Veritas Mk II jig

[David Ragan]

Hi,

I love sharp tools, and have lots of $ invested in stuff to do it. I have about no ability to sharpen free style.

For the MK II jig, I find the set up a real hassle. Of course, I also have the eclipse jig.

I mean, you have to get those things set up perfectly to abrade at just the right angle. I typically use a magic marker to see where I am on the edge.

I already realize from an earlier post that I prob crank down those registration knurled knobs too tight.

Is there an easier way?

[Robert Hazelwood]

I'm not very familiar with the Mk II jig, but I use an eclipse-style pretty frequently. The trick to making them easy and fast to set up is to use a board with stops on it. The guide buts up against the edge of the board, and the blade slides forward until it hits the stops, which are set at whatever projection distance gives you the angle you want. I have blocks set up for 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 degrees. Once this jig is made, it only takes a few seconds to get it set at just the right angle. Then there's really no need for a magic marker, just sharpen until you feel a burr, remove the burr, then proceed to the next grit.

I do put a microbevel on the edge as a last step on my finishing stone. This is mainly to get rid of any remaining burr, as well as make sure the actual edge is completely polished to the finest grit. I do this with an eclipse jig, and I just lift the roller wheel slightly off the stone and take a few forward strokes, maybe 2 or 3. I think microbeveling is one of the selling points of the Mk II jig, but I haven't had any problems doing it "freehand" using an Eclipse style. If you wanted to be more precise, after finishing the main sharpening at, say 30 degrees, release the blade and reset it on the stop block using a thin shim (maybe thin cardboard or a wood sliver) between the edge and the 30 degree stop. This will raise the angle slightly. Then take a few edge-leading passes on the stone, and you're done.

[Tom M King]

I use both jigs. The thing that fumbles onto the front of the MK II is only good for establishing protruding distances out the front to start with, as far as I'm concerned. I have lines scribed onto the plywood base of a grinder, instead of something to jamb the cutting edge into. Just put either jig, with blade in it, upside down against the edge of the base, and cutting edge to right line. The Veritas cap iron screwdriver makes easy work out of tightening the Eclipse. My helpers can hone an edge as good as I can, using the
MK II.

[Patrick Harper]

I never was a big fan of the Veritas. It simply takes too long to setup. I use the Eclipse for my plane irons and the Kell for my chisels. The Kell is a bit tricky to use at first, but works great for anything up to 1".

[Prashun Patel]

MKII is a polarizing jig. I'm in the opposite camp as the previous posters. I love it. It's not that you have to get things set up perfectly, it's that you have to understand its quirks.

I rarely have to mark the edge. Once you get confident setting it up squarely, that is.

To that end, the fumbly thing is useful for squaring the blade AND setting the protruding distance.

One thing eclipsers don't appreciate about the MKII is that because the roller can be set at multiple positions (effectively altering the blade clamp height to the surface) you have a couple protrusion options for some of the common blade angles. This is very helpful when sharpening stubby blades like a spokeshave or long blades that you want at a shallow angle, like a paring chisel. With the eclipse, one protrusion fits all.

I also own an eclipse and feel both have their place.

[Mike Brady]

Don't you love sharpening threads? You can never say enough, so I'll heap on few things: The Mk II and the eclipse (particularly the genuine UK Eclipse brand) jigs are both good except for narrow chisels. Neither holds a chisel reliably and repeatably well. Supposed, LV was going to come out with another attachment to hold chisels, but for some reason, otherwise great tool makers don't keep their promises when it comes to new sharpening jigs. People seem to have trouble setting up the MkII. It is fiddly. I never have problems with mine, and the folks who have problems could use a little coaching to solve their problems.

There is a major difference between the above honing guides: On the MkII the blade in the jig registers flat (not beveled) side., using the shiny metal scale that slides onto the front. Because of this the thickness of the blade has no influence on the measurement, and the angle desired will be achieved on any iron or chisel. This not true of the Eclipse. A plane iron inserted into an Eclipse jig registers on the beveled side of the blade, and every thickness of blade will have a different honing angle if you use projection measurement to set it up. The only accurate way to set an Eclipse jig is to use a protractor, Wixey guage, or an angle block, all of which read from the non-beveled side of the blade. This means that the stop blocks that use projection measurement (we all use these, right?) as a way to set an Eclipse are giving you something "close" to what you intended, but not exactly. Your really thick irons will be at least several degrees off.

I should add that I have three real Eclipse brand guides, all of which are the same model no.36, but dissimilar in details. One of them holds chisels pretty darn well in that second notch that is closer to the roller wheel. The other two are pretty useless ( at least on my LN chisels) because they don't grip the sides of a chisel well enough to keep it flat in the jig.

[glenn bradley]

I'm with Prashun; the MKII couldn't be much simpler. We're talking about the honing jig, yes? Slide on the registration jig, slip the cutter into place registering it along the side and touching the end stop. Snug the knobs down (no need to crush the cutter :)), remove the registration jig and go at it. I also have a Kell which, like the MKII depends on sides of the cutter being perpendicular (or at the appropriate skew angle) to the cutting edge. This could just be one of those things that takes a knack and those of us with it, don't even know we have it. I'm sure folks who simply sharpen by hand without issue cannot figure out why I lack that ability :o.

[Curt Putnam]

I have and use the MK II, Kell and Eclipse style guides. The Kell excels with the narrow chisels (1/4" and down) and is good up to about an inch - also does great with spokeshave blades. I like the eclipse for putting cambers on plane irons. Yes, I could do that with the MK II cambered roller but then I have to change rollers. The MK II is the jig I start with (only one that can do skews). I move to the others as already stated.

[Mike Cherry]

Im relatively new to woodworking so take that for what its worth. Over the last few years i went from the MKII, to free handing, to the Eclipse with Lie Nielsen style stops for angle setting. The funny thing is, everytime I change methods, my edges get sharper. I tried the MKII again yesterday for the first time in two years, and my blade has never felt sharper(could be mental I suppose).

The point is, I feel like the jig that works best for me is actually me. As I get better at sharpening, the jigs and methods seem to mean less.

[Paul McGaha]

I prefer the eclipse style jig and this angle setting jig from LN:

https://d3h1zj156zzd4j.cloudfront.net/pdf/AngleSettingJig.pdf

[Jim Koepke]

My curiosity is always piqued when there is mention of exact sharpening angles. It is as if 25º is going to somehow magically be better than 26º for paring dovetails.

The purpose of a gauge block is to set the blade in a holder for repeatability. The problem is when a blade is abraded on an abrasive surface, the angle will change slightly. If there is a lot of material removed, the angle will change a bit more. Thus, the next time the blade is set in the holder with the gauge block it will look like it isn't the same as last time.

Freehand sharpening eliminates these kinds of problems.


I do put a microbevel on the edge as a last step on my finishing stone. This is mainly to get rid of any remaining burr, as well as make sure the actual edge is completely polished to the finest grit. I do this with an eclipse jig, and I just lift the roller wheel slightly off the stone and take a few forward strokes, maybe 2 or 3. I think microbeveling is one of the selling points of the Mk II jig, but I haven't had any problems doing it "freehand" using an Eclipse style.

Mike, it often comes to mind that maybe setting a thin metal ruler under the roller might do the same thing with more repeatability. Of course it would limit the length of the stroke one could administer to the edge. Though for a micro bevel it doesn't take a lot of abrasion.

jtk

[Frederick Skelly]

I'm in the opposite camp as the previous posters. I love it. .....the fumbly thing is useful for squaring the blade AND setting the protruding distance. I also own an eclipse and feel both have their place.

+1. I dont find it fumbly or slow. The only time I have difficulty is with narrow blades, and I THINK I found a technique for that last weekend.

Fred

[ian maybury]

Must say i find the mk 2 quick and highly predictable - but only since flattening and lining the blade clamp so that it reliably grips on blades as outlined a few months ago in a similar thread (the stock power coated surface is both a bit slippery and also not that flat), and sorting out a small roller misalignment issue. There's also right and wrong ways to use it. The cylindrical roller for example cannot as delivered due to tolerances be relied upon to accurately place a bevel in the same horizontal plane as that the clamp holds the blade in - better to (a) as posted before dial in the gauge to improve this alignment, and (b) use the cambered roller and let the set of the blade on the stone deliver the required alignment. Except that is for blades too narrow for this to work - say below 3/4in when the cylindrical guide (presuming it's delivering accurate alignments) is easier.

Each to his own on angles Jim, and this one keeps on coming up - and i'd argue there's no right or wrong in it. If it works it works.

That said i don't think anybody is claiming failing to hit a bevel angle within a degree or two makes any significant difference to the performance/cutting action of a tool.

Where it can make a very big difference is when sharpening single bevel style on e.g. a japanese tool, or just when wanting to touch up a microbevel again - it IS necessary to get back pretty close to the prior angles. That's whether or not the tool is being hand sharpened or a guide is in use. For sure also a micro bevel over a slightly (say 5 deg) shallower angled and hollow ground primary bevel is a bit less demanding in this regard - but not if both ends of the bevel are required to simultaneously touch the stone as is commonly the case when hand sharpening.

Honing guides can in a sense be the cause of their own misfortune. Especially if used with a wide cylindrical roller over a single bevel as above, or if a specific blade doesn't have straight sides or whatever - they have to be able to repeatedly place the blade in the correct alignment in two directions if re-sharpening on a stone isn't to be problematical. A further complicating factor with a guide can be the need to move from a fine grinding tool like the top surface of a Work Sharp to waterstones - if the method used doesn't replicate the prior grinding angles on the waterstones then there's going to be an awful lot of cleaning up required on the latter.

This repeatability is pretty straightforward to achieve using the angle setting accessory with a tuned Mk 2 guide….

[Hilton Ralphs]

I should add that I have three real Eclipse brand guides. One of them holds chisels pretty darn well in that second notch that is closer to the roller wheel. The other two are pretty useless ( at least on my LN chisels) because they don't grip the sides of a chisel well enough to keep it flat in the jig.

Mike, perhaps a modification is needed as Deneb illustrates on this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojzzCXq5ook).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojzzCXq5ook

[David Ragan]

Must say i find the mk 2 quick and highly predictable - but only since flattening and lining the blade clamp so that it reliably grips on blades as outlined a few months ago in a similar thread (the stock power coated surface is both a bit slippery and also not that flat), and sorting out a small roller misalignment issue. There's also right and wrong ways to use it. The cylindrical roller for example cannot as delivered due to tolerances be relied upon to accurately place a bevel in the same horizontal plane as that the clamp holds the blade in - better to (a) as posted before dial in the gauge to improve this alignment, and (b) use the cambered roller and let the set of the blade on the stone deliver the required alignment. Except that is for blades too narrow for this to work - say below 3/4in when the cylindrical guide (presuming it's delivering accurate alignments) is easier.

Each to his own on angles Jim, and this one keeps on coming up - and i'd argue there's no right or wrong in it. If it works it works.

That said i don't think anybody is claiming failing to hit a bevel angle within a degree or two makes any significant difference to the performance/cutting action of a tool.

Where it can make a very big difference is when sharpening single bevel style on e.g. a japanese tool, or just when wanting to touch up a microbevel again - it IS necessary to get back pretty close to the prior angles. That's whether or not the tool is being hand sharpened or a guide is in use. For sure also a micro bevel over a slightly (say 5 deg) shallower angled and hollow ground primary bevel is a bit less demanding in this regard - but not if both ends of the bevel are required to simultaneously touch the stone as is commonly the case when hand sharpening.

Honing guides can in a sense be the cause of their own misfortune. Especially if used with a wide cylindrical roller over a single bevel as above, or if a specific blade doesn't have straight sides or whatever - they have to be able to repeatedly place the blade in the correct alignment in two directions if re-sharpening on a stone isn't to be problematical. A further complicating factor with a guide can be the need to move from a fine grinding tool like the top surface of a Work Sharp to waterstones - if the method used doesn't replicate the prior grinding angles on the waterstones then there's going to be an awful lot of cleaning up required on the latter.

This repeatability is pretty straightforward to achieve using the angle setting accessory with a tuned Mk 2 guide….

Ian, are you saying that I should:
1) find a way to take off the powder coat of the MkII? How do you do it? How can a guy like my with just a big file do it? Very carefully is good enough?
2) You are correct in my original ongoing frustration in duplicating the original bevel, whatever the degree is.
3) I love your point: you are saying that using the cambered roller allows the bevel to find its own state of flushness with the stone surface? If this is the case, I will indeed go over to the cambered roller. And, if that is the case, that would also mean for me to apply more finesse in sharpening, less downward pressure-to not force the blade down so much.
4) if I start using, say, the microbevel setting on the MkII guide, then my issue with exactly reproducing the sharpening angle is not that big a deal, right? Because I re-establish the microbevel each time?

And, I love the link to the LN angle setting jig that Paul posted above. Cool

But, is it accurate enough?

And, after so many times of fitting a super sharp blade edge in there, don't you in fact cut a groove in the block, effectively lengthening the guide, thus decreasing the subsequent sharpening angle?

[lowell holmes]

I have both LV jigs. The original one will twist during use, but you should be able to deal with it without much distress.

The Mark II is repeatable and I don't have much problems with it. The micro-bevel is incredibly simple to achieve. Having said all of this, I seldom use it, I free hand it.

I only use it if a chisel or plane iron needs radical resharpening. I will use the mark II on a (upside down) belt sander if I need to regrind an edge.

[Paul McGaha]

Ian, are you saying that I should:
1) find a way to take off the powder coat of the MkII? How do you do it? How can a guy like my with just a big file do it? Very carefully is good enough?
2) You are correct in my original ongoing frustration in duplicating the original bevel, whatever the degree is.
3) I love your point: you are saying that using the cambered roller allows the bevel to find its own state of flushness with the stone surface? If this is the case, I will indeed go over to the cambered roller. And, if that is the case, that would also mean for me to apply more finesse in sharpening, less downward pressure-to not force the blade down so much.
4) if I start using, say, the microbevel setting on the MkII guide, then my issue with exactly reproducing the sharpening angle is not that big a deal, right? Because I re-establish the microbevel each time?

And, I love the link to the LN angle setting jig that Paul posted above. Cool

But, is it accurate enough?

And, after so many times of fitting a super sharp blade edge in there, don't you in fact cut a groove in the block, effectively lengthening the guide, thus decreasing the subsequent sharpening angle?

David,

That angle setting guide from LN is really big on secondary bevels. I like secondary bevels. Really quick to make or touch up. The PM-V11 Bench Chisels from Lee Valley come new with secondary bevels on them. The last bench chisel I bought from Blue Spruce came new with a secondary bevel on it.

Please see the following video on the use of that jig, starting at about 12:00:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aDPZzMvVTA

I tend to do the primary bevels with a Worksharp 3000 (about 1000 grit only). I've set up my angle setting jig to match the angles right off of the Worksharp 3000. Then I just use an 1/8" shim to account for the secondary bevel.

The angle setting jig is very good at being repeatable. It will put you right back on either the primary bevel (or the secondary bevel when using the 1/8" shim). I think it's a great idea that LN had.

PHM

Edit - To answer your question as to if it's a problem for the blocks to wear from use, I actually use a 1/8" set up bar from Woodpeckers as a shim. The chisel or plane iron is really only contacting the set up bar (shim) rather than the block of wood. I'm pretty gentle about it so, no, wear isn't an issue.

[David B. Morris]

I maintain secondary bevels free-hand, but for establishing these and primary bevels on plane irons the MK II is a useful tool. (For chisels less than 1" wide I think it's pretty useless due to poor purchase of the clamps on narrow blades.) The main problem I've found is that the angle attachment does not reliably register plane irons perpendicular to the roller, which is critical to getting bevels truly parallel to the edge of the blade. I check this with a tiny Woodpecker's square; a few taps of a plane hammer on the blade after its clamped in the MK II usually puts it right.
I agree that repeatability of angles seems to be an issue, but knowing where the weak points of this tool lie helps overcome it.

[David B. Morris]

Oh, and for what it's worth, Lie-Nielsen told me in December that they would have their long-awaited honing guide out "after the holidays." But that's for another thread...

[Bob Jones]

I don't see it mentioned here yet. I really like my mk 2 for honing, but I always use the cambered roller. Throw the standard roller back in the box in case you want to sell it later. The cambered roller gives more control and forgiveness.

[Mike Rother]

I don't see it mentioned here yet. I really like my mk 2 for honing, but I always use the cambered roller. Throw the standard roller back in the box in case you want to sell it later. The cambered roller gives more control and forgiveness.

for chisels as well?

[Bob Jones]

Yep, for chisels too.

[Tom M King]

I also keep the cambered roller on mine all the time. For narrow chisels, the Eclipse works better for me.

One other jig that's not mentioned here is handy to have too-the old Record jig. It has a ball for a roller, and really works great for large radius cambers like a no. 5 and a scrub.

[ian maybury]

As posted on the previous page, and as the guys above - the cambered roller is definitely the best for blades wide enough to be self aligning on the stone. As well as avoiding issues it permits the squaring up of the cutter edge by using more pressure on the stone on one side or the other, and/or the adding of camber too.

Issues can arise with the cylindrical roller. It's probably not intended for use on a wide blade - if the alignments of the existing edge and that dictated by the roller are not exactly the same then the guide is likely when used to rock between the two positions. This will likely result in a curved cutting edge. (it is possible to avoid this rocking, but it takes a lot of care)

The above scenario can compounded by the fact that in the case of at least some examples of the Mk 2 the cylindrical roller dictates a slightly different plane to that of the mounting face on the body/the blade clamp - this due to a stack up of tolerances in machining, poweder coating, casting etc. It's possible as posted some months ago to resolve this problem by carefully filing the face of the body of the guide where the roller assembly is clamped/mounted to re-align it as required.

The big benefit of sorting out this issue is that the cylindrical roller can then be used to achieve a perfectly square cutting edge when sharpening narrow chisels and the like which are not properly self aligning/stable on a stone.

The micro bevel adjustment feature on some of the early examples of the guide had a machining problem. The long hole drilled in the bronze roller for the 'axle' was not in some cases properly parallel to its centre axis, with the result that activating the micro bevel feature resulted in the blade being tipped out of the previous side to side alignment. (the result if the problem is present is a micro bevel not quite perfectly parallel to the just completed primary bevel) Lee Valley in their usual highly professional manner seem to be changing these rollers by return - although by now it seems that most have been taken care of. (i got one from early stock sent to Germany, it was immediately and without question exchanged)

Avoiding problems with the Mk 2 is mostly down to thinking through how it works and sorting out correct procedures. I have to say that I've become a huge fan of it's comfort and ease of use...

[David Ragan]

Ian, thanks for that clarification
All- thanks for clarification; i think now i may be able to use the jig w little better insight
If i want to find the discussion from several months ago that adresses tuning the jig-what is easiest way to do that please?

[ian maybury]

Hi David. I've posted quite a lot on on my own experience of tuning the Mk 2, but some of it ended up spread out in various threads. It's pretty basic stuff in principle, it just takes a while to set it out in writing.

The complication is that what actually matters for a given user depends to a very large degree on exactly what grinding and honing methods they use, on the tool type, and on your preferences - you will need to think it through step by step to decide if any of this is relevant to you. If as many you are e.g. hollow grinding primary bevels dry on a grindstone, and only using the Mk 2 with the camber roller in to put on a final micro bevel and/or camber then you will probably experience no issue at all.

Paul has mentioned that using the micro bevel feature ups the ante. Getting tight control of angles was critical for me too because i have Japanese chisels which are sharpened single bevel - exacty the same angle has to be hit time and again when you go back to re-sharpen. (presuming of course that you want to use the Mk 2 for this and don't hand sharpen) I also wanted my guide set up so that i could rely on it delivering square cutting edges on stuff like narrow chisels (say 15mm and below where the blade isn't all that stable on the stone) where i prefer to use the cylindrical roller. Lots would argue that doesn't matter much though (narrow chisels can with care be done using the camber roller - controlling the side to side alignment by hand) so again think it through. It's pretty clear that there is little if any reason to use the cylindrical roller when honing wide blades that rest in a stable way on the stone.

I initially ran into an issue where the sloping top of these chisels meant that they were not being securely held by the clamp in the guide. It seems it's much less of a problem with flat topped blades. This thread sets out how i trued up the clamping faces, and then fitted DIY diamond facing plates to create a hard/replaceable/high grip surface: http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?219790-Veritas-Mk2-Honing-Guide-Problem-amp-Fix&highlight=

You may not need to get into any of this, but at least check that your Mk 2 and the angle setting accessory are securely and repeatably locating whatever blades you want to sharpen. The mod gives excellent grip for moderate tightening of the clamping knobs, but may be overkill for many.

If you look at the second photo in the opening post in the above thread you will see the corrugated surface where the roller assembly (cylinder and mounting bracket) is mounted and clamped. This is where some re-work may be required to correct any slight misalignment between the cylindrical roller and the blade clamp. (see below) Don't attempt this unless you are very confident in your hand skills - if nothing else it will likely kill your warranty.

Once you are happy that the blade clamp and angle setting accessory is holding stuff properly/hitting the same angle setting on each use you can test the alignment of the cylindrical roller assembly. Having fitted the latter to the Mk 2 take a wide and accurately flat backed blade (plane blade?) the edge of which you have checked and know is accurately square to its straight and tested as being parallel sides. Install the blade in the Mk 2 - making sure that it's clamped down evenly, that the side of the blade is tight against the fence on the angle setting accessory and that the cutting edge is touching the adjustable stop that determines the bevel angle setting.

Remove the angle setting accessory, and ensuring that the cylindrical roller is at all times held down to the surface of the stone (that the guide doesn't rock) try a few honing strokes with the Mk 2 on an accurately flat e.g. 1000 grit or similar water or other stone/plate - with the micro bevel adjustment in the low position. Look carefully at the edge. If the newly cut micro bevel/bright honed strip is accurately parallel to the existing edge, then you know the blade clamp and and the cylindrical roller assembly are in correct alignment with each other. If as is possible it's cutting a bit more on one or the other side then the likelihood is that the cylindrical roller and the blade clamp are a bit out of alignment.

This alignment can be adjusted by careful hand filing of the corrugated roller mounting surface on the body of the Mk 2. Make sure that this surface stays accurately flat, and that the roller assembly is stable/can't rock (as a result of having accidentally filed in some curvature) when the clamping knob is done up. Again don't attempt this if you are not confident in your skills.

Check if it's now correct by repeating the test with the plane blade, and keep on adjusting the seat until you are happy.

Once this is sorted (and not before) dial in the micro bevel adjustment (via the brass knob at the end of the roller) and check the alignment with a few honing strokes at that setting. If both honed strips/micro bevels are parallel, then all is OK. If not then suspect the issue described in post 24 above where in a few early instances the machining of the bore for the roller axle has not been quite right….