Did oldtime craftsman flatten their plane irons?

[Frederick Skelly]

This morning I found myself wondering how much of our sharpening ritual is modern "druthers". Specifically, did our ancestors spend much time flattening and polishing the back of plane irons and chisels to a mirror finish? Or did they get them "sorta flat", polish to maybe the equivalent of 220 grit, and call it good enough?

I'd sure enjoy a history lesson on this from George, Warren or anyone else who knows old techniques. (Wish Dave was still here - he'd also have something fascinating to tell us. Sigh.)

Thanks guys!Fred

[Kees Heiden]

Over on the ukworkshop forum there is a guy named Jacob. He is running a holy war against flat backs on chisels and plane irons. He never gets tired of learning everyone around that flattening backs is a modern fad.

I would agree with him if I didn't alwas acquire irons with pitting and heavy dubbed edges on the back. So I continue polishing backs, but keep my efforts centered on the last 1/2" or so.

[Tom M King]

Not claiming to be an expert, but I have one of each, and several of some older bench planes, a couple of hundred molding planes, and a good number of other types. The one "new" plane, as in newer than made in the 1970s, is a LV shooting plane. The only plane iron I've worked on, that belongs to me, that had a flat iron back is the LV shooter.

[Phillip West]

I come from a a family of woodworkers, mostly green woodworkers making Appalachian style furniture but I have most of our family tools. Not one of the plane iron or drawknife had the back touched..bevel only.

[Brian Holcombe]

I would not be surprised if most often they simply lift the iron slightly to make a back bevel. Likely keeping it shallow enough that it could be ground past pretty quickly.

[Mike Brady]

Good topic! Sure beats: "which handplane should I buy first?".

[Graham Haydon]

"Flattening" no. Just removing a wire edge effectively, don't need a flat back to do that. I pretty much agree with Jacob on UK Workshop forum. I would not be insulting as to call it a fad but I don't think a flat chisel back or plane iron is needed for anything.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

I guess it is much easier to remove the wire edge if the back is uniform, and you should only have to do that once.

[Gordon Harner]

The evidence observed from the old tools that I have seems to indicate that only the bevel was worked. You really have to wonder how the craftsmen got such great results in the eighteenth century. Another mystery. Or, are the antique tools available today the ones that were used lightly or by the joiners trade?

[Glen Canaday]

I make a few passes each time I take it to the stones. Just a few swipes.

I don't know what others did in the way back when, but that is what I was taught to do.

[Mike Henderson]

I've bought a number of old Stanley planes. The only one that had an iron with a flat back was one I got from another woodworker. It's obvious our ancestors did not flatten the back of their plane irons.

I've also bought a number of antique chisels - mostly Swan and Whiterby cast steel - and none of them ever had a flat back. It's clear to me that our woodworking ancestors did not flatten the back of their tools.

Mike

[Kees Heiden]

The evidence observed from the old tools that I have seems to indicate that only the bevel was worked. You really have to wonder how the craftsmen got such great results in the eighteenth century. Another mystery. Or, are the antique tools available today the ones that were used lightly or by the joiners trade?

Well, actually I think it is very rare to find a tool from a fine cabinet maker. The majority of the tools must have been from carpenters and the like. So it is indeed difficult to draw conclusions from old tools found in the wild.

[Dave Anderson NH]

I am fortunate enough to have 2 1/2 sets of hollows and rounds, a 45 degree carpenters set made in NJ and a 50 degree skewed cabinetmakers set by Griffiths of Norwich UK. Neither had the backs flattened. It is the same with almost every wooden molding and bench plane I own. Same-O, Same-O for all of my antique chisels and other edge tools like spoke shaves and drawknives. The absence of any evidence of back flattening anywhere would lead me to believe is a modern day idea, fad, protocol, or what have you. Additionally most tools had multiple bevels leading me to believe that in the past they were much less fussy about bevel angles.

Now back to sharpening with my Turkey stones and whale oil.;)

[Kees Heiden]

You are probably right Dave. Now I think about it, I also have a few highly pitched hollows and rounds. And indeed, backs are not flat.

I think those men only cared about wiping the burr after honing the bevel. And you dont need an absolute flat back to reach the burr.

[Steve Voigt]

Most of the responses here are saying the same thing…that the old tools you own don't have flat backs, so nobody ever flattened their backs. I think this is a suspect line of reasoning. Very few of us own tools made before the late 19th century (there are some exceptions, I know), and most were made in the 20th c. Either way, nearly all were sharpened and used in the 20th century. Your prize chisel with the rounded back may have been bought new in the early 1900s, and last used and sharpened by the buyer's grandson in the 50s.

Now, if this is what you mean by "ancestors," fine. But if you mean "what did cabinetmakers and carpenters do in 1800, when there weren't any power tools to help", then I don't think you can draw any conclusions from the tools you own.

A related question that people sometimes ask is "did previous generations flatten their stones?" And most people will respond with "all the old stones I've seen are dished." But in The Joiner and Cabinetmaker, written in 1839, it states that workers would be fined for not dressing their stones and leaving them flat. Unfortunately, we don't have any plane irons and chisels that we know for sure have been unused since the early 1800s, and that we know were only used by competent workers. So we really can't say.

Anyway, I don't have an answer to Fred's question. But what I am sure of is that if we draw all our conclusions from 20th c. woodworkers, whether from looking at their tools or reading their books, we're looking in the wrong place.

[Jim Davis]

I think it also likely that trillions more thick shavings were planed off than paper thin ones. If I need to take off .002 on an inche in a spot, I'm grabbing a scraper and then sandpaper, not a No. 4 plane with a mirror polished edge. Diamond grits into the thousands would not have been found in a working cabinet shop. Even then, time was money.

I'll just run and hide behind the shop now til the dust settles. :)

[Bryan Cramer]

I can see the unimportantance of a flat back in a plane iron, but what about a chisel? I was taught and always thought that chisels rely on a flat back to work properly. (bench chisel more than a mortise chisel) Also isn't a truly sharp edge the perfect intersection of two faces and it is only as sharp as the coarsest face? If the back was coarsely ground or flattened, yet the bevel was polished wouldn't the edge be less sharp than an edge that was polished equally on both sides? This could explain the back bevel (lifting) theory. I would think only the finishing tools need this truly sharp edge so the focus was on say the smoothing plane blade's back.

One thing to point out is the working properties of the wood were different. The wood wasn't kiln dried (even green) so it can work easier with a less than perfect edge cutting edges.

Maybe the old tool makers were just that good at delivering properly lapped blades that were flattened and polished according to their intended purpose. this would be more likely pre-Stanley era; maybe? If the tool maker can produce a properly flatten blade that saves so much work.

Another angle is the Japanese have hollow ground their chisels blades and as far as I know always flattened the backs perfectly according to one of my old instructors. This was easy due to the softer steel of the backs and the hollow.

I flatten the backs of my chisels perfectly. Because I bought them from Lie-Neilson they were perfectly flat before I received them. Some of my planes (except bevel up) have a back bevel. The Lie-Neilson have backs that are perfect so I didn't back bevel them. I don't know this is sure an interesting question and I look forward to see what others say.

[Mike Henderson]

Most of the responses here are saying the same thing…that the old tools you own don't have flat backs, so nobody ever flattened their backs. I think this is a suspect line of reasoning. Very few of us own tools made before the late 19th century (there are some exceptions, I know), and most were made in the 20th c. Either way, nearly all were sharpened and used in the 20th century. Your prize chisel with the rounded back may have been bought new in the early 1900s, and last used and sharpened by the buyer's grandson in the 50s.

Now, if this is what you mean by "ancestors," fine. But if you mean "what did cabinetmakers and carpenters do in 1800, when there weren't any power tools to help", then I don't think you can draw any conclusions from the tools you own.

A related question that people sometimes ask is "did previous generations flatten their stones?" And most people will respond with "all the old stones I've seen are dished." But in The Joiner and Cabinetmaker, written in 1839, it states that workers would be fined for not dressing their stones and leaving them flat. Unfortunately, we don't have any plane irons and chisels that we know for sure have been unused since the early 1800s, and that we know were only used by competent workers. So we really can't say.

Anyway, I don't have an answer to Fred's question. But what I am sure of is that if we draw all our conclusions from 20th c. woodworkers, whether from looking at their tools or reading their books, we're looking in the wrong place.
I have wooden coffin planes from the 1800's and the backs of the irons were not flat (irons are laminated cast steel). I've never seen an iron from an antique plane - no matter when it was used - with a flat back. The only exception was one plane I received from another woodworker, who had flattened the back.

Mike

[Stanley Covington]

Bernard E. Jones, in his book The Complete Woodworker first published in 1917, wrote as follows regarding sharpening plane "cutters" and chisel blades on page 58 of the 1980 reprint by 10 Speed Press:

"Pressure is required in sharpening, and three of four minutes' work at least is necessary to obtain the keen edge on a plane-iron after grinding. The face of the tool, whether cutter or chisel, is then rubbed on the stone, as shown in Fig. 136, to remove the wire edge that invariably turns up, but the tool must be kept perfectly flat, as otherwise the sharpened edge will be seriously damaged."

Figure 136 shows an aproned torso and two arms wearing a white long-sleeve shirt with the cuffs rolled up. A black vest is slightly visible underneath the white apron. The hands are holding the flat of a chisel blade on a stone at perhaps 15 degrees from the lengthwise axis of the stone.

I suppose this can be read a number of ways, but clearly, not a lot of ink was spent preaching about a the importance of a flat back. Perhaps this is because it was not thought important, or perhaps it is because it was assumed to be common sense. Whatever the case may be, Jones did specifically write about removing the burr on the flat, and the importance of keeping the blade flat on the stone to avoid it being "seriously damaged." This clearly indicates that Jones saw a dubbed flat as seriously damaged, and by inference, that the workman doing the sharpening should make an effort to maintain the flat of the blade flat, if only to make it easier and quicker to remove the burr.

A couple of pages earlier, Jones writes about using a sharpening stone properly so as to avoid wearing "troughs" in the surface, and about remedying such troughs using glass paper or emery cloth. This would indicate that a flat stone was an accepted practice

On a more important subject, I propose that the manner of dress worn by workmen of the period as seen everywhere in Jone's book would seem to support Brian's theory of the importance of proper dress when planing, and the efficacy of his planing robe and embroidered planing slippers. Brian, please send pictures! The fashion world hungers for enlightenment!

Stan

[Steve Voigt]

I have wooden coffin planes from the 1800's and the backs of the irons were not flat (irons are laminated cast steel). I've never seen an iron from an antique plane - no matter when it was used - with a flat back. The only exception was one plane I received from another woodworker, who had flattened the back.

Mike

So what? How does this refute, in any way, what I said? Do you know when the irons were last sharpened, and by whom? If you can prove to me that the plane was made in 1800 and last used by a skilled joiner in 1820, then you've got something. Otherwise, you've got nothing.

Moreover, "from the 1800s" is meaningless, especially in the U.S. In 1810, most things of wood were still made entirely by hand. By the time of the civil war, most furniture was made in factories and most houses were framed with pre-sawn dimensional lumber. The days of people routinely thicknessing lumber by hand, as an important part of their jobs, were long gone.

[Brian Holcombe]

Stan,

If a proper planning robe is impractical due to the nature of the work at hand, then I default to a coat and tie.

It's always best to have an experienced dresser on hand to assure the practice is followed with expertise.

I will document this practice in the coming weeks.

[george wilson]

All of the USED plane irons from the 18th. C.,which I have seen were really rounded over on their back sides in order to make them into higher angle planes that would not tear out wood as easily. These irons were apparently honed on dished whet stones. The cutting edges were cambered also so that the corners of the irons would not leave scars on the edges of their cuts. And,some of the ORIGINAL carpentry,like chair rail moldings and stair cases and their components,were made so sloppily,they look like a drunk made them(and probably did!) And,this in rich people's houses that still exist in Williamsburg.

As I mentioned in another thread,I put a very slight camber on my own planes,so as to take off very light finishing shavings with no trace of the corners of the irons. At the very least,if I wanted a flat cut surface,I gently round the corners of my irons.

I had an argument with Peter Ross many,many years ago because he was making NEW irons with their backs hammered and ground into this rounded configuration. He was stubborn,refusing to believe what anyone else told him about anything. After many years of making these worn out looking blades,I guess he saw some 18th. C. unused irons(possibly in the Seaton Chest,and stopped making the irons rounded and blunted.

He also did not believe me when I told him that the popping noise that you get when tapping metal is caused by the peaks of the tap's teeth pressure welding to the metal you are tapping. This is a commonly known fact on machinist's fora that years later I began to visit. I wonder if he ever figured out that fact for himself? NASA was recently experimenting with a new form of welding aluminum by forcefully spinning a hardened carbide (or HSS?) steel cylinder between 2 sheets of the metal that are in close contact. It gets so hot from the friction,the metal sheets' edges are melted and stirred together. A friend of mine runs a machine shop there(or used to. They have taken to farming out contractors to use in the NASA shops). Sometimes,my friend says,he will spend many hours programming a CNC machine,then turning out the part in 20 minutes!

[Warren Mickley]

I have wooden coffin planes from the 1800's and the backs of the irons were not flat (irons are laminated cast steel). I've never seen an iron from an antique plane - no matter when it was used - with a flat back. The only exception was one plane I received from another woodworker, who had flattened the back.

Mike

I think you are talking about stuff from the dark ages here, Mike. Hand work on furniture was declining already in 1825. I remember some years ago trying to convince David Weaver that the antique plane he just bought might have been used by a carpenter, a farmer and a handyman in the time since it was used by a fine craftsman, if ever. It would be helpful to find tools fresh from an 18th century cabinetmaker from London or Philadelphia, but the very few that are around have usually been used by others in the last 216 years.

The evidence from the 18th century is that they did nice work, and I can't see doing that with less than well kept tools. They also had fine oil stones. So I would suggest backs flattened enough to lay on a fine stone.

One thing about "flattening backs" the average joiner or cabinetmaker had four or five bench planes, and he did an awful lot of planing and sharpening before wearing a plane iron down to nothing. So although flattening was probably a chore, it was rather different from today when a guy could find himself flattening a plane iron every other month., what with "replacement blades" and multiple smoothing planes etc.

When I was young I did some experiments with the jack plane to see if it really needed to as well sharpened as say a trying plane. I tried using a coarse stone only, using a coarse and medium stone only, using a coarse and lightly refining with the fine stone , etc. What I found was that using the same routine as I used for the finer planes contributed enough to edge longevity to justify the few extra seconds. The ease of using a sharper tool was a bonus.

[Stanley Covington]

Stan,

If a proper planning robe is impractical due to the nature of the work at hand, then I default to a coat and tie.

It's always best to have an experienced dresser on hand to assure the practice is followed with expertise.

I will document this practice in the coming weeks.

It is sooo hard to get an experienced dresser nowadays... How is a working stiff to do without one....

I look forward eagerly, counting the seconds, until your fashion post.

Stan

[Stanley Covington]

Commenting obliquely on George's excellent post above, there was a common misunderstanding among sword collectors and experts in Japan for literally centuries. They believed that swords forged in the "Old Swords" period of 700 years or so ago were the ideal form for use and beauty with their blades tapering to the point. Later swordsmiths aggressively imitated this taper. But research of scabbards from the time, and a few examples of actual swords that had never been used, showed that this taper was the result of repeated sharpening, and not the original shape. In other words, "experts" including swordsmiths, saw the worn out profiles and assumed (you and me are asses) they were that way from day one. As a result of this research, modern swordsmiths in Japan making swords in the Old Sword Period style now make them full and robust. They look like something you could take into battle and trust your life to instead of a thin wand.

I suggest we are making the same mistake in assuming the shapes of the used, abused, and worn out old plane blades that remain in our hands today were seen as ideal when new.

Stan

[Mike Henderson]

I think you are talking about stuff from the dark ages here, Mike. Hand work on furniture was declining already in 1825. I remember some years ago trying to convince David Weaver that the antique plane he just bought might have been used by a carpenter, a farmer and a handyman in the time since it was used by a fine craftsman, if ever. It would be helpful to find tools fresh from an 18th century cabinetmaker from London or Philadelphia, but the very few that are around have usually been used by others in the last 216 years.

The evidence from the 18th century is that they did nice work, and I can't see doing that with less than well kept tools. They also had fine oil stones. So I would suggest backs flattened enough to lay on a fine stone.

One thing about "flattening backs" the average joiner or cabinetmaker had four or five bench planes, and he did an awful lot of planing and sharpening before wearing a plane iron down to nothing. So although flattening was probably a chore, it was rather different from today when a guy could find himself flattening a plane iron every other month., what with "replacement blades" and multiple smoothing planes etc.

When I was young I did some experiments with the jack plane to see if it really needed to as well sharpened as say a trying plane. I tried using a coarse stone only, using a coarse and medium stone only, using a coarse and lightly refining with the fine stone , etc. What I found was that using the same routine as I used for the finer planes contributed enough to edge longevity to justify the few extra seconds. The ease of using a sharper tool was a bonus.

We have two hypotheses here:

1. Old time woodworkers did not flatten the backs of their plane irons.

2. Some old time woodworkers did flatten the backs of their plane irons.

We have lots of examples of old plane irons that were not flattened, which supports hypothesis number 1.

I have not heard of any examples of old plane irons that have had the black flattened.

Now, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but until we find some examples to support hypothesis number 2 we have to question whether it's true or not.

Mike

[Paul Sidener]

I will say two things.

A lot of what I know about woodworking, I learned from my Grandfather. He passed away about 35 years ago at the age of 80. When he was showing me how to sharpen plane irons, he would flatten the backs of irons a little. It was something he learned as a boy in England. He used oil stones. My grandfather claimed it helped keep the stones flat. He wasn't anal about getting a mirror finish on the iron maybe 10 or 12 strokes on each stone, and he only used two stones. A course and a fine, then it was back to work.

Fast forward to this past summer, I went to Hand Works. I was in the Lie Nielsen booth watching Deneb Puchalski sharpen a couple plane irons. I had the opportunity to talk to him for a few minutes after his song and dance on sharpening. Without me bringing it up , he said about the same thing my Grandfather had said. I had forgotten my grandfather had said it, until Deneb said it. I wish I could remember more of what my Grandfather showed me, but 10 year olds don't have much of an attention span.

The other thing I wanted to say, is about buying "vintage tools". I have yet to see a pristine vintage tool in an antique store. They are usually covered with rust, because they haven't been used in years. The back of the iron is usually very rusted and pitted, where it contacted the chip breaker. There is no way to tell when the last time it was used, much less sharpened.

The one thing I do know is "old timers" used to take very good care of their tools, especially if they made a living with them. I don't think everyone flattened the back of their irons. I do think that some did, depending on the tool and what it was used for. There are a lot of little tricks, that have sadly been forgotten. People used to get by with a lot less.

For myself, I flatten about an inch of the back of my plane irons. I don't care for the ruler trick, that is just me and a topic for another thread.

[Steve Voigt]

In other words, "experts" including swordsmiths, saw the worn out profiles and assumed (you and me are asses) they were that way from day one.
…

I suggest we are making the same mistake in assuming the shapes of the used, abused, and worn out old plane blades that remain in our hands today were seen as ideal when new.
Stan

Exactly my point, but with excellent historical context. Thanks Stan.

[Lenore Epstein]

I'm a newbie to tool sharpening, but in my uneducated opinion, the best justification I've heard for flattening iron & chisel backs is that any milling/machining marks that meet the edge that aren't smoothed out leave an edge that is at least somewhat jagged, and thus more prone to chipping and wear than one that approaches that ideal meeting of two flat surfaces (these sources also stressed that you only need to smooth a narrow strip at the cutting edge). That makes me wonder whether old-timey cutting tools came from the maker with the striated surfaces found on the few irons and chisels from the last century or so that I've seen.

But that may be yet another post-facto theory manufactured to justify the current obsession with flatness.

That makes me wonder about something that probably reveals my difficulty visualizing shapes: if you keep honing your bevel, won't its entire edge eventually meet the edge of an out-of-flat back? And if it did, wouldn't the resulting edge be sharp, but just not perfectly straight?

Okay, I'm off to find a large rock to hide behind...

[Mel Fulks]

When you examine the bottoms of old table tops and find striations in a surface that otherwise seems to have been cut with a sharp iron, is that an indication of an unflattened back? I've seen a lot of that over the years and wondered how the guy got all those " nicks in the iron". Since scrapers were the principle tool for final surface ,instead of abrasives,the striations would be no real problem. Does this make any sense?.

[Brian Holcombe]

It is sooo hard to get an experienced dresser nowadays... How is a working stiff to do without one....

I look forward eagerly, counting the seconds, until your fashion post.

Stan

Best approach is to poach one from another workshop, it's an expensive proposition but smooth boards are worth it :D The telltale sign of the existence of a classically trained dresser on staff is how well the planing robes are kept.

On a serious note with slightly more relevance to this thread, lol, I flatten my Japanese tool backs very accurately, and western stuff not far up from the leading edge. Most importantly and this is truly when the light went off in my head, the edges must meet accurately and without any remaining wire edge. So even if they did not flatten the entire back, I'm quite certain that they must have worked the back to some degree to be able to attain this with repetition and without much aggravation.

As Warren notes a good fine edge lasts longer, so if your goal in the long term is spend less time at the stones then you have to be able to get a good edge which means accuracy in the front and back of the plane iron. I can't say what they did everywhere, but I would imagine the top shops would have kept their tools just as well as anyone does currently who produces similar quality of work.

[Warren Mickley]

When you examine the bottoms of old table tops and find striations in a surface that otherwise seems to have been cut with a sharp iron, is that an indication of an unflattened back? I've seen a lot of that over the years and wondered how the guy got all those " nicks in the iron". Since scrapers were the principle tool for final surface ,instead of abrasives,the striations would be no real problem. Does this make any sense?.
No. You are looking at a surface the craftsman did not care about. What you are seeing is plane marks of a jack plane. Jack planes get beat up somewhat because of doing rough work, and they don't need to be nick free in order to do their work. If you want a smoother surface than the jack plane affords (like the top of the table) it is a whole lot faster and a lot less tiring to use a trying plane than to use a scraper.

[Mel Fulks]

Thanks Warren, that does make sense. My own use of planes has been mainly for fitting to openings or making some type of glue joint, easy for me to forget the traditional plane " division of labor" and practical reasons for it.

[Mike Holbrook]

There seems to be violent agreement that we do not have a large enough quantity of tools, untouched since they were sharpened a couple centuries ago to make definitive judgement. Certainly there is no disgrace in not knowing, we get to make up our own minds with little fear of being "proven" wrong. The older I get the more I find out how little I actually know for a fact to be unequivocally true which for some reason just makes me more inquisitive.

Brian and Stanley, can't you two just let your wives dress you like everyone else!

[Scott DelPorte]

The Studley book has an interesting couple pages on what they called "Studley the Sharpener". They examined the edges of his chisels and planes and tried to draw conclusions about how he sharpened. They assumed that most of the edges were done by him because they had consistent scratch and polishing patterns. A couple conclusions they drew were.

1) Studley sharpened the whole bevel. Not much evidence of using a micro bevel.
2) Bevels consistently had a slight convex shape from sharpening. Some evidence of a hollow grind, then slight convex wear patterns over it from his sharpening
3) He spent a lot of time lapping the backs, but polished close to the edge more then the rest of the back. Looked like something similar to our "ruler trick" was used
4) He liked cambered edges

Much more. Interesting read. There is a picture of him in his shop wearing a tie and dress shirt under his apron, so Brian has got it right.

[Stanley Covington]

Brian and Stanley, can't you two just let your wives dress you like everyone else!

Mike:

The subject of proper dress for the sacred act of planing is so important that I must defer humbly to Brian's greater knowledge.

My good wife aside, I do question whether or not a woman could possibly serve as a certified and licensed dresser. A question for the Gods of Handsaws.

On the other hand, I took my daughter in law to an exhibition near Nihonbashi here in Tokyo put on by a group of blacksmiths from Niigata. Nakano san had setup a planing beam with some very nice hinoki wood for visitors to plane using a selection of his planes. After about 5 minutes of instruction by Mr. Nagano and me, she was planing with confidence and speed creating beautiful full-length fragrant shavings. Another thing I must ask the Gods of Handsaws.

Stan

[Brian Holcombe]

You are too kind, I am simply in the company of great knowledge :D. It was not until finding such expertise did I truly understand and appreciate the powers of a bold glen plaid.

On a serious note, those who have not done so you would be wise to inspect Stan's photos in the Kiyotada thread. The bevels are flat and the backs are as well, that level of preparation makes resharpenings much easier and helps work toward an edge which will last longer. That is spotlight on how a fine craftsman, who earned his living with his tools, keeps his tools. I can say that because anyone capable of a toolbox of that level is a very fine craftsman.

I would imagine the same if you to walk into George's shop and picked up a chisel, it would have a fine edge on it. He notes as well a good process for getting a very sharp edge without much fuss and getting back to work.

I bet these two would not differ greatly from 18ty century craftsmen who made their living with their tools.

[Kees Heiden]

I had a quick look in Nicholson, The Mechanic's companion. He has a short chapter about sharpening in the joinery section. Describes the grinding wheel, the Turkey stone, the coarse rub stone, about grinding the bevel and wetting a secundairy bevel. All interesting stuff, but not a single word about the face side. Not a single word about stropping either, so maybe his description isn't very complete.

An interesting question is, how did they get their planeirons sharp when we all now that the sharp edge is the combination of two faces? I think for plane irons at least I have an answer. The planeshavings do a remarkable good job of polishing the face side of the iron (if he face wasn't too rough to begin with). So when you only pay attention to removing the burr after honing the bevel, using a strop to really get into that corner, then you end up with a nice sharp edge without any polishing or flattening of the backside.

I am not so sure about chisels though.

[Derek Cohen]

Here's a question or three: if you come to the conclusion that cabinetmaker's of yesteryear honed the bevel alone and "sort of" removed the wire, without any effort to work the back of the blades .... would you change your current sharpening regimes and do the same?

In the same vein, knowing that oilstones probably do not go above the equivalent of a Japanese waterstone rated 6000 grit, would you stop honing above this level (whatever you use)?

Perhaps you are reluctant to change what you do. Is this because you do so out of habit, or because you believe that a modern day sharpening regime is superior to one from yesteryear?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Tony Zaffuto]

Over on the ukworkshop forum there is a guy named Jacob. He is running a holy war against flat backs on chisels and plane irons. He never gets tired of learning everyone around that flattening backs is a modern fad.

I would agree with him if I didn't alwas acquire irons with pitting and heavy dubbed edges on the back. So I continue polishing backs, but keep my efforts centered on the last 1/2" or so.

Jacob argues with everyone and occassionally himself! He hates modern "dosh", and has been known to fashion an axe head out out of a stone to hew a timber just to prove one does not need anthng made recently.

[Stanley Covington]

Here's a question or three: if you come to the conclusion that cabinetmaker's of yesteryear honed the bevel alone and "sort of" removed the wire, without any effort to work the back of the blades .... would you change your current sharpening regimes and do the same?

In the same vein, knowing that oilstones probably do not go above the equivalent of a Japanese waterstone rated 6000 grit, would you stop honing above this level (whatever you use)?

Perhaps you are reluctant to change what you do. Is this because you do so out of habit, or because you believe that a modern day sharpening regime is superior to one from yesteryear?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Three zingers in one post!!

My answer to Derek's Question No. 1: The physics of the wedge have not changed since the universe was first formed, regardless of how us humans have chosen to perceive it at any particular time in our short sojourn on the third rock from the sun. But to answer more directly, I don't believe the skilled cabinetmakers of yesteryear in any country where high-quality work was in demand were satisfied with "sort of" removing the burr. The idea is preposterous. To believe otherwise is to assume the professional cabinetmakers of past centuries were idiots that could not tell a ragged edge from a sharp one in a time when handtools were the only option, and starvation was common. If I could find a way to dramatically improve my sharpening regime without significantly increasing cost or time requirements, I would be thrilled to do so, but only an idjit would downgrade an effective sharpening regime to comply with an obviously mistaken theory based on unreliable evidence and nonsensical nostalgia.

My answer to Derek's Question No.2: Ha ha! I like the way you twisted the question. 6000 grit is fine for many tools especially where quick and dirty work is required. But even if a 6000 equivalent grit oilstone would produce an adequate edge, they are just too damned slow compared to a synthetic waterstone. So yes, I am reluctant to change.

My answer to Derek's Question No.3: I am reluctant to change over to an imagined archaic sharpening system because I know the modern one (which really is quite ancient) is superior.

Great fun Derek. Please post pictures of the concealed esky drawer in the lingerie cabinet when it is done. Magnetic seals?

Stan

[Mike Holbrook]

Interesting questions Derek.

Certainly, back then as well as right now, the sharpening media commonly used might very well be the constant in an analysis of how things were made sharp. I remember darker days in my youth when all I had were a couple "oilstones". The amount of time necessary to rework a bevel or flatten a back with less abrasive media certainly reduced the chances of my tackling such a project. I suspect my attraction to CBN wheels, diamond plates, coarse stones....relates to many hours of frustration trying to do large jobs with fine sharpening media.

Although there were hand powered wheels around back in the day, one might wonder how many tool users had access to these wheels every time they needed to grind something. There are still a few "professional" tool sharpeners around today, I suspect that there was a greater demand for someone who had a way to regrind tools all those years ago.

Once again my thoughts about dramatically improving sharpening capability lead me back to better grinding media.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Here's a question or three . . .

One of the things we deal with today is an excess of options. Some of the things people buy today would have cost many weeks wages in the 1700s. As a practical matter if you were a craftsman of yesteryear I doubt you would purchase a 16000 grit Japanese stone to use in polishing the tertiary bevel, unless you were truly a master and could truly get a result from the tool honed on that stone that you could not otherwise get. The equivalent of the options we have today would have been too rare and expensive, and the people doing this work were largely working for a living and not for leisure.

Today anyone with a credit card can buy very fine tools and very fine stones. People do seem to buy the 16000 grit stones. I see several possible reasons: (1) the person buying it has enough skill to produce a better product with that stone than without (2) the buyer is getting "sold" by the people who sell sharpening stuff (3) the stone provides some social signal or other benefit apart from any work produced (4) the buyer is simply curious.

So setting aside salesmanship, curiousity, and trying to buy social status, and regardless of what they did in yesteryear, I think if you have the skill to get a better joint from a chisel honed to 16,000, it probably makes sense to do that. If you don't have that skill, you are probably better off focusing on the skills and not the stones.

[don wilwol]

Interesting topic. I've asked this question for a long time as well. I've come to the conclusion that since almost all of the planes I have restored, almost none of them were sharp, so craftsman of old never sharpened their planes. (just kidding of course)

I've have certainly found more old irons that didn't have a flat back than those that did. Of the ones that did have a flat back I've often wondered when it was flattened.

Having sharpened a plane or 2, and knowing what works and what doesn't, its hard for me to understand how they got a really smooth surface with a smoother if they didn't flatten to some degree. I don't know the real answer either, so I hope the conversation continues.

[Kees Heiden]

I don't think you can compare oilstone "grit" with the manmade SiC grit scale. Oilstone grit works differently, it becomes more rounded and starts to burnish the steel more then actually cutting it. And then, most oldtimers would strop after wetting. How do you compare that to a grit scale?

And I also don't think that "just removing the burr" is giving you a much worse kind of edge then going through the modern sharpening regime with surgical flattened backs and 16000 grit stones. Especially when strops are involved, you can get quite a polish right at the edge without a flat back. That is in addition to the polish you get from the wood shavings. Have you ever looked through a strong microscope at the wear bevel on the face of a plane iron?

And then there is the case of diminishing returns. When you can cut your wood cleanly with a 4000 grit edge, then a 16 000 grit stone isn't going to bring you a whole lot more.

[Derek Cohen]

Just for reference, this weekend was another one building drawers in hard Jarrah. The difference in a chisel honed on a Ultra Fine Spyderco, and a chisel finished on green compound was night-and-day. One made sure, controlled, easy cuts. The other stuttered and required extra force.

I wonder what percentage of the Stanley and woodies found in the wild were owned by professional woodworkers who knew how to prepare a plane and sharpen the iron? Or were they owned by home DIY-ers, in the same manner as today one would have a cheap cordless drill-driver and a set of plastic screwdrivers at home? Just how much can you determine from these planes?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Tom Bussey]

I regrind a lot of plane irons. First reason is a lot of them are pitted where the chip braker touched the iron. The pitting is usually to deep to stone out by hand. In doing so I find a lot of irons dating back to the 30s or newer can have the iron" back stoned. Since stoning the angle takes a little skill. I suspect the person tried to cheat on the process by just honing the top. And on a lot of the iron I find the corners to be rounded more that the top which leads me to think the stone was not flat but dished. I tend to think the rolled corners came from having the iron honed the long way the dished stone and not on purpose. So after doing maybe 50-75 blade I wound tend to think the backs were not flattened.

[david charlesworth]

Derek,

I thought UF Spyderco was supposed to be fine.

Any idea of grit size please?

David

[Mike Holbrook]

Something occurred to me regarding the fine end of a sharpening system. It seems to me that we frequently get caught up in how fine a medium may be appropriate to a sharpening system. The question gets complicated when one starts understanding that some media, as Kees mentions above, loose their sharp edges early on & become burnishing/polishing systems., some media may clog with refuse from the work....

It occurred to me that the solution I found for these issues on the coarse end of the spectrum was a powered "grinder" with a super abrasive. It occurs to me that on the opposite end of the spectrum, honing and polishing, we might also benefit from some sort of mechanism that moves the grit over the surface at a much faster rate. The two objections I often read to using buffing...wheels are: 1) They may over heat the delicate edge where the metal is very thin. I believe we are seeing new media that dramatically reduce any heat issue though. 2) Sharp edges tend to sink into a soft sharpening media rounding the edge vs making it more keen. I believe the second objection is raised regarding strapping on leather. Still we have reason to believe that leather straps have served people sharpening razors for many years. Again there are newer much harder composite & leather buffing wheels available now that may help.

[Mike Holbrook]

I have been a fan of Spyderco stones for some 35 years or more. I think they are a little hard to define in terms of grit. Mine seem to "load" with refuse steel fairly quickly, but the super hard ceramic with, I believe it is sapphires embedded, seems to still cut and polish at the same time without water or oil. I find them to be relatively unique in that regard. I believe part of the problem in rating these stones to other stones is Spyderco has never been eager to reveal the exact composition/grit of their stones.

[george wilson]

I don't think we can ever get to the truth about the issue of craftsmen flattening their irons' backs. The unused irons I have seen were ground pretty well on a large wheel by skilled cutlers. They were not as accurate as the irons made today on precision machinery. But,they were pretty decently flat,or more to the point,flat ACROSS THEIR WIDTH. What happened to them after they were sold,we have no idea. We could be looking at a dubbed over 18th. C. iron that was used by a hack less than 100 years ago,or even in the early 20th. C.,and left to rust in a humid shop for decades.

As for me,I did have,and still have, several new (never used) laminated irons that I used myself. In fact,I have a package of old 19th. C. irons,a dozen,still in their brown paper package. I haven't used any of them because they are too narrow(1 3/4",I think). They are very accurately ground. As for the unused 19th. C. irons I did use,I never attempted to further flatten their backs. I thought they were quite flat enough. I did my best work as posted here with those irons in my planes.

This post could use some word unscrambling,but I have to go somewhere right now.

[Jim Koepke]

My best answer on this is a question.

Was a flat back needed on a single iron plane?

If a cap iron (a.k.a. chip breaker) was involved, did anything other than a flat back prevent the shavings constantly clogging between the cap iron and the blade?

My thought is maybe they did whatever was required to get their work done in a timely manner.

jtk

[Phillip West]

The spyderco UF stones are about 3 micron..Thats according to Sal the companys founder..

[george wilson]

i'd add that if you are using a chip breaker set real close to the edge(like they need to be),the iron had better be flat. The slightest sliver of an opening between the chip breaker and the iron will cause chips to get wedged in there slightly less fast than the spaceship Enterprise can reach light speed.

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

Just for reference, this weekend was another one building drawers in hard Jarrah. The difference in a chisel honed on a Ultra Fine Spyderco, and a chisel finished on green compound was night-and-day. One made sure, controlled, easy cuts. The other stuttered and required extra force.

I wonder what percentage of the Stanley and woodies found in the wild were owned by professional woodworkers who knew how to prepare a plane and sharpen the iron? Or were they owned by home DIY-ers, in the same manner as today one would have a cheap cordless drill-driver and a set of plastic screwdrivers at home? Just how much can you determine from these planes?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek, just to be absolutely sure of what you mean.

Which one was the better one ?

[Kees Heiden]

Much of this I don't know, but I am absolutely sure they didn't have a Spyderco back in 1780. :D

[Ray Selinger]

In an antique store I came across a real carpenters' tool box, not the sea chest you see on the net, fresh from an estate sale. I remember these boxes from my apprenticeship. From the assortment of chisels, he likely bought them one at a time, and like me when I was an apprentice,, thinking hard before spending all that money. From the Canadian Stanley "Sweethart " on the cardboard boxes, I would date his purchases from the '30s. His sharpening stone was just one of the grey ones. And I know how effective they are, not. Why would someone sharpen the back when they came from the factory with a better finish ?

[Warren Mickley]

Derek, just to be absolutely sure of what you mean.

Which one was the better one ?

I wondered that too. I have no idea. I once repeated a chisel test that Derek performed with five steels. I used a 19th century chisel. The difference was like night and day.

[Derek Cohen]

Derek,

I thought UF Spyderco was supposed to be fine.

Any idea of grit size please?

David

Hi David

No figures have been published by Spyderco, consequently we can only estimate this.

The Medium is around 2000-3000. The Fine and Ultra Fine are reputed to be the same, but that the UF is flatter. That does not make sense to me. I would estimate the UF around 6000-8000, and then it seems logical that the Fine is between the two (i.e. 4000-5000).

Honing with green compound takes it to 30000. That is a big jump, and quite noticeable in terms of the greater ease with which a blade will cut Jarrah end grain.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[george wilson]

I bought a UF myself,but have not yet used it enough to determine if it is finer or not. It has a bit of "tooth" to the surface that only use will wear down.

Long ago I did flatten my fine Spyderco. The UF was more perfectly finished,and did not have any "fuzz" on it(ceramic fuzz which would NEVER have worn off without a scrubbing with the diamond stone).

[Judson Green]

My best answer on this is a question.

Was a flat back needed on a single iron plane?

If a cap iron (a.k.a. chip breaker) was involved, did anything other than a flat back prevent the shavings constantly clogging between the cap iron and the blade?


jtk

yes just the thing i was wondering

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Although it strikes me as an interesting question in its own right (did they flatten the backs), I think that Mr. Cohen alluded to what matters; what works best (he actually said something about an improved regiment).

I suspect that some of us (<cough> <me> <cough>) go beyond what is required in some areas (like using a 16000 Shapton), and, in some instances, that might even be counter productive (like when sharpening a kitchen knife).

Great thread!

[Frederick Skelly]

Here's a question or three: if you come to the conclusion that cabinetmaker's of yesteryear honed the bevel alone and "sort of" removed the wire, without any effort to work the back of the blades .... would you change your current sharpening regimes and do the same?

In the same vein, knowing that oilstones probably do not go above the equivalent of a Japanese waterstone rated 6000 grit, would you stop honing above this level (whatever you use)?

Perhaps you are reluctant to change what you do. Is this because you do so out of habit, or because you believe that a modern day sharpening regime is superior to one from yesteryear?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Hello Derek!
Those are all logical, "cut to the quick of the matter" questions. Since I started the thread, I thought I'd answer from my personal perspective.....

Answer #1: Would I change my current regimen? Personally, if the oldtimers' regimen was shorter/simpler, I'd certainly give it a try to see if it worked for me. I truly hate flattening old plane irons, but I also feel a bit sacriligous (sp?) using new irons in old planes. So I flatten. (Sigh)

Answer #2: I currently hone to "only " 6000 and periodically consider buying a much finer stone. So if the oldtimers went no higher, that might convince me what I have is sufficient. Today I was pulling shavings thicker than many of you routinely get (mine were "only" 0.002 inch).

Answer #3: I'm not reluctant at all. I've tried many of the suggestions in other sharpening threads. But I'm coming to realize that, like anything else, it's possible (for me anyway) to get carried away. So my original question was partly pure curiousity and partly a way to gauge what's "good enough".

Best regards,
Fred

[Jim Koepke]

Today I was pulling shavings thicker than many of you routinely get ( mine were "only" 0.002 inch).

I know I always bring up the ultra thin shaving stuff, but I am often taking thicker shavings.

Today I was using a router plane and I have the adjustment marked. The bolt is 18 threads per inch. The nut is divided into 8ths. An 8th of a turn makes about 0.007" advance on the blade. Sometimes I would advance the blade about 1/4 turn of the nut for a 0.014" shaving.

When I was working on a #3 rehab the other day after setting it for the sub thou shavings it was set to take shavings that measured 0.021". I call those zipper shavings because that is not only how the sound when being made, but they have ripples running from side to side.

jtk

[Frederick Skelly]

"Zipper shavings" - that's a great name for them Jim. I often get those when I take a slightly too thick shaving with my camfer plane. (Which, by-the-way, still ROCKS - I'm sooo glad you got me interested in making one of those!)

Fred

[Patrick Chase]

Over on the ukworkshop forum there is a guy named Jacob. He is running a holy war against flat backs on chisels and plane irons. He never gets tired of learning everyone around that flattening backs is a modern fad.

I would agree with him if I didn't alwas acquire irons with pitting and heavy dubbed edges on the back. So I continue polishing backs, but keep my efforts centered on the last 1/2" or so.

I think that some people conflate "flat" and "smooth". There is also the question of "local flatness" vs the sort of overall flatness that LN and LV now achieve.

IMO smoothness matters a lot - you can only have a truly sharp edge when two smooth surfaces intersect. If either surface is rough then the edge will be ragged in equal degree. Note that I say "smooth surfaces" where many authors instead say "smooth planes". Planarity (a.k.a. "flatness") doesn't impact sharpness. Also, the amount of the edge that needs to be smooth is very small - all that matters is that scratches don't compromise the edge.

Local crosswise (parallel to the cutting edge) flatness immediately behind the edge is critical in anything with a double iron. If you don't have at least that then good luck getting the cap iron to mate well enough to avoid clogging. Charlesworth's "ruler trick" is basically taking advantage of this fact - he dubs the face a bit lengthwise while preserving crosswise flatness.

Beyond that it's a matter of degrees, specifically whether the blade is out far enough to compromise cut depth/profile or prevent bedding with a reasonably tight cap iron (though note that in a BD plane this is more a function of the back than of the face). IMO you absolutely do not need total flatness for either of those.

So taking all of that together, I don't spend much effort flattening blade faces other than in the immediate vicinity of the edge. When I encounter a non-flat blade my usual reaction is to reach for a thicker ruler (or piece of shim stock), within reason. I appreciate the flatness of my LV/LN blades, but also recognize it as a form of market-driven fetishism that doesn't really impact performance.

[Stanley Covington]

I think that some people conflate "flat" and "smooth". There is also the question of "local flatness" vs the sort of overall flatness that LN and LV now achieve.

IMO smoothness matters a lot - you can only have a truly sharp edge when two smooth surfaces intersect. If either surface is rough then the edge will be ragged in equal degree. Note that I say "smooth surfaces" where many authors instead say "smooth planes". Planarity (a.k.a. "flatness") doesn't impact sharpness. Also, the amount of the edge that needs to be smooth is very small - all that matters is that scratches don't compromise the edge.

Local crosswise (parallel to the cutting edge) flatness immediately behind the edge is critical in anything with a double iron. If you don't have at least that then good luck getting the cap iron to mate well enough to avoid clogging. Charlesworth's "ruler trick" is basically taking advantage of this fact - he dubs the face a bit lengthwise while preserving crosswise flatness.

Beyond that it's a matter of degrees, specifically whether the blade is out far enough to compromise cut depth/profile or prevent bedding with a reasonably tight cap iron (though note that in a BD plane this is more a function of the back than of the face). IMO you absolutely do not need total flatness for either of those.

Patrick:

A well stated common-sense approach.

I would add that, as much as we try, it is practically impossible to obtain true planar flatness using imperfect stones and irregular hand movement, which is the best we have to work with. It is difficult even with very precise machinery. As much as we want perfection (or not as in the case of the flaming anarchists), the best we can hope to achieve is a compromise between sharpness and speed. For woodworking purposes, and where stropping is used (a procedure I follow religiously) close is good enough, IMO.

My argument has been that, while the old timers in the West had unimpressive stones, their surviving work is testimony that they knew how to get a pretty sharp edge, and the more accomplished of them would know enough to try to keep their stones flat and their blades (at least the last few millimeters of the blade) relatively flat and with uniform scratches. Efficiency would demand this much of their attention at least.

Two cents.

Stan

[Patrick Chase]

My argument has been that, while the old timers in the West had unimpressive stones, their surviving work is testimony that they knew how to get a pretty sharp edge, and the more accomplished of them would know enough to try to keep their stones flat and their blades (at least the last few millimeters of the blade) relatively flat and with uniform scratches. Efficiency would demand this much of their attention at least.

Two cents.

Stan

Yeah, it's certainly easier to maintain a sharp edge if the face and your stones have complementary shapes, and "locally flat" (the last couple mm as you say) is probably the most practical/efficient way to get there. That's what I do FWIW.

I think it's important to recognize that in that case flatness is a means (to efficient maintenance) rather than an end, though.

[Patrick Chase]

If a cap iron (a.k.a. chip breaker) was involved, did anything other than a flat back prevent the shavings constantly clogging between the cap iron and the blade?

Sure - any complementary shapes work. All that matters is that they mate.

Practically speaking I think that crosswise (parallel to the blade) flatness near the tip is by far the easiest way to get there, but I'm sure somebody out there has devised a way to grind non-flat complementary shapes...

[Patrick Chase]

Hi David

No figures have been published by Spyderco, consequently we can only estimate this.

The Medium is around 2000-3000. The Fine and Ultra Fine are reputed to be the same, but that the UF is flatter. That does not make sense to me. I would estimate the UF around 6000-8000, and then it seems logical that the Fine is between the two (i.e. 4000-5000).

Honing with green compound takes it to 30000. That is a big jump, and quite noticeable in terms of the greater ease with which a blade will cut Jarrah end grain.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Our of curiosity, whose green compound?

The reason I ask is because most of that stuff (LV's included) is an Al-Oxide + Cr-Oxide blend, with the Al-oxide being quite a bit more coarse. The average particle size may be 0.5 um and therefore ~30 kgrit as you say, but there are typically a bunch of larger particles in there. The scratch pattern is therefore rather more coarse than you'd get on, say, a tightly graded 0.5 um lapping film. This is easily seen under 'scope.

Of course we're well into overkill here anyway, so I don't question your bottom-line results...

[Patrick Chase]

Here's a question or three: if you come to the conclusion that cabinetmaker's of yesteryear honed the bevel alone and "sort of" removed the wire, without any effort to work the back of the blades .... would you change your current sharpening regimes and do the same?

In the same vein, knowing that oilstones probably do not go above the equivalent of a Japanese waterstone rated 6000 grit, would you stop honing above this level (whatever you use)?

Perhaps you are reluctant to change what you do. Is this because you do so out of habit, or because you believe that a modern day sharpening regime is superior to one from yesteryear?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Answering honestly: For me at least woodworking isn't an entirely rational pursuit, so my answers would be "no", "no", and "habit".

Just because you know it's OCD doesn't mean you can resist the compulsion.

Seriously, I think there's some benefit up to 10000# or so, and maybe a bit more depending on the wood and the application. Beyond that you're splitting hairs, whether literally or figuratively (sorry, couldn't resist an "HHT" joke).

I've used the Spyderco ultra-fines for decades for ski tuning and more recently for woodworking, and there's no way you're going to convince me that's equivalent to a 6000# stone. Maybe 3K based on careful examination of scratch patterns (you can't judge anything from the "feel" of the stone IMO).

[Jeffrey Martel]

My question is: Does it matter what they used to do? Aside from someone attempting to be 100% period correct, why would you want to do it exactly as it was done a few centuries ago? I would think that the best course of action is to compare flattening the back vs not flattening, and see which works best. Use whichever method works best. Personally, I don't care about historical accuracy. I care about what works best for my application.

[Allan Speers]

Here's a question or three: if you come to the conclusion that cabinetmaker's of yesteryear honed the bevel alone and "sort of" removed the wire, without any effort to work the back of the blades .... would you change your current sharpening regimes and do the same?

In the same vein, knowing that oilstones probably do not go above the equivalent of a Japanese waterstone rated 6000 grit, would you stop honing above this level (whatever you use)?

Perhaps you are reluctant to change what you do. Is this because you do so out of habit, or because you believe that a modern day sharpening regime is superior to one from yesteryear?

Regards from Perth

Derek

That cuts right to the heart of the matter, don't it?


One could also ask a similar thing in a different way:

Given today's superior tools and compounds, and assuming you're a hobbyist who has no need to work as fast as humanly possible, is there any good reason NOT to flatten a back, or to use a strop?

I sure can't think of one.

[Kees Heiden]

Flattening isn't really a pleasure.

[Derek Cohen]

Flattening isn't really a pleasure.

Especially with oilstones.

Which is likely a reason why many vintage blades are not flat. The trouble is, one does not know if the vintage blades we find in this condition come from a professional or an amateur. It makes it difficult to conclude anything.

Modern blades are pretty flat, and modern abrasives are quicker working and offer higher grits. Progress?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

My apologies for the self-reply, but...



I've used the Spyderco ultra-fines for decades for ski tuning and more recently for woodworking, and there's no way you're going to convince me that's equivalent to a 6000# stone. Maybe 3K based on careful examination of scratch patterns (you can't judge anything from the "feel" of the stone IMO).

Upon reflection, this is probably more a matter of which grit systems Derek and I are applying than a real difference in opinion. Various sources put the Spyderco UF at the eqiuvalent of ~3 um particle size (though it's hard to directly compare).

If you use the "Shapton scale" 3 um would correspond to #5000, or pretty close to what Derek said.

If you use the latest version of the JIS standard as do Sigma and Imanishi, it would be a #3000 or so.

In either case I agree with Derek's bottom line - The Spyderco UF leaves useful sharpness on the table. My comment about getting some benefit up to "10000# or so" probably should have been worded "1 micron or so".

[Warren Mickley]

In 1796 Benjamin Seaton purchased a Turkey oilstone for 8s, two days wages. For the same amount, 8s, he also bought 8 oval bolster mortise chisels (7 for $544 at tfww). Five beech hollows and rounds ($1000 from Bickford) cost less than two days wages. A double iron trying plane and a double iron fore plane together cost 8s also. The evidence is that Seaton valued the oil stone highly and when you look at his work it is obvious that he was rewarded with a good edge. The Turkey stone, a novaculite similar to Arkansas stone, was being shipped in the 1st century and it was being shipped in the 11th century. By the mid 18th century, Roubo was complaining about declining quality and high cost.

Here is a picture by Tim Zowada of a razor honed by an Arkansas stone (called 6000 by some in this thread).
331724
Here is a picture of the so called Shapton 15K
331725

Earlier in this discussion Stanley Covington wrote


My answer to Derek's Question No.2: Ha ha! I like the way you twisted the question. 6000 grit is fine for many tools especially where quick and dirty work is required. But even if a 6000 equivalent grit oilstone would produce an adequate edge, they are just too damned slow compared to a synthetic waterstone. So yes, I am reluctant to change.
I have to wonder how long it takes him to sharpen a chisel using his methods.

[Daniel Rode]

Here's a question or three: if you come to the conclusion that cabinetmaker's of yesteryear honed the bevel alone and "sort of" removed the wire, without any effort to work the back of the blades .... would you change your current sharpening regimes and do the same?

...

Derek
Yes. I would definitely give it a try. If I got the results I need with less effort or less cost, I'd switch. I like to be as practical as possible with tools and sharpening. I want to work wood and not spend unnecessary time fettling tools.

The "craftsmen of yesteryear" idea is itself an interesting one. Which craftsmen, what era and what quality? A marginal carpenter from perhaps 1900 or later might have crude tools and be able to complete his work. On the other hand, a highly skilled cabinet maker from 1800 would require refined tools and processes to create top quality furniture.

I can probably learn something from both, but it's the latter really I'm interested in. I suspect that represents the zenith of hand tool woodworking. What did he do and why did he do it? If he sharpened to #6000 on a dished oilstone, I want to know how and why. Perhaps that was the finest stone he could get and would have been thrilled with a #16000 shapton.

[Phil Mueller]

Thank you all for this post. Our local fire code requires i do a 90 minute test of the emergency lighting system. Reading and pondering this subject made the time sitting in relative darkness fly by :). In addition, I found the more pressing question to be; if I dress better, will my work improve?

[Patrick Chase]

In 1796 Benjamin Seaton purchased a Turkey oilstone for 8s, two days wages. For the same amount, 8s, he also bought 8 oval bolster mortise chisels (7 for $544 at tfww). Five beech hollows and rounds ($1000 from Bickford) cost less than two days wages. A double iron trying plane and a double iron fore plane together cost 8s also. The evidence is that Seaton valued the oil stone highly and when you look at his work it is obvious that he was rewarded with a good edge. The Turkey stone, a novaculite similar to Arkansas stone, was being shipped in the 1st century and it was being shipped in the 11th century. By the mid 18th century, Roubo was complaining about declining quality and high cost.

Here is a picture by Tim Zowada of a razor honed by an Arkansas stone (called 6000 by some in this thread).
331724
Here is a picture of the so called Shapton 15K
331725

Earlier in this discussion Stanley Covington wrote

I have to wonder how long it takes him to sharpen a chisel using his methods.

The thing that hasn't been discussed adequately here is wear and resulting grain variability. Arkansas stones have very hard bonds, such that worn abrasive remains in situ and the effective grit # of the stone as a whole increases with use. I think that when most people assign a grit # to Ark stones they're talking about its pristine, as-cut/lapped state. I've seen plenty of (older) sources which state that that's too coarse and that finishing Arkansas stones must be "broken in" before they'll produce an adequate edge.

While I'm not really a fan of Shapton, that "15K" shot doesn't look kosher. The fact that the grooves are deepest away from the edge and then become shallow as they approch it suggests to me that he failed to remove all of the striations from a previous, lower-grit stone. If those striations were all from the (final) finishing stone then they should run continuously to the edge, but they don't.

[Jim Koepke]

The trouble is, one does not know if the vintage blades we find in this condition come from a professional or an amateur. It makes it difficult to conclude anything.

+1 on what Derek said.

Most carpenters likely had a #4 or #5 for the day to day need of trimming the edge of a door or to smooth down a high spot in a floor board.

They likely didn't take as much trouble with their blades as a cabinet or furniture maker.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

The Turkey stone, a novaculite similar to Arkansas stone, was being shipped in the 1st century and it was being shipped in the 11th century.

A bit slow. They must have been using UPS. :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Hi Warren, nice pictures. I think I know that site, it is very high tech! BTW I am very happy with an Arkansas but I do also strop after that one. In my hands it is easier to remove the wire edge with a strop.

Benjamin Seaton sure invested quite a bit in his sharpening setup. But did he flatten his chisels and plane irons? There are a few with a convexity according to the drawings in the back of the book. A lot are slightly concave, which is ideal when you buy a new chisel.

[david charlesworth]

I see many people misinterpreting the ruler trick.

A double iron blade is best, when flat across the width, adjacent to the edge, so that the chipbreaker may fit, and avoid shavings jamming and causing choking. (There is a technique of burnishing the c/b edge to close gaps, would this work on an out of flat blade?)

This flattening can be done on a coarse stone approx 800 or 1.000 grit.

The ruler trick, done on a polishing stone such as 6,8.10,000 grit creates a narrow band of high polish. This ensures very good sharpness. It saves some work at set up, but this is not the principle reason for using it.

One of the main points of the ruler trick, is that the probability of the edge touching the stone, is massively increased. This means the wire edge is honed away, and usually floats off on the stone or the sponge cloth. No need for stropping.

Just to expand the probability argument, what are the chances that the blade back and stone surface are perfectly flat??

Some have suggested random slight lifting on the polishing stone, but this throws out any idea of repeatability.

I'm sure a non flat blade can be sharpened.

The wire edge, which is not honed away, is torn off and the resulting mess is improved by much stropping. Maybe this works well?

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

[Jim Koepke]

I'm sure a non flat blade can be sharpened.

That is good news for all of us who use gouges. :cool:

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

A thought that comes to me on this is when did the apprentice era end?

Wasn't one of the first duties of an apprentice to sharpen the tools of the journeyman workers?

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

Why would the wire edge been "torn off, resulting in a mess"? It is first weakened to a large degree on the polishing stone, then bent back and forth until it breaks of cleanly. That bending back and forth can be done on the polishing stone or with a strop. The strop polishes even more, right at the edge and creates a very smooth but slightly more bulbous edge That's what I think is happening, but you need an electron miscroscope to proove it. Or you rely on the very sharp edges this technique creates.

[Warren Mickley]

T
While I'm not really a fan of Shapton, that "15K" shot doesn't look kosher. The fact that the grooves are deepest away from the edge and then become shallow as they approch it suggests to me that he failed to remove all of the striations from a previous, lower-grit stone. If those striations were all from the (final) finishing stone then they should run continuously to the edge, but they don't.

Not Kosher? or not the evidence Patrick Chase wants to see?

[Nicholas Lawrence]

i'd add that if you are using a chip breaker set real close to the edge(like they need to be),the iron had better be flat. The slightest sliver of an opening between the chip breaker and the iron will cause chips to get wedged in there slightly less fast than the spaceship Enterprise can reach light speed.

Who knew George was a Trekkie? Would not have been my first guess.

I find this argument convincing though. I am pretty well persuaded the purpose of the double iron was to control tear out. I just don't see another good reason for the development of double iron wooden planes with those massively thick (by modern standards) irons. And if you accept that the double iron was used closely set to reduce tear out, you pretty much have to conclude people flattened the backs of the irons.

Now obviously not everyone flattened the backs, just like not everyone used their chisels for something other than opening paint cans. But I think the better craftsmen must have.

[Patrick Chase]

Not Kosher? or not the evidence Patrick Chase wants to see?

Not consistent with what I see under a scope and what I've seen in SEM shots from sources I trust (Leonard Lee's book for example).

The Shapton 15K is drastically over-spec'ed (if we take Shapton's own stated grit diameter as gospel then it would be a 10K in most other stone lines), but isn't *that* different from my translucent or black surgical arks, even when both of those are well-worn.

Also and as I said, the fact that the scratches "taper" approach the edge is strongly indicative of bad technique, because it's a near-certain indicator that they were left by a previous, coarser stone and only partially polished out. You never see that when the surface is fully polished such that it's entirely the product of a single stone.

[Jim Koepke]

Now obviously not everyone flattened the backs, just like not everyone used their chisels for something other than opening paint cans.

There were likely more than a few people who went to the hardware store, bought a plane, trimmed a bit off of a door their wife was complaining about and put it on a shelf just incase they needed to be a hero on another day.

There used to be a lot of planes on ebay with the phrase "factory grind" in the listing. Patrick Leach often says of a plane, "used once, put away and forgotten.

jtk

[Warren Mickley]

Patrick, the previous stone was an 8000 Norton. The Shapton 15k pattern looks about the same as the 8000, if anything a little coarser. These are razors, not chisels. If you have sharpened a razor you know that it is easy to get the whole bevel. Tim Zowada is not a dilettante.

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick, the previous stone was an 8000 Norton. The Shapton 15k pattern looks about the same as the 8000, if anything a little coarser. These are razors, not chisels. If you have sharpened a razor you know that it is easy to get the whole bevel. Tim Zowada is not a dilettante.

A couple remarks:

Razors aren't woodworking tools. Some stones that work perfectly well at typical edge angles for woodworking have a nasty habit of knocking grains/carbides out of edges when used at edge angles suitable for razors. I don't think that's what's happening here (those appear to be striations, not voids) but I thought I would raise that minor point before we go further. Also cutting hairs along the surface of skin is a different application with different requirements.

The 8K Norton is a 3 micron stone (should be rated 3-4K). The 15K Shapton is a 1 micron stone (should be rated 10K). While I don't like either of them very much, I've used both (and still have but seldom if ever use the Shapton) and have looked at the finish from both under quality optical scopes (not the cheap-a** USB ones that Brent Beach and co use). The Shapton yields much finer finish, full stop.

All I can say is that Tim's results are incredible in the most literal sense of the word. I accept that he's not a dilettante, but woodworking is full of extremely competent people with proverbial axes to grind.

EDIT: He recommends (http://www.tzknives.com/#!honing-and-care/c6jr) waterstones then stropping. You'd think that if he's getting such good results from oilstones instead he'd say so.

EDIT 2: He also recommends (http://www.tzknives.com/#!article-index/c11of) Spyderco (!) hones for knives, and specifically recommends *against* oilstones. I guess that would be OK for a typical kitchen knife where you want some "tooth", but those things are marginal even for ski tuning at elite racing levels, and that's actually not a terribly demanding application.

[george wilson]

No,I am not a "Trekkie".:) Actually,I have never been influenced by any passing fashion,be it hair or whatever. My silly half brother went right into every fashion that has ever come along. He went from being a "long hair"(as he called it),to being a short haired super patriotic type,hanging out with military men at a local archery range. What swings he made!

I have never changed my style of dressing or my hair style throughout my life. Never had a beard. Never been a reinactor type. My director said "Anyone who wears a costume who isn't paid to wear one is a bit strange". I cleaned it up for posting here!:)

People have often misjudged who I am or what I can do because I never seem to "look the part".

I was told by the President of New York University that an apparent "Bag lady"(a female bum as they call them in New York),walked into the building and asked to be shown around. He did so. When she was leaving,she wrote him a check for $150,000.00 as a donation. Her son went there.:) Not that I look like a bum,but,at this point,it is certainly true that I DO NOT have a job!!!!

Jon and I were waiting for a teller in the Bank where we did business. There was an ordinary working man looking guy standing in front of the vault,waiting for some kind of help. This pencil necked geek in a suit,who was a vice president of the bank came over to the teller. He said to her "After you finish with these 2,go help that guy who looks like he doesn't have a job.". Jon and I looked about like that guy,especially Jon,with his longer hair and beard. I was wearing my usual blue jeans and blue denim shirt.

That P.O.'ed me and Jon so much,we both felt like withdrawing our money then and there. But,with our business dealings with the bank,it was more trouble than it was worth. Besides,the next bank probably would have had those types in it,too.

[Stanley Covington]

In 1796 Benjamin Seaton purchased a Turkey oilstone for 8s, two days wages. For the same amount, 8s, he also bought 8 oval bolster mortise chisels (7 for $544 at tfww). Five beech hollows and rounds ($1000 from Bickford) cost less than two days wages. A double iron trying plane and a double iron fore plane together cost 8s also. The evidence is that Seaton valued the oil stone highly and when you look at his work it is obvious that he was rewarded with a good edge. The Turkey stone, a novaculite similar to Arkansas stone, was being shipped in the 1st century and it was being shipped in the 11th century. By the mid 18th century, Roubo was complaining about declining quality and high cost.

Here is a picture by Tim Zowada of a razor honed by an Arkansas stone (called 6000 by some in this thread).
331724
Here is a picture of the so called Shapton 15K
331725

Earlier in this discussion Stanley Covington wrote

I have to wonder how long it takes him to sharpen a chisel using his methods.

I have never done a timed comparison. But my guess is that, if a comparison was made of the time spent sharpening two identical plane blades of equal initial dullness to the maximum degree possible with my Arkansas stone, then I estimate that the time spent on waterstones would be approximately half the time spent on oilstones. Just a guess.

Oilstones are superior to waterstones for many purposes. But in the case of a plane blade, in my experience, one can only invest so much time into sharpening a plane blade on an oilstone before the process peters off from sharpening to burnishing, and once burnishing begins, little improvement in the blade's sharpness can be realized regardless of how much force or speed is expended. Waterstones, however, differ dramatically from oilstones in that fresh, sharp abrasive particles are continuously presented to the blade so long as pressure and water are applied. Consequently, the abrasion process continues unabated right up to the time the user stops. This results in greater speed, in my opinion.

However, in the case of a plane blade to be used for finish planing applications, for instance, I am not satisfied with the level of sharpness my oilstones can provide (your stones may be different), and spend extra time on progressively finer waterstones. The sharpness is greatly superior to an oilstone, but I admit to spending more time if only because the extra time invested into using an oilstone would not produce an equivalent sharpness.

My process is simple. Assuming I stop cutting before the blade gets too dull, and that the blade is not chipped, I start on a trued 1000 grit Bester until a barely detectable burr is produced the entire width of the blade. Then I switch for a few strokes on a 2000. I have not always used this stone, but despite being counterintuitive, I have found it saves time overall to do so. Then I change to a 6000 Pony. 3 or four minutes to this point. I do not touch the blades flat on any of the stones up to this point. If I am in the field, I use a King Goldstone for a minute or so working both bevel and flat. If I am in the shop, I use a natural stone instead of the King. I don't know the grit, just that it is finer than the Goldstone.

I finish up by putting the heel of my left hand onto the wet stone's face getting some mud on it, and strop the blade on my hand. Yes, I have cut myself doing this, and don't mind. So overall I spend 5 or 6 minutes to refresh a blade using waterstones and stropping. I have had a lot of practice at this and work very quickly and precisely. The oilstone has lost the race before I move to the 6000 grit stone.

I concede that using a compound-loaded strop in combination with oilstones would probably produce an extremely fine edge indeed. How much time i would take is a question I cannot answer.

Your mileage may vary.

Stan

[george wilson]

If some of you guys would get Spydercos instead of using an Arkansas stone,you'd get about the same grit on a fine ceramic as on the Arkansas. And,have a GREATLY harder,impossible for all practical purposes to create a dip in stone.

Years ago,I had some chipped white Arkansas slip stones I decided to re shape in my belt grinder. The slipstones ground like butter. But,don't try that with a ceramic stone. You'll ruin your belt!! It is really surprising how much softer an Arkansas is than the ceramics.

I have mentioned the time I walked into the Gunsmith Shop in Wmsbg. There was a young(but highly skilled) gunsmith trying to flatted their black Arkansas stone with 600 Wet or Dry paper wrapped around a file. I told him it would take him 200 years to flatten the stone that way. Young Dave was open to instruction,so I pulled the big sandstone wheel out of its trough,and laid it flat. Splashed water on it,and rubbed the stone on it. It took only a few minutes to get it fully flat again. The only stones that this old time trick would not work on would be my Spydercos. A good trick to have shown young Dave.

Dave was in his early 20's and was always tired. He even went to some clinic in Mexico. The same one that Steve McQueen went to when he had cancer-which he died from. He got no benefit from the clinic at all. Eventually some doctor around here discovered that Dave had parasites. He got them as a teenager in the boy Scouts on a camping trip. His genius Scout Master had gotten water in a ditch in the cow pasture they were camping in. Dave finally was cured. But,some years later,Dave,probably not over 30 or so,fell dead while jogging. Too bad. We all liked him,and even at a young age,he could make a fine long rifle. Even so,he was always anxious to learn from older craftsmen whatever tricks of the trade he could.

Dave had replaced several missing silver inlays on an early flintlock. He asked Marcus,one of my journeymen,to detect which were the new ones. Dave had done a great job,but Marcus identified every one,which left Dave all downhearted. Marcus did this by looking at teeny scratches in the stock of the rifle,and whether or not those fine little scratches also went across the inlays. A good thing for any of you to know if you are looking at possibly repaired antiques where this could be applied.

[Mel Fulks]

George, I'm not sure you "looked the part" in the harpsichord film ,but the harpsichord did. Marlon Brando never had a chance on that film.

[Warren Mickley]

So overall I spend 5 or 6 minutes to refresh a blade using waterstones and stropping. I have had a lot of practice at this and work very quickly and precisely. The oilstone has lost the race before I move to the 6000 grit stone.

I concede that using a compound-loaded strop in combination with oilstones would probably produce an extremely fine edge indeed. How much time i would take is a question I cannot answer.

Your mileage may vary.

Stan
Thanks for replying, Stanley. I spend about 70 seconds sharpening a chisel, about 90 seconds sharpening a plane iron, about 35 seconds for a carving gouge. I sharpen full flat bevel and do not use microbevels or grinding wheels. I strop on clean leather. I do not use compound. My black Arkansas measures 1.000 inches thick after 40 years of use.

I am a professional with lots of experience. I don't expect everyone to work as fast, but I would appreciate not hearing demeaning rhetoric about "idjits","damned slow". and "mistaken theory".

[george wilson]

Well,they were going to get Marlin Brando to play the part,but he told them he could not stand to stuff his cheeks with soggy cotton again!!!:):):)

I meant "looked the part" referring to my usual street clothes and short haircut. In the film,I was wearing a costume,and with a "wiglet" stuck onto the back of my head with rather painful pins that I think the wig person tried to push into my scalp!

[Steve Voigt]

Oilstones are superior to waterstones for many purposes. But in the case of a plane blade, in my experience, one can only invest so much time into sharpening a plane blade on an oilstone before the process peters off from sharpening to burnishing, and once burnishing begins, little improvement in the blade's sharpness can be realized regardless of how much force or speed is expended. Waterstones, however, differ dramatically from oilstones in that fresh, sharp abrasive particles are continuously presented to the blade so long as pressure and water are applied. Consequently, the abrasion process continues unabated right up to the time the user stops. This results in greater speed, in my opinion.
Stan

Stan,
The last thing in the world I want to do is get into an oil v water debate. But I just want to note that oilstones don't have to behave the way you describe above, "petering out." If you abrade oilstones regularly, they will remain fast-cutting. I abrade my stones probably every 2-4 weeks, and they always cut quickly and they remain flat as well.
There's a diversity of opinion on this: Larry Williams abrades his stones at every session, while others, like Warren, rarely do so. For me, abrading them every few weeks keeps them working the way I want, and is a lot less hassle than abrading them every day, which afaik is what you waterstone folks have to do. ;)

[Stanley Covington]

Thanks for replying, Stanley. I spend about 70 seconds sharpening a chisel, about 90 seconds sharpening a plane iron, about 35 seconds for a carving gouge. I sharpen full flat bevel and do not use microbevels or grinding wheels. I strop on clean leather. I do not use compound. My black Arkansas measures 1.000 inches thick after 40 years of use.

I am a professional with lots of experience. I don't expect everyone to work as fast, but I would appreciate not hearing demeaning rhetoric about "idjits","damned slow". and "mistaken theory".

Congratulations on your professional status and speed. I suspect you are comparing apples to pomegranites, but we shall never know.

I am surprised you feel "demeaned." The OP's original post was a question to everyone interested in reading it about their opinions regarding methods and history. I shared my opinions, but they were not about you.

[Patrick Chase]

If some of you guys would get Spydercos instead of using an Arkansas stone,you'd get about the same grit on a fine ceramic as on the Arkansas. And,have a GREATLY harder,impossible for all practical purposes to create a dip in stone.

Years ago,I had some chipped white Arkansas slip stones I decided to re shape in my belt grinder. The slipstones ground like butter. But,don't try that with a ceramic stone. You'll ruin your belt!! It is really surprising how much softer an Arkansas is than the ceramics.

I have Spydercos and have used them since ~1993, when I started being my own ski tech. I agree that the ultra-fine white ones are pretty hard (let's not talk about the brown ones in that regard, though :-) but I've personally never been impressed with the results. To each their own I guess.

[george wilson]

Maybe you use them wrong,Patrick. How can I know? I have had the money through my museum budget over 40 years to try about everything out there over the years,and I have settled on 1; Diamond,to remove nicks if needed. 2;Brown Spyderco-which shows no sign of wearing at all since the 80's. 3; White Spyderco followed by green compound(LV) on a MDF strop. Brings up a razor sharp edge pretty efficiently. I use just a spritz of water with a few drops of detergent on them. Easily wiped off with a bit of paper towel. Cleaner than the waterstone mess and quick to bring up a fine edge. Easily cleaned up. More easily that either water stones or oil stones.

And,I can tell you,ceramic stones will sharpen any steel out there. Especially steels like D2,which is a very high abrasion resistant tool steel,used for shearing steel. I could never get it truly razor sharp with stones other than the ceramics. They will even sharpen carbides,which I also use in my machinist work.

You ought to post some pictures of your work so we can get to know you better.

[Stanley Covington]

Stan,
The last thing in the world I want to do is get into an oil v water debate. But I just want to note that oilstones don't have to behave the way you describe above, "petering out." If you abrade oilstones regularly, they will remain fast-cutting. I abrade my stones probably every 2-4 weeks, and they always cut quickly and they remain flat as well.
There's a diversity of opinion on this: Larry Williams abrades his stones at every session, while others, like Warren, rarely do so. For me, abrading them every few weeks keeps them working the way I want, and is a lot less hassle than abrading them every day, which afaik is what you waterstone folks have to do. ;)

Thanks for the insight. My experience with oil stones is clearly inferior. I will try abrading mine.

Stan

[steven c newman]

Soooo, have we figured out whether the oldtimers flatten the backs on THEIR tools. Or, is this now just another Sharpening Rehash Thread?

[Lasse Hilbrandt]

Maybe you use them wrong,Patrick. How can I know? I have had the money through my museum budget over 40 years to try about everything out there over the years,and I have settled on 1; Diamond,to remove nicks if needed. 2;Brown Spyderco-which shows no sign of wearing at all since the 80's. 3; White Spyderco followed by green compound(LV) on a MDF strop. Brings up a razor sharp edge pretty efficiently. I use just a spritz of water with a few drops of detergent on them. Easily wiped off with a bit of paper towel. Cleaner than the waterstone mess and quick to bring up a fine edge. Easily cleaned up. More easily that either water stones or oil stones.

And,I can tell you,ceramic stones will sharpen any steel out there. Especially steels like D2,which is a very high abrasion resistant tool steel,used for shearing steel. I could never get it truly razor sharp with stones other than the ceramics. They will even sharpen carbides,which I also use in my machinist work.

You ought to post some pictures of your work so we can get to know you better.

George, which Spyderco stones is it excatly that you recommend ? I mean do they have an excatly type name/number ? What size ?
They make all sorts of sharpening stones, its a litle confusing.

[Patrick Chase]

George, which Spyderco stones is it excatly that you recommend ? I mean do they have an excatly type name/number ? What size ?
They make all sorts of sharpening stones, its a litle confusing.

As far as I can tell Spyderco basically makes two different ceramic sharpening media, though in a wide range of form factors for various markets. The two offerings are the brown "medium" ceramic and the white "fine" ceramic. At least, I've never been able to tell a difference between the materials in the 1x5 and triangular stones that I used for ski work and the bench stones.

They've subsequently added CBN and diamond hones, or so it would appear. I'm with George (believe it or not) w.r.t. the futility of the former in a hand hone...

[Tom Stenzel]

Soooo, have we figured out whether the oldtimers flatten the backs on THEIR tools. Or, is this now just another Sharpening Rehash Thread?

Someone always has to come along with a bucket of cold water and douse the fun! ;)

My own unresearched opinion (worth every cent you've paid for it): the irons that craftsmen who demanded the best work and a high degree of sharpness were worn out long ago. The tools that survived till now saw less demanding use.

I'm not sure that looking at the surviving tools is that instructive. Even if an plane could be traced to a noted 1700's cabinetmaker can anyone be sure the iron in it was the one that was used back then? As George has noted before the toolmakers were pretty stingy with steel back in those "good old days". How much usable metal did a plane iron have before it was through?

-Tom

[Kees Heiden]

Steven, we can learn from the earlier pages in this thread that it is very hard to draw conclusions about what the craftsman in the 18th/early 19th century did to the faces of their irons. The closest we can come to irons in the original state are the ones on the Seaton chest. The very good book about this chest descibes the chisels in detail. Many of them are concave, some are convex. Add to that, that you can't find a description about flattening chisel backs in any of these very old books, and I would conclude that it is unlikely that the craftsmen back then spend a lot of time on granite surface plates.

[Warren Mickley]

I suspect you are comparing apples to pomegranites, but we shall never know.


Some of us know.

[Brian Holcombe]

This is the same culture of people who have a few thousand years of stone cutting experience. I'm quite certain they had a way to flatten and refresh the surface of a sharpening stone in the 18th century, after all they were capable of removing these stones from the mountain and making them into a sharpening stone.

If they could make a stone flat, then they would be able to make the iron locally flat where it is needed.

[george wilson]

This whole thread is futile as I mentioned earlier(and I think others also did). An 18th. C plane iron might have been used clear up to the 20th. C. by some hack,or a fine craftsman. Hack is more likely as most guys are You can't tell what the history of a plane iron might be,or when various things may have been done to it.

It is more likely that a hack might have used it,since most guys ARE hacks.( In fact,SOME who advertise themselves as PROS are in reality HACKS. I can think of at least 4 right off the bat.) And,I'd suspect that a pro would have enough money to buy a new plane,rather than having to resort to an old rusty blade found in the bottom of a chest somewhere.

An example of a hack using an antique is an 18th. C. fowler that was found with the barrel held on with GROCERY TWINE!! Jay Gaynor wanted to exhibit the gun WITH THE TWINE still on it,because the grocery twine "Was part of the history of the gun"!!!!!

That,to me,and some others was silly in the extreme. The grocery twine was of modern make,wrapped around the barrel by some hack,and better off left out of the "history of the gun". Some people are too extreme "History Freaks"!!:)

As for making a stone flat,many ancient cultures left large stone temples or buildings,etc.,such as the Egyptians, Aztecs,etc. where large blocks of stone are FLAT. or pretty perfect spheres,etc.. The ancients knew how to work stone!

[george wilson]

I bought my Spydercos from Brownell's Gunsmithing Supplies. But,I get a professional discount. I recommend you find them at Woodcraft,or maybe on Amazon.

The ones I have are 2"X8". The "black" (really more like brown),and the fine. I scrubbed the fine with a diamond stone because small lumps of ceramic "fuzz" were left on it from the molding process. Mine do not have the marks on them that look like they were sawn out with a table saw(impossible,of course. Maybe sawn with diamond saws?) The ultra fine is about 1 3/4" wide(might have wasted my money on that one,am yet to find out! Haven't worn the "tooth" off of it yet.)

Whatever else is out there,I can pretty quickly raise a razor edge with them,have little mess to clean up,and they will never get worn hollow.

[Derek Cohen]

This whole thread is futile as I mentioned earlier(and I think others also did). An 18th. C plane iron might have been used clear up to the 20th. C. by some hack,or a fine craftsman. Hack is more likely as most guys are You can't tell what the history of a plane iron might be,or when various things may have been done to it.

Exactly George. That is what I wrote earlier.

Now, my sharpening set up is nearly identical to yours: 6' x 2" fine Eze-lap, 8" x 2" Medium and Ultra Fine Spydercos, and LV green compound on hardwood. I doubt that both of us can get it so wrong .. or perhaps both of us are hacks? :eek:

Regards from Perth

Derek

[george wilson]

Uuuh,nah!!!!!

[david charlesworth]

I remember a comment from Jim Kingshott, "only a careful craftsman would keep his stones flat".

The backs of a man's tools might conform to the shape of his hollow stones. This can continue for a lifetime without undue issues. Problems only occur if a new flat stone is purchased.

David Charlesworth

[Patrick Chase]

Maybe you use them wrong,Patrick. How can I know? I have had the money through my museum budget over 40 years to try about everything out there over the years,and I have settled on 1; Diamond,to remove nicks if needed. 2;Brown Spyderco-which shows no sign of wearing at all since the 80's. 3; White Spyderco followed by green compound(LV) on a MDF strop. Brings up a razor sharp edge pretty efficiently. I use just a spritz of water with a few drops of detergent on them. Easily wiped off with a bit of paper towel. Cleaner than the waterstone mess and quick to bring up a fine edge. Easily cleaned up. More easily that either water stones or oil stones.

To be clear, I agree that a Spyderco followed by stropping with an abrasive like LV green will achieve a very good edge. IMO that says far more about the compound than about the stones though.

If you look back in this thread you will see that my main objection to the Spydercos is that they don't achieve an adequate finish on their own, and I still don't think they're the equivalent of 6K, at least not as Sigma/Imanishi/etc define it. My opinion may be colored by the fact that I initially formed my opinions based on ski tuning, where you don't have the option of stropping (the edge angles are far too critical).

Also, w.r.t. your belt sander experience, it's probably worth noting that hardness and abrasion resistance are very different (and not entirely correlated) material properties.

[Stewie Simpson]

Its unfortunate that this thread has like many other examples has moved well away from the OPs opening question and turned itself into another discussion about what type of sharpening medium are you currently using. I wasn't aware that Spyderco ceramic stones were being used from circa 1700s through to the 1900s.

[Warren Mickley]

Thank you, Stewie.

I have some experience which I think bears upon the original question. In 1983 I bought my fifth and last bench plane, a jointer. It is the only one with the original iron with life (3/4 inch) left in it. When new I flattened the first inch or two of the back. I have abraded the back with every sharpening since, 5000 times or more. When you look at the back the original milling marks are still visible after the first two inches. But laying a straight edge on the back shows a two inch flat from where it has been abraded and then a slight bend and then flat again where the mill marks are. If the straight edge is on the back part there is a 1/64 gap at the front. A lot of the area that is polished and flat now was not abraded at all when the iron was 1 1/4 inches longer, which is why there is a slope.

If the plane were put away and never used again, maybe some yahoo might lay a straight edge on it in 2215 and say that backs were not flattened in 1983. But the truth is that I am getting a nice consistent polish on the back of the tool, which is what enables me to get performance from the tool. Backs that are not abraded at all accumulate scratches and pitting over time, and would not give the results we see on 18th century work.

The original poster wondered if workers 200 years ago were spending a lot of time flattening backs. I think that if you have seven smoothing planes and are up to your third replacement iron for some of them, you are spending a lot of time preparing irons. In the 18th century, preparing a new iron for a bench plane might have been something one did twice a decade.

[Tom McMahon]

Having read this entire thread, I've had two thoughts. In the preindustrial past, when every thing was made by hand, there were thousands at least, using edge tools to work wood in numerous trades. To assume that only the cabinet makers on the east coast knew how to sharpen a tool is probably silly. The shear number of coffin smothers on the market at all times indicates that there were a lot of people planning wood in the past. If you look closely at a preindustrial house made by hand you will know that carpenters of the past knew how to use a plane. The shear numbers suggest, that if the craftsmen of the past spent the time to meticulously flatten the backs of irons or chisels some would show up somewhere. My second thought is that any of the sharpening media available will give you an adequately sharp edge. The edge only needs to be sharp enough to do the job. A plane iron with a back bevel will produce the same surface as one without. A chisel with a slight back bevel will do any thing one without will do and in most cases is an advantage.

[Derek Cohen]

Warren

When mention is made of "flattening the back of a blade", my assumption is that this will essentially involve only the first 1" behind the bevel, and not the full length under the slot.

I find it interesting that you flattened the first two inches. To do so, would I be correct in assuming that the stones you use are flat, that is, that flat stones are necessary to create and maintain a flat area at the back of the blade?

If so, how would one maintain a flat with a hollowed stone, which apparently is the norm when found at market sales?

I still believe that we need to look to time capsules for reliable information about what was done 200 years ago. What happened in the between years would have removed relevant historical data.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

Having read this entire thread, I've had two thoughts. In the preindustrial past, when every thing was made by hand, there were thousands at least, using edge tools to work wood in numerous trades. To assume that only the cabinet makers on the east coast knew how to sharpen a tool is probably silly. The shear number of coffin smothers on the market at all times indicates that there were a lot of people planning wood in the past. If you look closely at a preindustrial house made by hand you will know that carpenters of the past knew how to use a plane. The shear numbers suggest, that if the craftsmen of the past spent the time to meticulously flatten the backs of irons or chisels some would show up somewhere. My second thought is that any of the sharpening media available will give you an adequately sharp edge. The edge only needs to be sharp enough to do the job. A plane iron with a back bevel will produce the same surface as one without. A chisel with a slight back bevel will do any thing one without will do and in most cases is an advantage.

You had me in violent agreement right up to the part about back-beveled chisels. Perhaps this reflects limitations in my own technique, but I prefer not to have to lift my bench and paring chisels (or to lift them as little as possible) to get them to cut. That means a flat or slightly concave back, and no dubbing or back-beveling.

IMO mortise chisels are much less critical in this respect, though I keep the backs of those flat as well as it makes it easier to get plumb ends.

[Warren Mickley]

The polished portion of the back does not need to be an inch wide, a very thin band will do. But for someone who uses a two inch wide stone, abrading the back thousands of times on that stone tends to spread the area out to two inches.

If you find a stone at a flea market it is fun to imagine it was last used by Thomas Affleck in 1770, but more likely used by Harry the plumber in 1955 and others. Most work on the back is done with the fine stones, which are much more resistant to dishing.

In 1975 I was in the attic of a large 18th century house and I jumped up to take a swing from a tie beam and came down with an 18th century plane iron in my hand. I guess it could have been there for a long time. I was rusty, but I never got the impression that that the back had not been worked flat enough to give a fine edge. On a single iron plane the back has to be flat enough for the wedge to seat nicely; it can't be just lumpy from the forge.

[george wilson]

We agree,Warren. This is one of those threads that can go on forever,get everyone upset,and never reach conclusion.:) No way to know when an old tool was last in use. Most people would probably not know that they have a valuable historic artifact in hand. They just use it because they have it.

[Tom McMahon]

Patrick, I find it makes little difference, however I do a lot of carving and am used to riding the bevel. When the handle is slightly lifted you can lower it to get out of a cut. It's like turning the chisel over and using the bevel. I find that when using a flat backed chisel to remove anything more than a whisper, they have a tendency to dig in, an ever so slight back bevel eliminates this. I'm not saying that I purposely grind a bevel on the back of my chisels but a slight bevel from stropping doesn't bother me it can be useful. Almost all of my carving tools have a lot of back bevel.

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick, I find it makes little difference, however I do a lot of carving and am used to riding the bevel. When the handle is slightly lifted you can lower it to get out of a cut. It's like turning the chisel over and using the bevel. I find that when using a flat backed chisel to remove anything more than a whisper, they have a tendency to dig in, an ever so slight back bevel eliminates this. I'm not saying that I purposely grind a bevel on the back of my chisels but a slight bevel from stropping doesn't bother me it can be useful. Almost all of my carving tools have a lot of back bevel.

Yeah, I kind of suspected you might be a carver, and that's why I said "maybe ... limitations in my own technique" :-)

[Trevor Goodwin]

We agree,Warren. This is one of those threads that can go on forever,get everyone upset,and never reach conclusion.:) No way to know when an old tool was last in use. Most people would probably not know that they have a valuable historic artifact in hand. They just use it because they have it.

Anyone else think we should create a sub-forum dedicated to contentious questions :D

I find that usually when a thread has gone on for more than three pages, the original question remains unanswered and a perpetual argument is taking place.

[george wilson]

You speak with wise tongue,Trevor. They ought to close this thread. It is worthless,and taking up too much vertical space.

[Trevor Goodwin]

You speak with wise tongue,Trevor. They ought to close this thread. It is worthless,and taking up too much vertical space.

Don't get me wrong, I totally enjoy sitting back and watching the experts passionately defend their opinions and speculations. And obviously no one has to read this thread at all and can skip straight to Brian Holcombe's Japanese Toolbox, but I think a lot of typing could have been saved if we all agreed on page 2 that no one really know whether craftsmen 150 years ago flattened their irons - clearly some did and some just back beveled, whether it was called that at the time or not.