Convex bevel a la P. Sellers

[James Lehr]

Hello all, I've been watching Paul Sellers' videos quite a bit lately and he finally had me convinced of the quickness of diamond stones on the bench and "get right back to work". That said, I bought a set of coarse, fine, and x-fine DMT stones and made up my leather strop (Just like Paul's setup on the video). I must have watched his video on sharpening plane irons at least 30 times before attempting; I just recently replaced my Stanley No. 4 iron with a Hock Iron and Chipbreaker. Previously I have used a Norton 1000/8000 waterstone with the "ruler trick" and got really great results. I don't have water in the garage so I thought having the DMT's around would make sharpening easier. Anyway, my first attempt at freehand sharpening my plane iron seemed ok (at first); i had the convex bevel and the feathered wings. I thought i had a sharp edge (felt the burr) and stopped and tried it out. I could not get a shaving to save my life. Now I'm frustrated bc I've got a plane iron that has this crazy convex bevel and I've spent about an hour now trying to re-establish the bevel at 30 degrees using my honing guide instead of freehand.

Whew that was a lot. My question is whether anyone uses Paul's freehand method and gets positive results? I think at this point I will go back to my honing guide; i'll keep the DMT stones and start using the strop and see if I can get a consistent sharp edge or if i have to go back to waterstones. Thanks.

[Jim Koepke]

This is another one of those sharpening questions that ends up with a lot of disagreement and sometimes heated exchanges.

The convex bevel seems to work for some, but others tend to get it too convex and then with a bevel down plane there isn't enough clearance angel behind the edge of action (for lack of a better name) and a shaving can not be produced.

My theory on sharpening is to consistently make a sharp edge before trying any of the variations. Very few of my blades have an intentional second bevel. Since most of the time my blades are honed free hand there may actually be a slight secondary bevel or even some convexity.

In my experience once the back of the blade is good to go there isn't a need for the ruler trick.

For me it is simple, if a blade isn't cutting, it is because it needs sharpening. It isn't because it is too convex or the back bevel from the ruler trick got rounded or the secondary bevel isn't right.

Keep it simple, Keep it sharp.

jtk

[James Lehr]

I think you hit the nail on the head with having the bevel "too convex". The edge was sharp but in the plane I couldn't get a shaving. On the other hand, I'm not sure why the blade wasn't sharp after trying to take shavings multiple times. Is it possible to dull the wire edge if the bevel is too convex and not allowing the edge to cut? I wonder because I kept extending the blade and then I'm like 'something is wrong here'. Also, the weird thing is that when I first started hand planing I tried to mimic Rob Cosman's style of freehand sharpening with the Norton waterstones and that was ok but still inconsistent. I like the idea of a consistent sharp edge and my $10 honing guide seems to give me that. Hopefully I can just keep using it and try transferring to the diamond stones.

BTW, sorry if this is a contentious issue; I read a couple previous posts about Paul's convex bevel but the discussions were about chisels and not plane irons.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi James

The question for you is "how did you apply this technique?". Did you just freehand it willy-nilly, or did you employ some way of accurately determining the angle you created at the edge of the bevel? I can imagine many trying to emulate Paul Sellers and instead creating a cutting edge somewhere around 45 degree while swearing that they never raised the blade over 30 degrees.

I use this method for mortice chisels. These are chisels with thick shafts and 20 degree primary bevels. They are too difficult to stick into a honing guide to create a secondary of 35 degrees .. so the rounded bevel method suits them. I do not want a bevel of 28 degrees - it will fold in my hardwoods. I do not want a bevel of 40 degrees - it will not slice into wood well.

To achieve a reasonably accurate 35 degrees, I employ a sliding bevel as a guide. This is set at 35 degrees at the near end of my stone. I start the stroke at the far end of the stone, ensure it is around 20-25 degrees (lower than the sliding bevel), and draw it towards me. When it ends, the shaft must not be above the bevel angle.

The disadvantage of the PS system is that it relies a lot on muscle memory for accuracy. This takes time to achieve. One is also honing more steel than when honing a micro bevel on a hollow friend. The advantage of the hollow grind is that it is self-jigging. And the advantage of a great hollow grind is that there is minimal steel to hone, which makes for sharp and quick. See: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTechniques/UltimateGrindingSharpeningSetUp.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Matt Knights]

I use the convex bevel all the time on everything, it gives me shaving sharp edges. Derek is right the the hardest part is to gauge the 30 degrees accurately, I started with a 25 degree flat bevel and then exactly as Paul does as I pull the iron back towards me I lift it off the stone a little (aprox 5 degrees), it is really easy to lift too much and remove the clearance angle. Practice with an old iron as stated above once the muscle memory is there it takes aprox 30 seconds to hone an iron ready for work. I use the convex bevel as I have no way of regrinding back to 25 when the micro bevel becomes too big, but after a couple of years of using it now I dont think I would grind even if I has a means to..

Matt

[Kees Heiden]

No I don't use the PS method, but it should be possible to get it working. Here is another video which might explain it better:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9DzOtsYxIA

[Warren Mickley]

Sellers says to start at 30 degrees and then lower the iron so the angle is somewhat less than 30 at the back of the bevel. Had you done this, it would not have been any trouble sharpening at 30 degrees with your honing guide. The evidence is you started at something like 40 or more at the bevel and that is why it is so much work to sharpen at 30 degrees again.

Sellers himself seems to have a very poor concept of 30 degrees. If you watch his videos he sometimes seems closer to 45 than 30 degrees and if you look at his chisels they also look much to blunt at the tip. You could find someone better to copy.
306323306324

[Brian Holcombe]

I used this method early on, I initially found it successful but quickly found it to be tough to get good and consistent results.

Paul's method must include a lot of cutting behind the bevel to be able to maintain this practice and consistently draw a sharp edge in the high grit stones that actually functions.

After having used both I much prefer the ability to set an angle and know what the results will work like. I do not need to add additional variables to the equation of plane tuning. It also took my sharpening time down significantly and I spend much less time returning to the stones for more work.

[george wilson]

You MAY have gotten the edge so convex that the cutting edge is not able to contact the wood,if you see what I mean. I only EVER sharpen freehand and have no trouble like that because I learned to judge angles freehand.

I use a diamond stone,then black,then white Spyderco ceramic stones. Then,a few licks on an MDF strop with Lee Valley green buffing compound on it. Beware of some green compounds. Not all are the same. Lee Valley uses superfine green chromium oxide. Some also contain coarser abrasives.

The MDF strop does not have a soft surface like leather,and does not contribute to the edge getting more rounded.

[Jim Matthews]

x or the back bevel from the ruler trick got rounded jtk

+1 on this. The ruler trick doesn't look like much steel, but it's enough to throw off this method.

You need to grind the steel back past the back bevel and verify the back is flat.
Note that the stropping step requires considerable downward pressure,
and vigorous 'pulling' to work.

If you swing your arms through an arc on this step, you will round the edge.

I have it on good authority that the stropping step can be done quite
well on oiled leather, without any rouge or polishing compound.

[Daniel Rode]

I'm no expert but Seller's chisels "look" too blunt to me also, but watching him they seem to work well for chopping and paring. I've experimented with sharpening this way and it seemed to work well enough but I didn't find it any faster, easier or sharper than using a flat primary with a secondary a couple degrees steeper.

Sellers says to start at 30 degrees and then lower the iron so the angle is somewhat less than 30 at the back of the bevel. Had you done this, it would not have been any trouble sharpening at 30 degrees with your honing guide. The evidence is you started at something like 40 or more at the bevel and that is why it is so much work to sharpen at 30 degrees again.

Sellers himself seems to have a very poor concept of 30 degrees. If you watch his videos he sometimes seems closer to 45 than 30 degrees and if you look at his chisels they also look much to blunt at the tip. You could find someone better to copy.
306323306324

[george wilson]

You can get by without any strop except a sheet of paper,like I did when I was a kid with no money. You just have to keep at it longer. I often touch up my pocket knife when sitting in my recliner,by stropping it on the back of my wide leather belt. I pull out the several inches of belt that go beyond the buckle,and use it as a strop. It has no compound on it. If the edge is ALMOST razor sharp,I can bring it back to razor sharp without going out to the shop. My pocket knife is plain carbon steel. I have thought about rubbing a bit of the green compound on the back of my belt,but haven't done so as I don't want to get the compound on my hands or clothes. If I did rub compound on it,it would only be a very small amount. I don't want to end up ingesting a little chrome oxide.

My belt is made from good strong harness leather,made by the shoe maker in the museum. The suede side is pretty smooth,rather than fluffy like most. It has a bit of tallow in it.

[Jim Matthews]

George, how do you feel about using a strop with only a little oil - instead of rouge?

[Brian Holcombe]

You MAY have gotten the edge so convex that the cutting edge is not able to contact the wood,if you see what I mean. I only EVER sharpen freehand and have no trouble like that because I learned to judge angles freehand.

I use a diamond stone,then black,then white Spyderco ceramic stones. Then,a few licks on an MDF strop with Lee Valley green buffing compound on it. Beware of some green compounds. Not all are the same. Lee Valley uses superfine green chromium oxide. Some also contain coarser abrasives.

The MDF strop does not have a soft surface like leather,and does not contribute to the edge getting more rounded.

This is certainly the case. It's easiest for me to simply know the angle I'm working, it removes my tendency to cheat by raising the back, something I do without a conscious intention.

[george wilson]

As mentioned,my belt has a bit of tallow in it,so I'm already doing the oiled leather strop,sort of.

Since I don't want to have to strop a long time,I prefer to use a bit of green compound. When I was a dirt poor kid,I spent hours stropping a 50 cent chisel sharpened with a cheap,grey hardware store stone. I used note book paper. Eventually,I got the chisel real sharp,but,being a cheap chisel,it would not stay sharp for a long time. So,I spent a lot of time stropping!:) Hard head paid off eventually. What other teenager was stupid enough to spend hours sharpening a chisel? Never did learn how to dance!!!

At the time,with no one to teach me,I wasn't even aware that there were better stones available. Good thing,as I could not have afforded them anyway.

[Bruce Mack]

While the Sellers' method works for me, I find the bevel gets increasingly convex. I have switched to a hybrid method, the side sharpening recommended by Harrelson Stanley with a couple of fingers pressing on the bevel. This is a little harder with steeper angles as there is less bevel to register. If I fail to raise a burr, I use a couple of to and fro strokes. If I notice too much convexity, a minute or so with the coarse Eze Lap diamond stone side to side flattens the bevel. I much prefer freehand to the slight misregistration I get with all jigs I have used.

[Tom M King]

No thanks.

[Jim Koepke]

No thanks.

+1 on that!

For me it is a variation on the KISS method:

Keep it simple & sharp.

If what you are doing gets your blades to make fine shavings on end grain or leaves a flawless surface on face grain, then what you are doing is what works.

If it isn't working, then it is easier to determine the problem with just a simple bevel on a blade with a flat back.

jtk

[lowell holmes]

Having attended many of Paul's classes 12-14 years ago, I can tell you his chisels and plane irons are dangerously sharp.
I do use the ruler trick as well.

I very seldom use a sharpening jig.

[bridger berdel]

I don't deliberately round the bevels. I don't care if they end up rounded, as long as they perform as needed. Generally they end up somewhat rounded, and plenty sharp. If they get too rounded, or I need to work out a chip or something, it's off to the grinder. I dont care if they end up hollow ground, as long as they perform as needed. It's not uncommon to see a bevel that is rounded, with a bit of a hollow ground into it. With very few exceptions I sharpen freehand and strop on hardwood with chrome oxide.

[Matthew N. Masail]

Paul Sellers is a pro. anyone who is saying "his bevels look blunt to me, you should learn from someone else" should watch his masterclass videos and learn a thing or two.

I sharpen only freehand, and it works great for me, there is a learning curve to get very good at it, but for me it's a curve well worth going through. the convex bevel makes more sense for freehand sharpening that a flat bevel, and you can control the bevel shape very well with some practice. I also don't round it just for the sake of rounding it, I start pushing around 30 and drop my hand to give "clearance" so the bevel never gets steeper than I want. I also avoid the temptation to lift my hand so I sharpen most tools at a known "muscle memory" angle which I test and check to insure I'm learning the angles correctly.

I will often hollow grind thick plane irons and then freehand normally with a convex bevel over that. chisels are not hollow ground except for mortise chisels that have a 20-25 primary and a 35 or so secondary.

The thing is, if you relay on the method for grinding as well as sharpening, than you must maintain and sharpen the bevel accurately and you will appreciate a coarse fast first stone, like the corse eze-lap diamond plate.

[Tony Zaffuto]

Several weeks ago, after perusing another sharpening thread, I went to the shop to study my chisels, etc., to see where I was with bevel angles. Where I thought I was "around" 25 degrees, turned out more like 30 to 33 degrees. However the chisels work fine for the wood I work and I see no reason to change my techniques.

So, what is my point? Simply if what you are now using works well, then why do you want to change? Continue learning and refining current methods until you can do them with your eyes closed. For someone starting out, then experiment until you find a method that's your own.

[Brian Holcombe]

I maintain paring chisels at 30, Bench chisels at 32 and mortise chisels at 35.

[Steve Voigt]

I think what Warren said was "you could find someone better to copy." I don't think that is an ignorant statement.

Have a look at the videos of Doucette and Wolfe building 18th c. furniture (mostly) by hand.

Check out the marquetry of W. Patrick Edwards.

Look at Peter Follansbee's carving.

Check out Jamal Abraham's ouds, and George Wilson's guitars, lutes, other instruments, and tools.

Then compare all these to Seller's utilitarian furniture. The people I listed above are the real pros. If I were going to copy somemone, I'd rather copy a pro.

[bridger berdel]

Sellers is a good teacher for the beginner to intermediate set. Patrick Edwards he aint.

[bridger berdel]

Each chisel or whatever will have somewhat different working characteristics, especially with the mixed vintage chisels I use. My bevel angles are all over the place. I have a few thin paring chisels that I keep ground at *just* over the failure point and treat with kid gloves. I also have some beefy bashers with much steeper bevels, and everything in between.

[Matthew N. Masail]

I think what Warren said was "you could find someone better to copy." I don't think that is an ignorant statement.

Have a look at the videos of Doucette and Wolfe building 18th c. furniture (mostly) by hand.

Check out the marquetry of W. Patrick Edwards.

Look at Peter Follansbee's carving.

Check out Jamal Abraham's ouds, and George Wilson's guitars, lutes, other instruments, and tools.

Then compare all these to Seller's utilitarian furniture. The people I listed above are the real pros. If I were going to copy somemone, I'd rather copy a pro.

I was and still am talking in the context of sharpening tools freehand. almost all the old tools I have seen, plane iron, chisels, plough plane irons, had a rounded convex bevel, and Paul Seller's knows how to make that work and fast.

I love watching Doucette and Wolfe on youtube, but this thread isn't about furniture or overall skill levels.

[Jim Koepke]

I was and still am talking in the context of sharpening tools freehand. almost all the old tools I have seen, plane iron, chisels, plough plane irons, had a rounded convex bevel, and Paul Seller's knows how to make that work and fast.

I love watching Doucette and Wolfe on youtube, but this thread isn't about furniture or overall skill levels.

Somehow my chisel and plane blades get sharpened quickly whether it is on my water stones or oilstones. The convex bevel methods would likely end up gouging water stones all to heck.

The relationship of being able to make fine furniture or other skill levels in woodworking is almost always closely tied to the ability of the person being able to sharpen their tools.

jtk

[bridger berdel]

Somehow my chisel and plane blades get sharpened quickly whether it is on my water stones or oilstones. The convex bevel methods would likely end up gouging water stones all to heck.

The relationship of being able to make fine furniture or other skill levels in woodworking is almost always closely tied to the ability of the person being able to sharpen their tools.

jtk

For certain the tools have to be sharp *before* any first class work can be done with them.

[Greg Berlin]

I can tell you that use Paul sellers method with very much success on everything from knives to plane blades to just about everything. Shaved hair off my arm better than Mach 3 every time. It could be that mostly what I use is bevel up planes and that's why the the bevel being too steep may not affect me too much. The bevel up planes will take a shaving anywhere from 25 degrees to 55 degrees without much effort. The higher the angle the less the tear out.if the angle gets too steep, it's not too much to just re grind the bevel to 25 on the grinder after 100-150 sharpenings if need be. The wood just seems to react well to really really sharp tools and the angle being less important. I'm positive that the craftsman of old didn't have honing guides or really paid much attention to whether their plane blade was 25 or 33 or 35.666789 degrees. Those craftsman seemed to make great works of art. Just saying..

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Greg

With a bevel down plane (say a common angle bed of 45 degrees), the only considerations are (1) a edge between 22-37 degrees, and (2) as in the case of the latter bevel angle, at least 7 degrees clearance from the bed.

The above affords a wide variation of bevel angles, and honing does not need to be fussy. Except ... the closer to the 22 degree end, the more fragile the edge will be, and the close to the 37 degrees, the closer to the end of clearance one gets and the threat that the blade will stop cutting.

Bevel up planes are different, as you know. Going high here benefits chip control. The irony is that I have read of Paul Sellers state on a few occasions that he finds BU planes are prone to tearout and rough surfaces ... which clearly goes against the experience of thousands of happy woodworkers. The conclusion drawn from this is that he is preparing his blades for BU planes at a very low angle, and planing with angles around 37 -38 degrees (i.e. 25 degree bevel). I emphasise that this is my interpretation, but if correct one is left with either the conclusion that Paul does not understand how to set up a BU plane (which it unlikely to be the case as he is frequently complimentary of BU planes) or that he does not control his bevel angles as well as he thinks. I suspect the latter, which is influenced by comments such as this ...

"In my view the type of edge sharpness I need at the bench for a bevel-up bench plane to work effectively AND efficiently is the same for a bevel-down plane, but if a bevel-up plane is going to go wrong in the grain it often goes very wrong big time. More so than the bevel-down planes for reasons of physics. When a bevel-up plane begins to tear out the grain it can and indeed does rip the grain out at the very root mercilessly and not rarely but commonly. Unfortunately, at shows, where salesmen sell planes, they never show this plane reality even though this is the reality of why bevel-up planes differ from bevel-downs and why they never replaced the bevel-down planes through the centuries or came anywhere close to them."




The above can only occur if the bevel angle is set too low.

Keep in mind that this reply of mine is aimed at the round bevel sharpening method and not PS, from whom I have learned quite a bit - I just do not agree with all he writes.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Matthews]

Then compare all these to Seller's utilitarian furniture.

I believe 'staid' is about as nice a term as can be applied.
He kept waving the book about the cabinets he made for the Oval Office under our noses.

I practically chewed my tongue to a pulp for three days.

That said, this approach to sharpening has really worked for me.
The catch is that you need to spend the same amount of time
honing the entire bevel, lest it get progressively steep.

[James Lehr]

Thank you everyone for your input. That video that Kees linked to was very informative. Why did i not think of using my "bevel gauge" to demonstrate the bevel angle at which i wanted to sharpen my iron? Crazy simple but i'd never seen that before. I think that one of the responses is right about my angle being more like 40. I didn't gauge the angle except looking at the original 25 degree bevel and then raising the end and going to town. I went way too fast and dropped my hand too much so that I got this huge convex bevel in the middle of the face. I know b/c I placed my ruler on there and it rocked back and forth; it still does even after resharpening on my 250 grit Norton waterstone for 30 minutes in a honing guide at 30 degrees. So yes, I know that it is user error.

I guess that I am wanting to take a step forward in my woodworking to where sharpening isn't a chore that I complete every couple days or "when I get to it". I want it to be part of my woodworking and without the complexity of getting out the honing guide, getting a ruler, getting this and that and that, etc. On the other hand, I see the value in finding the system that works for me and I feel comfortable in and just do it. Confidence is so important. Thanks again everyone.

[Steve Voigt]

almost all the old tools I have seen, plane iron, chisels, plough plane irons, had a rounded convex bevel, and Paul Seller's knows how to make that work and fast.


I would be hesitant about drawing conclusions from looking at old tools. When was the tool sharpened? If you get a tool that hasn't been sharpened in 200 years, then you can be sure it was sharpened by someone who really knew what they were doing, but it is very unlikely you will find a tool in that virgin state. Much more likely is that the tool was sharpened some time in the last, say 50 years, by someone who did NOT know what they were doing. As Warren has said, the dark ages of hand tool woodworking lasted over a century.
If we look at old texts, like Moxon, Nicholson, Holtzappfel, etc., we don't see any evidence for the convex approach. We see suggestions for either hollow grinding, or a shallow primary bevel with a steeper secondary. I do recall seeing a post by Jeff Burks of a late 19th/early 20th c. text that warned against the convex approach.


I'm positive that the craftsman of old didn't have honing guides or really paid much attention to whether their plane blade was 25 or 33 or 35.666789 degrees. Those craftsman seemed to make great works of art. Just saying..

I am positive that they DID pay attention to the angles they were using, though you're right that they didn't have honing guides. Again, we can consult the historical woodworking texts and find that they were quite precise about degrees. Nicholson, for example, recommends 35° for a bench plane. English common pitch is 47.5°, so that leaves a clearance angle of 12.5°, which is within 1/2 a degree of the 12° clearance that Stanley and Veritas use on there bevel-up planes. Probably not a coincidence.

[Steve Voigt]

I believe 'staid' is about as nice a term as can be applied.
He kept waving the book about the cabinets he made for the Oval Office under our noses.

I practically chewed my tongue to a pulp for three days.

That said, this approach to sharpening has really worked for me.
The catch is that you need to spend the same amount of time
honing the entire bevel, lest it get progressively steep.

That's it exactly, Jim. If the method works for you, then go to town, two thumbs up, huzzah. There's no doubt that it works to get blades sharp. But that doesn't make the person pushing this method the second coming of whatever.

[Steve Voigt]

With a bevel down plane (say a common angle bed of 45 degrees), the only considerations are (1) a edge between 22-37 degrees, and (2) as in the case of the latter bevel angle, at least 7 degrees clearance from the bed.

The above affords a wide variation of bevel angles, and honing does not need to be fussy. Except ... the closer to the 22 degree end, the more fragile the edge will be, and the close to the 37 degrees, the closer to the end of clearance one gets and the threat that the blade will stop cutting.

Bevel up planes are different, as you know. Going high here benefits chip control. The irony is that I have read of Paul Sellers state on a few occasions that he finds BU planes are prone to tearout and rough surfaces ... which clearly goes against the experience of thousands of happy woodworkers. The conclusion drawn from this is that he is preparing his blades for BU planes at a very low angle, and planing with angles around 37 -38 degrees (i.e. 25 degree bevel). I emphasise that this is my interpretation, but if correct one is left with either the conclusion that Paul does not understand how to set up a BU plane (which it unlikely to be the case as he is frequently complimentary of BU planes) or that he does not control his bevel angles as well as he thinks. I suspect the latter, which is influenced by comments such as this ...

"In my view the type of edge sharpness I need at the bench for a bevel-up bench plane to work effectively AND efficiently is the same for a bevel-down plane, but if a bevel-up plane is going to go wrong in the grain it often goes very wrong big time. More so than the bevel-down planes for reasons of physics. When a bevel-up plane begins to tear out the grain it can and indeed does rip the grain out at the very root mercilessly and not rarely but commonly. Unfortunately, at shows, where salesmen sell planes, they never show this plane reality even though this is the reality of why bevel-up planes differ from bevel-downs and why they never replaced the bevel-down planes through the centuries or came anywhere close to them."

https://paulsellers.com/2014/04/questions-answered-why-bevel-up-bevel-down-low-angle-high-angled-planes-are-equal-to-task/


The above can only occur if the bevel angle is set too low.



Derek, thanks for a really interesting and thoughtful post. Of course you are right. It goes to show two things. First, of course Seller's method works to get blades sharp. But Second, the Achilles heel of the method is the relative imprecision with regard to geometry. One doesn't need to hit an exact degree setting to do effective work, but it's a big plus to be able to get within a couple degrees of a desired angle, rather than five or ten.

[Steve Voigt]

I guess that I am wanting to take a step forward in my woodworking to where sharpening isn't a chore that I complete every couple days or "when I get to it". I want it to be part of my woodworking and without the complexity of getting out the honing guide, getting a ruler, getting this and that and that, etc. On the other hand, I see the value in finding the system that works for me and I feel comfortable in and just do it. Confidence is so important. Thanks again everyone.

That is an extremely worthy goal, and you are right to pursue it. And if the Sellers method gets you there, that is fantastic.
If you decide that his method is not for you, some other possibilities are the hollow grind method espoused by Joel Moskowitz, and many others:
http://antiquetools.com/sharp/sharptoolsandequip.html
and the secondary-bevel method shown in this video by Larry Williams (this is how I roll):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0ClNp_Eknw

And with that, I'm shutting up for the night.

[Roy Lindberry]

Hello all, I've been watching Paul Sellers' videos quite a bit lately and he finally had me convinced of the quickness of diamond stones on the bench and "get right back to work". That said, I bought a set of coarse, fine, and x-fine DMT stones and made up my leather strop (Just like Paul's setup on the video). I must have watched his video on sharpening plane irons at least 30 times before attempting; I just recently replaced my Stanley No. 4 iron with a Hock Iron and Chipbreaker. Previously I have used a Norton 1000/8000 waterstone with the "ruler trick" and got really great results. I don't have water in the garage so I thought having the DMT's around would make sharpening easier. Anyway, my first attempt at freehand sharpening my plane iron seemed ok (at first); i had the convex bevel and the feathered wings. I thought i had a sharp edge (felt the burr) and stopped and tried it out. I could not get a shaving to save my life. Now I'm frustrated bc I've got a plane iron that has this crazy convex bevel and I've spent about an hour now trying to re-establish the bevel at 30 degrees using my honing guide instead of freehand.

Whew that was a lot. My question is whether anyone uses Paul's freehand method and gets positive results? I think at this point I will go back to my honing guide; i'll keep the DMT stones and start using the strop and see if I can get a consistent sharp edge or if i have to go back to waterstones. Thanks.

I use his method and it works wonderfully for me.

[Jim Koepke]

If the method works for you, then go to town, two thumbs up, huzzah.

Good advice. If it works, fine.

jtk

[Pat Barry]

I would be hesitant about drawing conclusions from looking at old tools. When was the tool sharpened? If you get a tool that hasn't been sharpened in 200 years, then you can be sure it was sharpened by someone who really knew what they were doing, but it is very unlikely you will find a tool in that virgin state. Much more likely is that the tool was sharpened some time in the last, say 50 years, by someone who did NOT know what they were doing. As Warren has said, the dark ages of hand tool woodworking lasted over a century.
If we look at old texts, like Moxon, Nicholson, Holtzappfel, etc., we don't see any evidence for the convex approach. We see suggestions for either hollow grinding, or a shallow primary bevel with a steeper secondary. I do recall seeing a post by Jeff Burks of a late 19th/early 20th c. text that warned against the convex approach.



I am positive that they DID pay attention to the angles they were using, though you're right that they didn't have honing guides. Again, we can consult the historical woodworking texts and find that they were quite precise about degrees. Nicholson, for example, recommends 35° for a bench plane. English common pitch is 47.5°, so that leaves a clearance angle of 12.5°, which is within 1/2 a degree of the 12° clearance that Stanley and Veritas use on there bevel-up planes. Probably not a coincidence.

"though you're right that they didn't have honing guides. Again, we can consult the historical woodworking texts and find that they were quite precise about degrees" How in the world do you make sense of this statement. If they had no honing guides then they did it freehand and if they did it freehand they certainly were not precise about degrees.

"warned against the convex approach." For what reason would they possibly warn against a convex bevel? Its virtually impossible to get anything other than a convex bevel going freehand. No one is that precise such as to avoid some degree of convexness.

[Jim Koepke]

Originally Posted by Steve Voigt:
"though you're right that they didn't have honing guides. Again, we can consult the historical woodworking texts and find that they were quite precise about degrees"


How in the world do you make sense of this statement. If they had no honing guides then they did it freehand and if they did it freehand they certainly were not precise about degrees.

"warned against the convex approach." For what reason would they possibly warn against a convex bevel? Its virtually impossible to get anything other than a convex bevel going freehand. No one is that precise such as to avoid some degree of convexness.

They did have a guide. It is the guide supplied by a hollow grind from a wheel.

This is the beautiful part about having a hollow grind is it "self aligns" to the angle of the grind on the stone.

jtk

[Tony Zaffuto]

"though you're right that they didn't have honing guides. Again, we can consult the historical woodworking texts and find that they were quite precise about degrees" How in the world do you make sense of this statement. If they had no honing guides then they did it freehand and if they did it freehand they certainly were not precise about degrees.

"warned against the convex approach." For what reason would they possibly warn against a convex bevel? Its virtually impossible to get anything other than a convex bevel going freehand. No one is that precise such as to avoid some degree of convexness.

Take a peak at the DVD from "Tools for Working Wood", for oilstones, by Maurice Frasier, you will see how to avoid a convex bevel. The method shown, is sort of a hybrid between side to side along with advancing across all of the face of the stone. Frasisier uses a concave grind to begin with, but I would think his method would work on sharpening without the grinding.

[Matthew N. Masail]

A convex bevel is a way to get a "micro bevel" without the effect of the bevel getting steeper and\or wider each time you sharpen. it's usefulness is partly that it avoids the need for a grinding wheel unless there major damage to the blade. it works perfectly well, I personally find it much more comfortable that even the hollow grind which I used for a few years.

[Jim Matthews]

Quite right.

I find myself in the unenviable position of defending the
technique of an instructor that I would not pay tuition, again.

The technique works for me, but it's one of the few things I took away in a nine day course.
Mr. Sellers made it clear that he wasn't the inventor of most methods shown, but rather, a curator.

[ken hatch]

Quite right.

I find myself in the unenviable position of defending the
technique of an instructor that I would not pay tuition, again.

The technique works for me, but it's one of the few things I took away in a nine day course.
Mr. Sellers made it clear that he wasn't the inventor of most methods shown, but rather, a curator.

Jim,

I haven't a dog in this fight, as with most things in life somethings work for some folks, some don't. But I'm curious why there are such strong negative opinions as well as positive about Mr. Sellers. Why would you not take another class? Nine days is a long time to be unhappy, I expect I would have "walked" after a day or two if it was not what I paid for. When you are older than dirt, time is too valuable to waste.

I need to go with SWMBO to visit in-laws this year and I have been thinking about using that time in the UK to take a class from someone, PS was one of the ones I thought about. It would give me something to do and could make the near 50 hours flying steerage almost bearable or at least worthwhile. Anyway to not hijack this thread, if you would like to vent or at least give me a reason to not waste my time, how about either PMing me or start a PS thread.

Heck, Ill start a PS thread.

ken

[Jim Koepke]

Jim,

I haven't a dog in this fight, as with most things in life somethings work for some folks, some don't. But I'm curious why there are such strong negative opinions as well as positive about Mr. Sellers. Why would you not take another class? Nine days is a long time to be unhappy, I expect I would have "walked" after a day or two if it was not what I paid for. When you are older than dirt, time is too valuable to waste.

I need to go with SWMBO to visit in-laws this year and I have been thinking about using that time in the UK to take a class from someone, PS was one of the ones I thought about. It would give me something to do and could make the near 50 hours flying steerage almost bearable or at least worthwhile. Anyway to not hijack this thread, if you would like to vent or at least give me a reason to not waste my time, how about either PMing me or start a PS thread.

Heck, Ill start a PS thread.

ken

One pays their money and takes their chances. If the money would be refunded then maybe walking would be a good way to go. Otherwise, one can always hope there are some worthwhile bits of information being exchanged for the misery of being there.

If my travels were taking me to the UK my first order of business wouldn't be to taking classes, it would be to identify every tool dealer that may be of interest to visit. My next order of business would be to figure out how to get as much spending money as possible and how to get all my new found treasure home.

My recollection is there was a recent thread on Paul Sellers. It became so heated it was closed and removed.

Mr. Sellers isn't my cup of tea, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have lessons of value for me to learn.

jtk

[Steve Voigt]

How in the world do you make sense of this statement. If they had no honing guides then they did it freehand and if they did it freehand they certainly were not precise about degrees.


First, as Jim K. mentioned, a grinding wheel with a tool rest helps a lot.
Second, even without a grinding wheel, there are all sorts of ways to do this. The method most often mentioned in those old texts--I think it's in Nicholson but I'm too lazy to look--is to make the bevel twice the thickness of the blade. That's a nicely practical way of saying sine 30° = 1/2. If you can measure accurately, you can hit 30° within a degree this way.
Third--assuming we are talking about 17th-19th c. Europeans and Americans, not Neanderthals in caves--they may not have had honing guides, but they had protractors. So you grind, measure, and grind again. Eventually you develop the muscle memory to hit your angles accurately. By the way, if they had wanted honing guides, they certainly could have made them, but they were making tools for professionals, not accessories for amateurs.


Its virtually impossible to get anything other than a convex bevel going freehand. No one is that precise such as to avoid some degree of convexness.

Pat, you have a tendency to assume that difficult for you = virtually impossible. You made some similar comments before about the supposed impossibility of jointing an edge by hand, which is a fundamental, gateway skill in furnituremaking.
In Japan, the normal method of sharpening is a full flat bevel, done freehand, no jigs. So yes, it is possible--they have been doing it for a very long time indeed.
The human mind and body are capable of some pretty amazing things. One of the most fulfilling and addicting things about hand tool work is when you exceed what you thought was possible with your own two hands. But to do that, you have to shed your preconceptions, and most importantly, be willing to fail. Try it some time--you might surprise yourself.

[Warren Mickley]

I was trained to sharpen freehand at a constant angle in 1962. By the time Sellers was starting a few years later, I had no trouble keeping an angle and had a nice reputation for my edges. I have sharpened chisels and plane irons without a grinder for my entire professional career as a hand tool only woodworker.

It has been a long time since I paid much attention to an exact angle, but when I measured everything a few years ago for a forum discussion, I found that everything was within a degree of 30. And this evening when I checked 8 chisels, they seemed right at 30. It is kind of surprising because I do not think the exact angle is that important.

Of you just taking light cuts with a chisel it doesn't matter if the bevel is flat or concave or convex, as long as the very tip is a reasonable angle. However there are chisel techniques where in addition to cutting at the tip, the chisel also acts as a wedge, pushing tissue with the bevel. Here the flat bevel works best because it forms a nice wedge. Mortising is one time a flat bevel works best.

[ian maybury]

Another here in the 'i'm no expert' camp, but getting consistently excellent results with waterstones and a honing guide. Pardon my not working through the whole thread.

There's no reason why a convex bevel can't cut perfectly well in that the wood probably only 'sees' the angle right at the edge - but speaking from a pure geometry perspective some wariness of the method seems advisable. There's several fairly obvious potential issues - which i'm sure have been mentioned already - by Jim and Warren and probably more:

1. The humped bevel risks lifting the cutting edge off the stone if the honing angle is reduced even slightly below that at which the blade was previously sharpened - making it likely (unless enough work is done to hone away the part of the 'hump' causing the problem) that the edge will not be sharpened. The obvious temptation is to create this effect by steepening the bevel with every sharpening in an effort to ensure edge contact with the stone. Which can't be done very often. It all points to the need to precisely control the honing angle in the first place.

2. The hump will reduce the (potentially already fairly marginal) clearance available on a bevel down plane if the above steepening of the bevel takes place. Possibly so much that that the blade won't cut at all because its skidding on the hump.

3. Some use chisels from time to time off the bevel side, it can be useful to have a flat bevel to use like the sole of a plane to prevent the blade 'diving' in a hard to control manner as it pares. (micro bevels may compromise this too)

The pretty aggressive/high pressure stropping technique seen in some videos (where a significant amount of metal is removed/needs to be removed to create a sharp edge because the prior sharpening step used a fairly coarse stone/plate) seems likely also to tend towards creating a convex bevel steepening right up to the cutting edge, with similar consequences to the above. Think i prefer the idea of finishing an edge most of the way on a fine waterstone, then (and it's hardly necessary) lightly stropping on a flat and hard surface, controlling the angle carefully and not using too much pressure.

A chisel sharpened with a flat primary bevel, and a few degrees steeper of a micro bevel seems in comparison to be likely to be significantly more tolerant of minor inaccuracies (in either direction) in the honing angle used when re-sharpening. It's unlikely that much metal will require to removed to hone away the wear bevels.

The bottom line seems to be that the bevel angle needs to be pretty precisely controlled no matter what sharpening method is used - which suggests that it comes down to either using a honing guide, or else developing the skill needed to accurately repeat the honing angle when sharpening by hand… As Warren the precise bevel angle chosen may not be that critical, but re-sharpening does seem to require getting back close to it….

[ken hatch]

One pays their money and takes their chances. If the money would be refunded then maybe walking would be a good way to go. Otherwise, one can always hope there are some worthwhile bits of information being exchanged for the misery of being there.

If my travels were taking me to the UK my first order of business wouldn't be to taking classes, it would be to identify every tool dealer that may be of interest to visit. My next order of business would be to figure out how to get as much spending money as possible and how to get all my new found treasure home.

My recollection is there was a recent thread on Paul Sellers. It became so heated it was closed and removed.

Mr. Sellers isn't my cup of tea, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have lessons of value for me to learn.

jtk

Jim,

That, "...so heated it was closed and removed" is what amazes me. I don't see a reason one way or the other but....SWMBO tells me I live in a different world most of the time. Maybe she is correct.

You gave me a good smile with the tools.....My problem is I have too many now and something would have to go to make room for more. Now sitting in a pub and having a pint with every tool dealer of interest would be something to look forward to.

ken

[Hilton Ralphs]

If my travels were taking me to the UK my first order of business wouldn't be to taking classes, it would be to identify every tool dealer that may be of interest to visit.


Now this is interesting. Of all the tools I've bought (and had to import), apart from a Record 405 and some nice Wealden router bits, they all came from the USA (sold not necessarily made).

What tools do you think are available in the UK that you can't get back home?

[John Schtrumpf]

What tools do you think are available in the UK that you can't get back home?
Maybe not on other people's list, but I can think of 2 off the top of my head:

PAX 20" handsaw 8tpi

Ashley Iles Cabinetmakers Fishtail Skew 7/16 inch

[Jim Koepke]

What tools do you think are available in the UK that you can't get back home?

Hilton,

Back home is all relative. Currently I live in an area that isn't as populated with old tools as other parts of North America. If my travels were taking me to the east coast I would also want to hunt tools. It is always fun to go rust hunting in unfamiliar waters.

Currently a class on Windsor chair making might persuade me to do otherwise. Then again, getting anything made in the class home might be a challenge.

jtk

[Hilton Ralphs]

Ashley Iles Cabinetmakers Fishtail Skew 7/16 inch

Brands aside, you could buy one of the Bruce Lie equivalents, perhaps not that exact size though. The AI's I've bought from TFWW have disappointed me somewhat but that's neither here nor there.

[John Schtrumpf]

I ended up getting the 1/2" skews from Lee Valley. But it would be fun to go to the Ashley Iles factory and buy something.

[Kees Heiden]

Britain is especially great to find old tools. Here are some tool dealers: http://www.cornishworkshop.co.uk/tooldealers.html

Apart from that, Britain has amazing history. You won't have to feel bored when you look around to visit nice old towns, castles, musea etc.

[Pat Barry]

First, as Jim K. mentioned, a grinding wheel with a tool rest helps a lot.
Second, even without a grinding wheel, there are all sorts of ways to do this. The method most often mentioned in those old texts--I think it's in Nicholson but I'm too lazy to look--is to make the bevel twice the thickness of the blade. That's a nicely practical way of saying sine 30° = 1/2. If you can measure accurately, you can hit 30° within a degree this way.
Third--assuming we are talking about 17th-19th c. Europeans and Americans, not Neanderthals in caves--they may not have had honing guides, but they had protractors. So you grind, measure, and grind again. Eventually you develop the muscle memory to hit your angles accurately. By the way, if they had wanted honing guides, they certainly could have made them, but they were making tools for professionals, not accessories for amateurs.



Pat, you have a tendency to assume that difficult for you = virtually impossible. You made some similar comments before about the supposed impossibility of jointing an edge by hand, which is a fundamental, gateway skill in furnituremaking.
In Japan, the normal method of sharpening is a full flat bevel, done freehand, no jigs. So yes, it is possible--they have been doing it for a very long time indeed.
The human mind and body are capable of some pretty amazing things. One of the most fulfilling and addicting things about hand tool work is when you exceed what you thought was possible with your own two hands. But to do that, you have to shed your preconceptions, and most importantly, be willing to fail. Try it some time--you might surprise yourself.
I never meant to imply that someone doesn't develop a degree of muscle memory through repetition. I think that is entirely within the realm of experience for nearly everyone. My only argument had to do with the 'precision' of this process. I interpreted your initial use of the term 'precise' as meaning accuracy. Precision refers to repeatability. I think we can all agree that the actual primary bevel angle itself doesn't really matter all that much within a range of angles that are close to the, lets say Nicholson target of 35 degrees. If everyone wants to be like Nicholson, then they will need to use the formula bevel length = 1.75 times blade thickness. That will give you 35 degrees with a great deal of accuracy. The fact is that Warren apparently likes a 30 degree bevel and feels he is very consistent about 30 degrees but doesn't therefore agree with Nicholson about what is the proper angle merely demonstrates the point that the actual primary bevel angle isn't really all that important. My only point is that accuracy and freehand are mutually exclusive. In the end it doesn't matter. I can see personally that creating a slightly curved bevel transition to the cutting edge is much easier than trying to create a precise secondary bevel. So, if you do your primary bevel freehand, then continue to freehand it and round over that bevel near the cutting edge ever so slightly to get a sharp tool the more important thing to recognize is when that edge angle might be a bit too steep. The wood doesn't care if there is a a curved surface or not.

[Jim Matthews]

I found the instruction invaluable.

You might have a different instructor, depending on the time of year.
Were I in your shoes, I would seek out Adrian McCurdy - he's doing something novel.

http://www.adrianmccurdy.co.uk/

[george wilson]

I have never ever measured the degree of a bevel in my life. I think too much is being made of it,really. For hardwoods you use a more blunt angle than for soft woods. My tools work just fine. Never used a sharpening jig. They are a bit convex. So are the cutting edges of Japanese swords,famous for their cutting ability,only convex on BOTH sides!

I have all kinds of tools for measuring accuracy to very close tolerances. Perhaps I should get out a Starrett vernier angle gauge and check them.:)

[Chris Hachet]

This is another one of those sharpening questions that ends up with a lot of disagreement and sometimes heated exchanges.

The convex bevel seems to work for some, but others tend to get it too convex and then with a bevel down plane there isn't enough clearance angel behind the edge of action (for lack of a better name) and a shaving can not be produced.

My theory on sharpening is to consistently make a sharp edge before trying any of the variations. Very few of my blades have an intentional second bevel. Since most of the time my blades are honed free hand there may actually be a slight secondary bevel or even some convexity.

In my experience once the back of the blade is good to go there isn't a need for the ruler trick.

For me it is simple, if a blade isn't cutting, it is because it needs sharpening. It isn't because it is too convex or the back bevel from the ruler trick got rounded or the secondary bevel isn't right.

Keep it simple, Keep it sharp.

jtk


This would be my thought on the matter-

If I am going to sharpen freehand I find a hollow concave grind on the bevel works great...I use diamonds with no back bevel and I have no problems getting things sharp.

Chris

[Chris Hachet]

This is certainly the case. It's easiest for me to simply know the angle I'm working, it removes my tendency to cheat by raising the back, something I do without a conscious intention.

Exactly why I use a honing guide 95 percent of the time....for an idiot like me with less than stellar muscle memory, honing guides are wonderful.

[Chris Hachet]

+1 on that!

For me it is a variation on the KISS method:

Keep it simple & sharp.

If what you are doing gets your blades to make fine shavings on end grain or leaves a flawless surface on face grain, then what you are doing is what works.

If it isn't working, then it is easier to determine the problem with just a simple bevel on a blade with a flat back.

jtk


This is my thinking. Why do we spend so much time on sharpening and so little on design? To me the biggest issue facing us as woodworkers is what to build that is creative and unique and different, be it a barn, shaker table, or mandolin.

[Chris Hachet]

I sharpen only freehand, and it works great for me, there is a learning curve to get very good at it, but for me it's a curve well worth going through. the convex bevel makes more sense for freehand sharpening that a flat bevel, and you can control the bevel shape very well with some practice. I also don't round it just for the sake of rounding it, I start pushing around 30 and drop my hand to give "clearance" so the bevel never gets steeper than I want. I also avoid the temptation to lift my hand so I sharpen most tools at a known "muscle memory" angle which I test and check to insure I'm learning the angles correctly.

I will often hollow grind thick plane irons and then freehand normally with a convex bevel over that. chisels are not hollow ground except for mortise chisels that have a 20-25 primary and a 35 or so secondary.



Again, a hollow has been the turning point for me...I can get good freehand results with a Hollow grind.

[Chris Hachet]

Mr. Sellers isn't my cup of tea, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have lessons of value for me to learn.

jtk

I try to learn from everyone...but I find the most helpful thing to be making mistakes by myself in my own shop and then finding a way to develop a new method of work to overcome them...

[Brian Holcombe]

This is my thinking. Why do we spend so much time on sharpening and so little on design? To me the biggest issue facing us as woodworkers is what to build that is creative and unique and different, be it a barn, shaker table, or mandolin.

Personally I spend a great deal of time on design. I think it's important to create a subconscious library of ideas through traveling and research. I've been working out the details of an upcoming project in my mind and sometimes I find that the solution I've derived is similar to something buried in the pages of one of my books read years prior. They evolve to become my own after I work out the specifics.

This happens more with architectural details then furniture for me, since I'm much more aware with regard to furniture, but the process is similar.

[Chris Hachet]

Personally I spend a great deal of time on design. I think it's important to create a subconscious library of ideas through traveling and research. I've been working out the details of an upcoming project in my mind and sometimes I find that the solution I've derived is similar to something buried in the pages of one of my books read years prior. They evolve to become my own after I work out the specifics.

This happens more with architectural details then furniture for me, since I'm much more aware with regard to furniture, but the process is similar.

This in my mind is what makes one a "real woodworker...."

[Brian Holcombe]

It's been a tough topic to sustain on the board, but I think there is some basic interest. I wouldn't mind attempting another go-round with it, specific to neander-method.

[Chris Hachet]

It's been a tough topic to sustain on the board, but I think there is some basic interest. I wouldn't mind attempting another go-round with it, specific to neander-method.

New thread started...

[Jim Koepke]

what is the proper angle merely demonstrates the point that the actual primary bevel angle isn't really all that important.

The actual measurement of the degrees of the bevel isn't important.

My guess is a century or two in the past the apprentice learned the skill of sharpening from those in the shop who learned many years before when they were an apprentice and so on ad infinitum.

Though it is my opinion different bevel angles are better for some jobs than others. It is likely something that isn't just my opinion. Different planes have different blade bedding.

I like a very low angle for paring the end grain of pine. A steeper angle is used on a mortise chisel.

Whatever your bevel angle, whatever your means of getting it doesn't matter if it is working for you.

As mentioned in the past, I do not intentionally use a secondary bevel on any but a few of my blades. When I think a bevel is becoming convex, it gets a new grind.

jtk

[Tom Stenzel]

For me it is a variation on the KISS method:

Keep it simple & sharp.

If what you are doing gets your blades to make fine shavings on end grain or leaves a flawless surface on face grain, then what you are doing is what works.

If it isn't working, then it is easier to determine the problem with just a simple bevel on a blade with a flat back.

jtk

Jim, such advice is an anathema here. Endlessly long discussions are what makes the 'net what it is.

If all the members went to their shops and just did what works, there would be 5 posts ever other year here at SMC :D.

After a year and a half of chemo left my fingers numb, freehand sharpening for me ultimately turned into an act of vandalism. I heard a sigh of relief from all my chisels and plane blades when I brought an eclipse style guide home.

What works for me may or may not work for anyone else. It doesn't work all that swoft for me either but there it is;).

I picked up a few things from watching Paul Sellers on youtube. He could have done a better job on sharpening scissors. Leaving them drawfiled doesn't make it when cutting cloth.
-Tom

[Chris Hachet]

Jim, such advice is an anathema here. Endlessly long discussions are what makes the 'net what it is.

If all the members went to their shops and just did what works, there would be 5 posts ever other year here at SMC :D.


-Tom

Maybe not quite that bad but yes, we tend to over analyze things..

[Matthew N. Masail]

I have never ever measured the degree of a bevel in my life. I think too much is being made of it,really. For hardwoods you use a more blunt angle than for soft woods. My tools work just fine. Never used a sharpening jig. They are a bit convex. So are the cutting edges of Japanese swords,famous for their cutting ability,only convex on BOTH sides!

I have all kinds of tools for measuring accuracy to very close tolerances. Perhaps I should get out a Starrett vernier angle gauge and check them.:)

Thanks George. your post in the bottom line practical truth.

[ian maybury]

:) Mr Sellers must be very pleased at the amount of interest in his stuff that he's managed to stimulate….

[Chris Hachet]

:) Mr Sellers must be very pleased at the amount of interest in his stuff that he's managed to stimulate….
He really is a respectable crafts person. I like his approach in many ways.

[lowell holmes]

Wow! ! !

This string is bouncing all over the place. :)

I can't visualize fishtail skews.

I do have LV skews which are seldom used. I do use the LV detail chisels frequently though.

[James Lehr]

This is my thinking. Why do we spend so much time on sharpening and so little on design? To me the biggest issue facing us as woodworkers is what to build that is creative and unique and different, be it a barn, shaker table, or mandolin.

For me the reason I spend so much time thinking about and learning about sharpening is that I spent the first 40 years of my life either doing paperwork, research, school, or office work. I did use power tools at times but I hadn't even sharpened a knife "free hand". Maybe I learned about sharpening a pocket knife in the Boy Scouts using a whetstone but that was 30 years ago. I would love to spend time considering design and as my skills progress I am actually learning ways to not just reproduce or copy a design but also add embellishment or slight changes to make that piece "mine" but I'm learning something new every day.

In any case, I appreciate everyone's replies here. I didn't know it would be so hotly a debated topic. I am an amateur; I would enjoy being considered a craftsman but until then I'll continue to keep an open mind, experiment, and try new things.

[Hilton Ralphs]

I can't visualize fishtail skews.



Yes that's probably wrong but a fishtail is a double skew and if you hold it up in front of you, it's the equivalent of raising two fingers in a rude salute.

[Winton Applegate]

Everything everyone has said here is correct.
But
I disagree with you.

Boy did that save a lot of typing.

Ha, ha, when the first posts went up I glanced at the title and mistook it for a thread about cambering blades with those hollowed diamond plates. Or maybe just cambering the blades ala Sellers.
Glad I did.
Then I read somewhere that things were getting seriously out of hand over here.
I couldn't keep from having a squint at it after all.

All I can say is some people produce good work IN SPITE of their methods.

Some times "PRO" means "I am too busy trying to do this to make money to live that I don't have time to slow down and look at all my options"
or
My ego is so big and fragile that unless I "INVENT" my own method of doing this then I have failed in my own estimation of who I am.
or
They are seriously cheep and lazy and poor so the first hunk of junk they can borrow becomes THE WAY and once they can do better they . . .
don't.
or
___________
I could go on like this all night.
I do know I have watched "PRO"s do stupid counter productive stuff all my life.

I am glad I have had the leisure to try about every sharpening method out there and make my own choice.

[Tony Zaffuto]

The destination is hair popping sharp. How you get there is up to you.

[Noah Wagener]

I was trained to sharpen freehand at a constant angle in 1962. By the time Sellers was starting a few years later, I had no trouble keeping an angle and had a nice reputation for my edges. I have sharpened chisels and plane irons without a grinder for my entire professional career as a hand tool only woodworker.

It has been a long time since I paid much attention to an exact angle, but when I measured everything a few years ago for a forum discussion, I found that everything was within a degree of 30. And this evening when I checked 8 chisels, they seemed right at 30. It is kind of surprising because I do not think the exact angle is that important.

Of you just taking light cuts with a chisel it doesn't matter if the bevel is flat or concave or convex, as long as the very tip is a reasonable angle. However there are chisel techniques where in addition to cutting at the tip, the chisel also acts as a wedge, pushing tissue with the bevel. Here the flat bevel works best because it forms a nice wedge. Mortising is one time a flat bevel works best.

Warren, the flat bevel on a mortise chisel, is that the full thickness of the chisel? I have those English style pigstickers which are very thick and would be quite a large bevel. I think i have read to use a secondary bevel on those that ends a little above the thickness of the tool steel weld line with a shallow primary bevel. I think Derek even said something like 20 degrees.

I also kind of got the impression from David that using Arkansas stones was kind of impractical without using a real small bevel. I think he wrote that he hollow grinds and still does a secondary bevel as well.

And you have written that you never lap your hard and soft Arkansas stones. Have not found a mention of what you do with a Washita. Do you keep it aggressive? Is that the stone you typically go to when you notice a tool is dulling or do you use an India or grind first? Do you ever hollow grind?

You also told someone that bench stones were capable of lapping blade backs and they did not need psa sandpaper and granite plates. What stones did you have in mind? And was this just for the lapping of new tools or could they lap out pitted and convex backs? When is a door not a door? When its ajar. When is a chisel not a chisel? When it was bought on ebay, then it is an incannel gouge.