using a square blade? If that is the case, should I go spend the time to ensure the sides are parallel to each other and square to the cutting end? Or should I just adjust the blade in the jig accordingly?

If you have some chisels (as I do) that have side that are not parallel, I would not spend the time to make them so but, if you want to use the guide to align the tool, the side and front edge will have to be perpendicular. I might be more prone to use some other method to assure a tool with non-parallel sides was presenting the edge as desired. Maybe a known stop to butt the jig against with a known parallel line or stop block to adjust against as shown at about 12 minutes, 10 seconds into this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aDPZzMvVTA Deneb is using this more for depth (to set the angle) but, you get the idea ;-)

[Mike Brady]

What I'm not understanding here is why your primary and secondary bevels are not co-planar. You should not be changing the position or clamping pressure of the iron in between honing of the two bevels. That change is made simply by turning the indexed brass knob from the twelve o'clock (primary bevel) position to the six o'clock (secondary bevel)position. Even if the iron is not exactly ninety degrees to the jig, those two bevels should be parallel across the width of the iron. You do know that there is a rail on the angle gauge that helps you keep the blade perfectly perpendicular, right?

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

What I'm not understanding here is why your primary and secondary bevels are not co-planar.

That's part of why I asked the OP if he made the original bevel or not - if the original bevel is the factory grind, there's always the possibility that the original grind is out of square, or the angle inconsistent across it's width. Certainly, if the original bevel was made either earlier (even in the same jig) you're going to be tough pressed to get a "perfect" consistent bevel width, even with the most repeatable jig.

That's also why I suggested that he check the actual edge with a square (which it's still unclear if he's done) rather than rely on the even-ness of the honing pattern on the blade as an indicator of squareness. All that tells you is if the two bevels are both the same in comparison to the edge - that is, you could have a blade with what looks like a perfect secondary bevel in relation to the first, and still be out of square.

If you haven't measured the bevel in regards to the edge, you don't actually know anything about the squareness. Perhaps the OP has done this, but his posts seem to continue to rely on the width of the secondary to judge the perpendicular nature of the bevel. You could also get an idea of the perpendicular nature of the primary bevel by using a square along the top edge of the blade.

I also stand by that depending on how out of square things are, it may very well not matter. My experience has shown me that out-of-squareness that looks pretty dramatic judging the evenness of the bevels compared to each other (assuming a square initial bevel and a out-of-square secondary, for instance) are relatively minor and taken out by adjustment in the plane. Again, I find that there are lot more places to introduce out-of-squareness, particularly in a Stanley-style plane, that striving for perfect squareness in the blade isn't always necessary, as I'm still often going to need to make a slight lateral adjustment.

[Augusto Orosco]

First thanks to the OP and everyone else who contributed. This thread has been very helpful for me so far. When using the MK-II, I have gotten the exact pattern that the OP showed in the photo. I had checked and my blades are square to their edges. I also made sure the blade ended up tight against the side edge of the reference jig and to tighten the knobs carefully a little each time on both sides to avoid last minute skewing of the blade. Still got the same pronounced uneven edge (the OP's picture looks identical to my results). Glen et.al. have provided additional tips that I must try before I give up hope with the guide; hopefully those will help.





I also stand by that depending on how out of square things are, it may very well not matter. My experience has shown me that out-of-squareness that looks pretty dramatic judging the evenness of the bevels compared to each other (assuming a square initial bevel and a out-of-square secondary, for instance) are relatively minor and taken out by adjustment in the plane.

I totally agree with the fact that you could correct for the out-of-squareness with the blade adjustment, but in my opinion there is a huge downside to the unevenness that it is unrelated to this and make it a deal killer for the guide if I can't fix it: When honing the microbevel, you quickly achieve a polish on one side of the edge, but sloooooowly creep sideways trying to reach the other side of the edge. By the time you have finally reached and polished the other side of the edge with a tiny microbevel, your other side already has a rather wide bevel (forming the uneven pattern that the OP showed). In other words, it takes way too long to get the microbevel all the way from one side to the other. Instead of simply honing a tiny microbevel all through the edge, it takes just as long as establishing a new and relatively wide bevel (just imagine how long it should take to get a microbevel that wide on one side, as in the OP's picture).

[Jim Matthews]

Might I suggest that you run a Sharpie marker over the bevel before honing?

After a pass or two, you could see where your taking off steel
before you get too far along.

I would agree that a light "rap" with a little hammer will get you tracking straight again.

[Caleb Richardson]

My MkII does not produce co-planar primary bevels and micro bevels either (i.e. the micro bevel is skewed from the primary bevel). This is not an issue of me misadjusting or over tightening or out of square chisels. This is easy to verify by simply polishing the primary bevel until the entire surface has new scratch marks, and then toggling the micro bevel adjustment, and then observing a skewed micro bevel.

Based on my reading around this net this seems to be a fairly common flaw. I never bothered to return mine because I don't use the micro bevel feature. If I want a 30 degree micro bevel I just set the jig to 30 degrees. All my primary bevels are 25 degrees, so if I need to re-create one on sandpaper/granite then I simply set the jig to 25 degrees. This means I can't create a 27 degree micro bevel (assuming the micro bevel feature is +2 degrees), but I don't really care.

I have considered contacting Lee Valley to replace it though, in case I ever want to resell the jig.

[ian maybury]

If the cylindrical roller is used it's not really possible for the guide to deliver precisely the same bevel as a previous sharpenings by other means. i.e. even if the guide is spot on accurate in itself (which may or may not be the case given that it's comprised of mostly unmachined die castings) the blade must previously have been ground 100% accurately if the microbevel it applies is to line up perfectly with a pre-existing primary bevel cut using a different set up.

It's reasonable to expect that once a bevel has been established that subsequent sharpenings on the same guide using the same set up will repeat to quite a high level of accuracy. Probably not perfectly though judging by my example - if nothing else there's a few subtle ways that small errors can creep in. (e.g. if when forming the primary bevel the blade ends up being slightly shortened - this is unavoidable if the new primary bevel is a shade steeper than the one being ground out)

There's been a few of posts as Caleb's about misalignment being introduced when the micro bevel adjustment is used. I've not used the feature on mine (i've been single bevel sharpening Japanese chisels) - but if as described it comes in solely as a result of using the micro bevel feature after forming the primary bevel, and in absence of movement of the blade in the clamp then it might suggest a machining inaccuracy. (that the eccentrically placed bore for the spindle/axle is not accurately aligned with the outer rolling surface of the cylinder)

As before using the cambered roller makes the whole deal much less demanding of perfect accuracy in the guide itself - but at the expense of the user needing to cotrol where pressure is applied across the width of the blade to deliver a square edge and a truly flat bevel. Which isn't so easy on narrower chisels….

[Prashun Patel]

Perhaps this jig isn't as good as I've experienced it to be, but I can't help but feel that there's a lot of overthinking the jig going on here.

Since I learned how to tighten it sharpens everything very well - from short spokeshave blades that provide little registration with the fence to narrow chisels honed at shallow bevels that are extended way over the edge and can easily get torqued improperly if not properly tightened (because the fulcrum of each screw is larger with the narrow chisels).

The real trick - even beyond alternate tightening - is going LOOSE on the knobs. Don't think of it as 'tightening', but rather barely snugging it to the blade. If you do this, not only will the blade stay flat, it will force you to not exert much downward force when sharpening. This was another Hallelujah for me; letting the stone or disc to the work, not pressing my blade into the medium.

[Phil Gaudio]

The phenomenon you are seeing is by design. The micro-bevel adjustment is on the left side of the jig, and adjusts only one side of the roller: the roller spindle on the right side is fixed. When you change only one side of the roller spindle, you will of course get a skewed micro-bevel. No doubt LV designed it this way due to cost considerations. I suspect if would have been more costly to design an adjuster that changed the position of the roller spindle on both sides of the jig.

[Mike Brady]

The phenomenon you are seeing is by design. The micro-bevel adjustment is on the left side of the jig, and adjusts only one side of the roller: the roller spindle on the right side is fixed. When you change only one side of the roller spindle, you will of course get a skewed micro-bevel. No doubt LV designed it this way due to cost considerations. I suspect if would have been more costly to design an adjuster that changed the position of the roller spindle on both sides of the jig.
Paul, your explanation of the eccentric spindle design is correct in theory but not in practice. Both spindles have eccentric holes for the axle. It is possible to assemble the roller with the holes indexed incorrectly, but that is unlikely to have happened at the factory. It could happen if the user tried to disassemble the roller and incorrectly reassembled it. DAMHIKT. You would be surprised to see how much abrasive swarf material builds up in that roller. This should be flushed with WD-40 or something similar.

[Augusto Orosco]

Perhaps this jig isn't as good as I've experienced it to be, but I can't help but feel that there's a lot of overthinking the jig going on here.

Since I learned how to tighten it sharpens everything very well - from short spokeshave blades that provide little registration with the fence to narrow chisels honed at shallow bevels that are extended way over the edge and can easily get torqued improperly if not properly tightened (because the fulcrum of each screw is larger with the narrow chisels).

The real trick - even beyond alternate tightening - is going LOOSE on the knobs. Don't think of it as 'tightening', but rather barely snugging it to the blade. If you do this, not only will the blade stay flat, it will force you to not exert much downward force when sharpening. This was another Hallelujah for me; letting the stone or disc to the work, not pressing my blade into the medium.

So, time to report back after a little experimentation. Prashun's advice proved very helpful. I went very easy on the knobs and things were better aligned; although at first I think I went too far, because the blade would move even with light pressure. And it's true that forcing oneself to apply very light pressure on the blade is better (unless you have a ton of steel to remove, I guess... but in that case, probably best to move to sandpaper instead of water stones... but I digress).

Having said so, I was able to get less of an uneven bevel, but still easily noticeable. So, I moved to the next piece of advice from some of you: light taps with a plane hammer. That did the trick wonderfully. I would do a couple of passes, look at the scratch pattern, and tap accordingly. Soon enough, I was producing a parallel edge! From then, I was raising the elusive (to me) wire edge very easily. It was a thing of beauty :D.

Since I was experimenting and learning, I decided that I should give that cheap unopened eclipse clone a try (I had bought it as an add-in afterthought to a larger purchase one year ago and never bother to open it ... probably the downside of it being so cheap!). I didn't even bother to measure anything with a protractor, or build a stop block, or whatever. The guide has edged on the side the projections in millimeters for 30 and 25 angles, so I simply measured with a ruler and went to town on an original Stanley Sweetheart blade (#5 plane). Immediate success, with no fuss! This plane was bought used from a fellow creeker a while ago and it was in good shape, also hollow grinded, so it wasn't completely fair to the MK-II, where I was trying A2 steel on much thicker blades (Both Veritas low angle block and a BU Jack) and no hollow grind. So next, I took my honking LN #8 jointer's blade and put the beast on the eclipse clone and honed a 30 degree bevel angle. Same results. I raised the wire edge in just a couple of strokes on the 3K stone and then polished with a 10K (my set up is 1K/3K/10K Sigma Power -II).

I also added an extra twist, from looking at one of Tom Fidgen's videos and reading one of his blog entries:

"Every person I’ve ever watched use one, uses it with their fingers placed on the front of the cutting tool, facing away from them. I don’t. I load the cutting tool into the honing guide as per normal and then turn the guide around so the cutting edge is facing me. I use my thumbs instead of my fingers"

I tried that with both the eclipse clone and the MK-II and worked better for me when it came to exerting equal pressure on both sides of the blade. I am probably a weakling, so using my thumbs and pushing (like when using a scraper on the push) gave me better control and consistency. Wonder how many of you who use a guide prefer this stance as well?

To summarize:

1) I was able to create a uniform bevel with the MK-II: Light tightening of the knobs, light pressure on the blade (let the stone do the work) and taps with a hammer to correct misalignment did the trick for me (great tips and advice from all or you!)

2) I was able to achieve the same even bevel using an eclipse clone, without having to worry about overtightening, or tapping. Much, much faster and without having to stress about messing things up. I am sure I can get much faster with the MK-II once I get the feeling of it, but the eclipse had a nonexistent learning curve (for me). Also note that this was a brand new out of the box eclipse. I haven't even attempted the modifications LN recommends (the "Puchalski fix")

3) Holding either guide turned around, with the blade facing me and using the thumbs to press on it, works way better for me. YMMV.

There will be times when, if a guide is needed (I am purposely ignoring the free hand/guide debate for the sake of this particular discussion) the MK-II might be preferred (e.g. with skewed blades, or all the other variations where the eclipse has trouble holding the blade). But for the basic plane blades (haven't tried chisels yet, but I would imagine they should behave similarly... perhaps even more of an advantage to the eclipse for narrow chisels?), I think the eclipse clone is much easier to use and produces consistent results with less fuss.

For me, there will be value on keeping both guides. The eclipse for most of the plain-vanilla sharpenings and the MK-II for skews. Free hand sharpening? One day I'll get to it. In the meantime, I am a happy with the results.

Hope that is helpful. I certainly benefited a lot from all the advice in this thread!

[Mike Henderson]

I used to use a honing guide but now mostly just freehand. However, when I was using the LV guide, I would take a few swipes and then look at the microbevel. If it was too much on one side, I'd tap the top of the chisel in the direction that would straighten out the microbevel. Then take a couple more swipes to see if it was tracking properly. Most of the time it was. Then finish the microbevel.

Sharpening is not science. If your microbevel is off a few degrees it's not going to matter. If you find that your edge is failing too quickly, raise the top of the chisel to increase the bevel angle. Give freehanding a try. You'll find you can work faster.

If your microbevel if not square when freehanding, just press more on the opposite side.

Mike

[Here's (http://www.mikes-woodwork.com/SharpeningChisels.htm) the technique I use.]

[Stewie Simpson]

Switch to the new LN Honing Guide and you wont experience the difficulties your having with the LV Mk2.

https://www.lie-nielsen.com/product/honing-guide-bladesstandard

Stewie;

[lowell holmes]

I have a Veritas honing guide, but I quit using it since getting the Rampro guide from Amazon.

[John Gornall]

The Eclipse type of guides often need a little filing to get the flat the tool rests on to stay flat when the jig is tightened - it usually humps up in the middle as you tighten. They are cheap and it can be useful to have a couple which are filed to fit your specific blades particularly chisels with various edge shapes.

[lowell holmes]

The Eclipse type of guides often need a little filing to get the flat the tool rests on to stay flat when the jig is tightened - it usually humps up in the middle as you tighten. They are cheap and it can be useful to have a couple which are filed to fit your specific blades particularly chisels with various edge shapes.

I did file the bevels to accommodate various chisels and irons that I have, but it performs flawlessly after the filing.

[Patrick Chase]

Glenn - So basically I could be setting a non square blade up in a jig that assumes you are using a square blade? If that is the case, should I go spend the time to ensure the sides are parallel to each other and square to the cutting end? Or should I just adjust the blade in the jig accordingly?

Either one. For me it depends on how much work I need to do on the blade. I typically won't bother squaring a blade until I need to do significant grinding on it for some other reason.

Adjusting the blade is easier than you might think - just set it on a plate of glass and twist the blade to cancel out any rocking you observe.

[Patrick Chase]

Switch to the new LN Honing Guide and you wont experience the difficulties your having with the LV Mk2.

https://www.lie-nielsen.com/product/honing-guide-bladesstandard

Stewie;

The L-N has more trouble with non-square blades than does the Veritas, because with the L-N the angle of the blade w.r.t. the roller is fixed by the jaw. At least with the Veritas you have the option of tweaking the angle to match the blade. Also, the L-N adds a new difficulty: Personal bankruptcy :-)

On a related note the L-N can only hone skew angles for which L-N makes dedicated jaw sets.

Don't get me wrong, the L-N is a marvelously manufactured guide. My gripe is that the design appears wasteful to me, to the point where it violates my engineering sensibilities. It has some features that seem to make it pointlessly costly, for example needing dedicated left- and right-facing skew jaws for each angle instead of having reversible ones.

[Michael Alu]

Either one. For me it depends on how much work I need to do on the blade. I typically won't bother squaring a blade until I need to do significant grinding on it for some other reason.

Adjusting the blade is easier than you might think - just set it on a plate of glass and twist the blade to cancel out any rocking you observe.

Thank you for bringing this thread back up. It is over two years old, but this happened to me last night. I finally got my set of Shapton ceramic stones and got to sharpening. My first Stanley sweetheart chisel I got a near perfect bevel using the Veritas MKII honing guide. The next few were uneven. After some time I realized I was over-tightening one side. I would loosen one side and the chisel would slide out. Re-tighten just that one side on the next chisel. Once I figured that out, I got back to having near perfect bevels. Just wanted to share my experience and my rookie sharpening mistakes.

[Patrick Chase]

Thank you for bringing this thread back up. It is over two years old, but this happened to me last night. I finally got my set of Shapton ceramic stones and got to sharpening. My first Stanley sweetheart chisel I got a near perfect bevel using the Veritas MKII honing guide. The next few were uneven. After some time I realized I was over-tightening one side. I would loosen one side and the chisel would slide out. Re-tighten just that one side on the next chisel. Once I figured that out, I got back to having near perfect bevels. Just wanted to share my experience and my rookie sharpening mistakes.

Ah whoops, sorry, I didn't notice that I was replying to a necro-post.

Stewie, are you trying to emulate Karl Fife or something? :-)

[steven c newman]

I'll restart with this one, the "old" MK1
345238
Recently did some maintainence of most of the chisels in the shop, as well..
345239
There is also a very different sort of jig in the shop, one that needs a LOT of room..
345240
General No. 810. Chisel in it is a Fulton 1/2" bevel edge socket chisel. Jig MIGHT work for plane irons on a LONG plate with wet&dry papers on it.

[Stewie Simpson]

Ah whoops, sorry, I didn't notice that I was replying to a necro-post.

Stewie, are you trying to emulate Karl Fife or something? :-)

Patrick; don't take your bad hair day out on me. Keep it nice and friendly.

Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

The L-N has more trouble with non-square blades than does the Veritas, because with the L-N the angle of the blade w.r.t. the roller is fixed by the jaw. At least with the Veritas you have the option of tweaking the angle to match the blade. Also, the L-N adds a new difficulty: Personal bankruptcy :-)

On a related note the L-N can only hone skew angles for which L-N makes dedicated jaw sets.

Don't get me wrong, the L-N is a marvelously manufactured guide. My gripe is that the design appears wasteful to me, to the point where it violates my engineering sensibilities. It has some features that seem to make it pointlessly costly, for example needing dedicated left- and right-facing skew jaws for each angle instead of having reversible ones.

Patrick; the jaws on the LN incorporate captured screws. An excellent design feature that prevents those tiny screws from being lost. To purchase the full range of jaws can get rather expensive. I chose the cheaper option of including the mortise chisel jaws, with the intention of freehand honing skewed blades. The tolerances on the adjustable jaws for the honing guide are manufactured to an extremely high engineering standard. The inclusion of the bronze wheel bearing is another excellent design feature. I have only had the LN Honing Guide for about 5 weeks, but during that time period I have used it on 4 sets of chisels, and 3 plane irons.

if you have a look at the design of the MKII, some could suggest its been overly engineered beyond practicality. Why you would want to include a cambered and non cambered roller. A self centering guide roller of a much smaller width would have been much more user friendly. imo

http://www.leevalley.com/en/images/item/Woodworking/Sharpening/05m0901cs2.jpghttp://www.leevalley.com/en/images/item/Woodworking/Sharpening/05m0901es5.jpg

Stewie;

[Frederick Skelly]

I have the entire suite of Mk-II accessories, including the skew accessory. The overtightening comment is right on. Once I sorted that out, my bevels are all nice and parrallel. Except for the ones sharpened with the narrow blade head - those bladex always have an uneven bevel. LV knows this and discusses the reasons in the instructions that come with that head.

FWIW,
Fred

[Derek Cohen]

if you have a look at the design of the MKII, some could suggest its been overly engineered beyond practicality. Why you would want to include a cambered and non cambered roller. A self centering guide roller of a much smaller width would have been much more user friendly. imo

I would not consider the Mk II "overly engineered beyond practicality". Rather, it offers a great deal of practical help for those that need to hone straight edges, cambered edges, skewed edges (of a wide range of skew angles), and takes all the guess work out of the bevel angle. The range also covers plane blades and chisels. There is also a recent release of an adapter to sharpen mortice chisels. The basic unit may be used alone to cover all these areas. The accessories aim to jig the process for thise that need this.

Skewed bevels on the LV are inevitable a result of uneven downforce when tightening the locking knobs. Care is required here.

The LN guide's side clamping method is easier to keep the blade straight, but the narrow wheel threatens to camber a blade if too much downforce is applied to one side or other. The LN is similar to the LV insofar as having several add-ons. The main difference is that the LN guide is aimed at the LN blades, per se. It is not a general guide, as is the LV. While the LN can be used for most purposes with non-LN blades, there are some blades that will not work (such as skews).

I have both the LV and the LN, each has a purpose, but still 90% of the time I will freehand blades on a hollow grind.

I use the LN for BU plane blades - the side clamping here is preferred. The narrow wheel of the LN accommodates cambering (the cambered wheel of the LV is actually better, but I use the LN as it is quicker to set up). I do not use tertiary bevels. If I did, the LV would be a no-brainer since it has a built-in micro adjuster for this. BU plane blades are the only use for the LN. It replaced an Eclipse. The LN is beautifully built, a little precision gem.

Incidentally, let me put in a plug for a "custom" Eclipse available from Henry Eckert (http://www.henryeckert.com/index.php?route=product/category&path=54_340) in Australia. These are CNC machined versions with a stainless steel bearing. Pretty cheap compared to the LN.

The LV Mk II has been around from before it was in production as I was one of the pre-production testers. Incidentally, Rob sent me the first production guide for use at a sharpening workshop I was running, so it actually debuted in Australia! This is a great guide, and worthy of the high praise it has received. The skew blade guide is a lifesaver for those who have difficulty in this area.

Recently I purchased the small blade accessory because I was curious .. plus it is not fun honing 1/8" and 1/16" chisels. This is a truly excellent accessory, and much easier to use for side clamping than the LN. It has been great to use to add an accurate 15 degree backbevel to beading plane blades.

For straight bevels, the straight wheel of the LV is absolutely the must-have. It ensures that the honing is perfectly square on blades where it must be square. A cambered wheel or a narrow wheel requires more attention and care as they are vulnerable to creating camber when you do not want it. My Mk II is set up permanently with the straight wheel.

For mortice chisels I tend to use the Paul Sellers method, but now I have ordered the LV add-on for the small blade guide. I will pass on the info when I've tried it out.

I do believe that it is horses for courses. I am pretty adept at freehand honing of anything. I choose to use a guide for BU blades because it is extremely difficult to add an accurate secondary microbevel angle without one. Most other areas, with the exception of backbevels (only with moulding blades), I get by freehanding. Of the two guides, LV vs LN, they do similar things in different ways. I certainly would not see the LN as simpler - it has more add-ons than the LV.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Graham Haydon]

The most incredible thing in this resurrected post is just how brilliant the human body is. A jig requires so many wheels, jaws and bolts on bits just to hone plane irons and chisels on a stone of about 8" long. Luckily for me I've never owned one of the aforementioned as my issue would be loosing all the bits!

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick; the jaws on the LN incorporate captured screws. An excellent design feature that prevents those tiny screws from being lost.

The requirement for separate LH and RH skew jaws adds $35 per angle, $70 if you need both. You can buy hundreds or even thousands of those little screws for $70. Yes, a retained screw is a nifty feature, but it's wasteful if its cost is wildly out of proportion to the value it adds, as it is here.




if you have a look at the design of the MKII, some could suggest its been overly engineered beyond practicality. Why you would want to include a cambered and non cambered roller. A self centering guide roller of a much smaller width would have been much more user friendly. imo

I agree that the Veritas is imperfect. It has two saving graces though:

Both the tool and its accessories are relatively cheap, so the wastefulness isn't as egregious.
Unlike the L-N the Veritas doesn't need most of its accessories to provide basic functionality like skewed honing. The base Veritas guide plus the cambered roller can hone almost all blades, including skews and cambers for a total cost of $95 (though I bet they'd sell you the $69 base tool with only the cambered roller if you called and asked).

[Stewie Simpson]

Thanks Patrick; appreciate your thoughts.

regards Stewie;

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Is this a technique problem, or a tightening of the blade problem? Maybe the jig needs to be replaced?



Not sure if someone already mentioned this, but...

There is a trick that is not mentioned in the manual and not very obvious. Any pressure on the roller of the jig will result in pressure on one side of the edge if it is not perfectly aligned. So, I stopped trying to align it perfectly and instead try not to have much weight or pressure on the roller. My thumbs hold the blade from below and lift it up a bit. Think like you try to sharpen freehand but with jig on :-)

Basically, it defeats the purpose of having wide roller... In my experience it actually takes less time than to try to align it square each time. Perhaps until I try to make that wooden jig with straight edge and blade stops for different angles. Should help better alignment.

I use it for two years and might be not very good at it myself.

[Mike Brady]

The jig discussed in this thread requires a series of procedures to be done correctly or failure will result. I used the MkII, with its top clamping design, from its introduction until it was recently replaced with a premium side-clamping honing guide. In my opinion, the top clamp is a design/manufaturing compromise and the main weakness of the MkII. It holds a wide plane blades well enough, but becomes less effective as narrower blades are inserted. It fails on most chisels due to their narrow width and tapered profile. In my opinion, the blade clamp is and made of an inadequate cast alloy material that flexes and is too smooth to grip hardened, machined steel. The problems with uneven bevels cited in this thread are related to the projection guide that attaches to the body of the guide. Use of this guide depends almost totally on the care taken by the user to center it properly for the width of the blade being sharpened and then getting the blade clamped against the projection stop and exactly parallel to the side rail. At this stage, the user is responsible for properly tensioning four different brass thumbscrews while securing the work piece itself in proper alignment. This is assuming that the appropriate projection scale was selected on the attachment. Lastly, yet another brass thumb screw (#5) needs to be rotated on the wide roller itself to assure that your will be honing either the main bevel or a micro-bevel. With all of these steps done correctly, you should be able to hone the desired edge. The side clamp attachment that eventually was introduced solved most of the blade movement problems that were common when honing chisels and narrower flat blades such as shoulder planes cutters. This clamp also somewhat simplified the use of the projection / angle attachment because the variable of blade squareness to the jig itself was solved automatically and just the projection needed to be adjusted. I won't comment on the skew attachment or the camber roller other than I had both and used them successfully.

The jig I have currently has one thumb screw and uses a blade projection board that cost me nothing to make from scraps and can set the desired angle in seconds......bingo.... ready to sharpen.

If you are going to utilize the Mk. II effectively, you simply have to be sure that each step in setting it for the particular blade desired has been done carefully and in sequence. Using it is a skill to be learned along with the broader skills of woodworking.

[Prashun Patel]

I too have come to find the MKII a little fidgety when compared to free-hand honing.

However, every now and then a guy just needs a reliable bevel at a perfect angle. I find an angle grinder quicker, but less precise than the MKII. Yes, it can be fidgety, but I've always been able to correct and make it work - no matter how narrow or wide the blade. In fact, I just bought the mortise chisel attachment for it, which was a problem for me before.

[Mike Cherry]

As the originator of this thread I'd like to thank everyone for their input. I will say, I long ago abandoned the MK II as I learned to freehand. Now I am jig free save for my eclipse style that I use for precise bevel up angles.

Its a great jig, and I'm not surprised the thread was resurrected because I know several folks who have had the issue. Part of it, for me, was my inexperience. Thanks to the community here, I have learned to sharpen in a manner that works for me and I would encourage anyone to learn freehand sharpening. You might have need to sharpen a gouge one day and when you do, the best jig might be the ones you were born with. Cheers!