Shapton Question

[Jason Lester]

After much deliberation, I got the Shapton 1000, 5000, and 12000 ceramic waterstones. I guess I got the Japanese versions since there's no English writing anywhere. I know that you have to soak some waterstones and others you just splash like an oilstone. What's the recommendation for these three?

Thanks,
Jason

[Kurt Cady]

Couple, 5min, soak

[Christopher Charles]

I have the exact same set and have never done anything but spritz with water b/c I don't have a sink in the shop. A short soak can't hurt though.

[John Crawford]

I think the 1000 likes a little bit of a soak. Put it in a plastic tub for a bath while you are flattening the others.

Enjoy the sharpness! Getting some shaptons allowed me to take sharpening out of the picture and focus on other things. Wish I could be an artful sharpener, but I'm not really; a cheap honing guide and a basic set of shaptons produce blazing sharpness for me, so I'm not worried!

[Patrick Chase]

After much deliberation, I got the Shapton 1000, 5000, and 12000 ceramic waterstones. I guess I got the Japanese versions since there's no English writing anywhere. I know that you have to soak some waterstones and others you just splash like an oilstone. What's the recommendation for these three?

Thanks,
Jason

All Shaptons are resin-based stones, meaning the abrasive is held together by a plastic resin of some sort.

As such they're mostly nonporous and don't need a lot of soaking. Shapton says they can all be used as "splash and go" stones. Stu of TfJ thinks (and I agree) that the 5K and above benefit from brief soaking. Even though the stone is mostly nonporous it seems that the surface layer can absorb a small amount of water, and that helps with loading.

One thing you absolutely should not do is leave them in water. Shapton specifies a maximum immersion time of 20 min IIRC, though I never go higher than a few min. Shapton warns that the stone will soften and you'll need to remove the surface layer if it's left in water too long.

[Derek Cohen]

Splash and go.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jason Lester]

Thanks guys. I've been using the abrasive films and looking forward to an easier setup.

[Patrick Chase]

Thanks guys. I've been using the abrasive films and looking forward to an easier setup.

Hmm, abrasive films are pretty hard to beat for "easy". Not very cost-effective though.

[Jason Lester]

Hmm, abrasive films are pretty hard to beat for "easy". Not very cost-effective though.

Maybe easy wasn't the right term. The problems I had with the film were: catching an edge and ripping it, spray adhesive mess, and expense (like you mentioned.)

[Patrick Chase]

Maybe easy wasn't the right term. The problems I had with the film were: catching an edge and ripping it, spray adhesive mess, and expense (like you mentioned.)

Catching and ripping is always a potential issue with films. The only things you can really do about that are to always start with a couple "pull" strokes to knock off anything that might tear the film, and use a light touch.

w.r.t. spray adhesive mess, there are two ways around that:


Use PSA-backed films. They cost a few cents more per sheet, but they completely eliminate that issue.
Don't use adhesives at all. When I use non-PSA sheets I stick them to the glass with a very thin film of light oil. Some people use water, but that doesn't last as long. I've found that non-PSA sheets held down by a film of oil sit flatter than PSA sheets (and much better than ones stuck down with spray adhesive)

[Prashun Patel]

I have 1000 and 8000. Neither need soaking. Light spritz works.

[Blake M Williams]

Let me know how well they work, I'm deciding between diamond stones or waterstones, I've got a pretty sad set up of misc oil stones and sandpaper. I actually get them all pretty sharp but I really need a nice set of something, that and it's pretty irritating to rip a fresh sheet of paper.... Are these shapton cheaper than diamond stones?

[Jim Koepke]

Let me know how well they work, I'm deciding between diamond stones or waterstones, I've got a pretty sad set up of misc oil stones and sandpaper. I actually get them all pretty sharp but I really need a nice set of something, that and it's pretty irritating to rip a fresh sheet of paper.... Are these shapton cheaper than diamond stones?

Hopefully this doesn't stray too far off of the original intent of this thread.

One thing to remember is diamond stones do not equal waterstones do not equal oilstones do not equal sandpaper.

Each sharpening media has its own advantages and disadvantages. It appears the widest variations are in the realm of waterstones. With soak or spritz, fast wear vs fast cut and how often one has to flatten them and what are the various options on the media binder. Some will likely wince when learning my waterstones are mostly from Norton. They may not be the greatest option, but what the heck, my blades can be brought to a level of sharpness that works for me. They are left soaking for days, even weeks at a time.

My diamond stones do not seem to be able to handle the same volume of sharpening through put as my water or oil stones. It may be my use of diamond stones is my least used method. Diamond stones have pretty much been relegated to use in the kitchen for a quick tune up of the cutlery. Maybe my hand is a bit heavy on the diamond stones. They do not seem to cut fast after a lot of use.

My waterstones seem to be the fastest working for edge maintenance. They can be a bit on the messy side. My shop doesn't have running water. An old milk jug full of water, a spray bottle a plastic shoe box and an automotive floor mat on a dedicated work station makes for a great set up for quick blade work.

Oilstones are less messy than waterstones. Mine are on a bench across the shop from the waterstones. My shop doesn't have a heating system. In the winter water often freezes in the shop. This got me to using my oilstones during the cold months. Oilstones are not as fast cutting as waterstones nor are they available in as fine of a grit. They are also not as subject to wear as are waterstones. David Weaver once mentioned a jasper stone used in the sharpening process. I have a couple of them and they do produce a nice polish (burnish?) on a bevel.

Sandpaper starts cheap, but then the cost starts eating into one's wallet. My main use now for sandpaper is a long strip of 320 grit on a hunk of granite for cleaning up messed up blades. If one wants to source the finer grits locally check with automotive supply shops. Some carry finer grits, 1000 - 2000, for auto painters and detailers.

jtk

[Robert Engel]

Do they need to be flattened frequently like waterstones?

[Prashun Patel]

Flattened, yes, but a little less frequently than other water stones.

[Daniel Rode]

+1

I've never used more than a spritz from a spray bottle I keep a my sharpening bench. No need to soak shaptons.


I have the exact same set and have never done anything but spritz with water b/c I don't have a sink in the shop. A short soak can't hurt though.

I flatten my with a coarse diamond stone as needed. Maybe every few sharpenings.

[Jason Lester]

Let me know how well they work, I'm deciding between diamond stones or waterstones, I've got a pretty sad set up of misc oil stones and sandpaper. I actually get them all pretty sharp but I really need a nice set of something, that and it's pretty irritating to rip a fresh sheet of paper.... Are these shapton cheaper than diamond stones?

I have the DMT diamond stones as well. As Jim mentioned in his post, they just don't feel like they're doing anything sometimes. They seemed to work really well when I first got them, but got less and less abrasive as I used them. I've scrubbed them with a brush, tried water and oil on them, nothing seems to really help. I was getting really frustrated with sharpening until I tried the abrasive films. I could get to a decent sharpness with them much quicker than with the diamond stones. I wouldn't personally recommend them, at least the DMT Duosharps that I have.

I'll be giving the Shapton's their maiden run this weekend. I just finished several dovetail boxes and need to sharpen most of my plane irons and chisels again. I bought the Japanese versions from Amazon. I got all three for about $170 I think.

[Phillip Mitchell]

That's a pretty good price for 3 Shaptons including the 12k. I have the shapton 1k and 4k and am looking for a higher grit polishing stone, but am debating between another shapton or a natural whetstone.

Do you have a link to the ones you bought (if allowed)?

[Derek Cohen]

The Shapton Pro 1000 is my go to 1000 stone. I think it is better than the equivalent Sigma. However, I have replaced my Shapton 12000 with the Sigma 13000. I find it cuts the more abrasion resistant metals better - and this is the factor to keep in mind: the Shapton is great on O1 (no gains moving to a Sigma here), but the Sigma is better on A2 and PM-V11.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jason Lester]

That's a pretty good price for 3 Shaptons including the 12k. I have the shapton 1k and 4k and am looking for a higher grit polishing stone, but am debating between another shapton or a natural whetstone.

Do you have a link to the ones you bought (if allowed)?

Just go to Amazon and search for "shapton sharpening stones". It seems that the ones officially sold in America (as Shapton Professional) are much more expensive than the ones sold in Japan. If you get the ones with the Japanese words in the name, they're about $40-$70/each, depending on grit. Supposedly they are made for different humidity levels, but that seems specious to me and just a reason to charge us more in the US.

[Frederick Skelly]

Let me know how well they work, I'm deciding between diamond stones or waterstones, I've got a pretty sad set up of misc oil stones and sandpaper. I actually get them all pretty sharp but I really need a nice set of something, that and it's pretty irritating to rip a fresh sheet of paper.... Are these shapton cheaper than diamond stones?

I have both shapton and diamond stones. I wouldnt say the shaptonsvare much cheaper on average. Some, but not alot. Im still getting used to the shaptons, but I think I like them better. Cut faster. Time will tell for sure.

[Patrick Chase]

The Shapton Pro 1000 is my go to 1000 stone. I think it is better than the equivalent Sigma. However, I have replaced my Shapton 12000 with the Sigma 13000. I find it cuts the more abrasion resistant metals better - and this is the factor to keep in mind: the Shapton is great on O1 (no gains moving to a Sigma here), but the Sigma is better on A2 and PM-V11.

There are 5 roughly equivalent Sigmas that I know of: Power 1K hard, power 1K soft, S-II 1K, S-II 1200, Power 3F 700. The Power 1K hard is probably the most similar in terms of hardness/flatness, though it's slower and leaves a finer finish.

Shaptons run a bit coarse. The 1K uses (nominally) 15 micron abrasive particles, while the Sigma Power 1Ks are 10-12 microns IIRC. I personally don't find the Shapton to be any better in terms of overall speed vs finish tradeoff - IMO they're just different points on basically the same speed/finish tradeoff curve. As always there's subjectivity involved and reasonable people will disagree.

w.r.t. support for alloy metals (A2, PM-V11, etc) that's the classic binder hardness tradeoff rearing its head. Shapton Pros are pretty hard stones, which is why they resist dishing so well. The downside is that they don't "shed" used/dull abrasive very quickly, and so they slow down quite a bit on tougher steels.

The Sigma 13K also leaves a noticeably finer finish than the Shapton 12K IMO. The Sigma uses ~0.75 um abrasive vs ~1.25 um in the Shapton.

As many people have pointed out, you generally can't compare grit ratings across manufacturers. You have to look at the underlying particle sizes (if/when they're disclosed).

[Derek Cohen]

A correction, Patrick ... the Sigma Power 1000 is actually a 1200. I prefer the Pro Shapton 1000 to that. When I was looking for a replacement for my Shaptons, the Sigma Power 1200 was the closest available (this was about 3 or 4 years ago).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

A correction, Patrick ... the Sigma Power 1000 is actually a 1200. I prefer the Pro Shapton 1000 to that. When I was looking for a replacement for my Shaptons, the Sigma Power 1200 was the closest available (this was about 3 or 4 years ago).

Regards from Perth

Derek

I added to my post to clarify that. The "Sigma Power 1000" and "Sigma Select II 1200" (which Stu described as a Power at one point in the past) are very different stones.

In terms of particle size and surface finish the 1200 is comparable to (actually a bit smaller/finer than) the Shapton 1500, not the 1000. The Shapton 1K is actually a 700 if we go by "standard" (JIS 98) ratings.

[Robert LaPlaca]

Supposedly they are made for different humidity levels, but that seems specious to me and just a reason to charge us more in the US.

Jason, the Shapton professional stones I bought more than 15 years ago from the US importer, IIRC all had Japanese writing only on the exterior packaging, so I think I would agree that it sounds like marketing...

[Joe Kasier]

I have the DMT diamond stones as well. As Jim mentioned in his post, they just don't feel like they're doing anything sometimes. They seemed to work really well when I first got them, but got less and less abrasive as I used them. I've scrubbed them with a brush, tried water and oil on them, nothing seems to really help. I was getting really frustrated with sharpening until I tried the abrasive films. I could get to a decent sharpness with them much quicker than with the diamond stones. I wouldn't personally recommend them, at least the DMT Duosharps that I have.

I'll be giving the Shapton's their maiden run this weekend. I just finished several dovetail boxes and need to sharpen most of my plane irons and chisels again. I bought the Japanese versions from Amazon. I got all three for about $170 I think.


Its funny how we have different results :)

I have the ezelap stones. I bought a shapton 250 (I think. 220? I don't remember...2something) because I was under the impression it would cut faster (for regrinds and edge repair). my diamond stones are 3 years old with moderate weekend use. The coarse curs much faster than my 250

[Patrick Chase]

Its funny how we have different results :)

I have the ezelap stones. I bought a shapton 250 (I think. 220? I don't remember...2something) because I was under the impression it would cut faster (for regrinds and edge repair). my diamond stones are 3 years old with moderate weekend use. The coarse curs much faster than my 250

The Shapton 220 is a very hard stone, and consequently doesn't shed dulled/used-up grit as it should. IMO it only works well on fairly soft steels, and is probably the biggest waterstone purchasing mistake I've ever made.

IMO coarse-grit (<1000) Shaptons are problematic in general. The 120 is difficult to use like the 220. The 320 and 500 work very well, but they're fairly quick to dish. That isn't a problem on its own (most coarse waterstones are fairly soft) but the Shaptons also cost an arm and a leg, at ~5X as much per mm thickness as other quality stones of similar grit. That combination makes them hideously uneconomical to use.

I wouldn't recommend any Shapton below #1000 at this point.

[Kevin Womer]

Do they need to be flattened frequently like waterstones?

I would say that they do. I flatten mine after each sharpening session. I can tell they are slightly dished or worn by drawing pencil lines across them and proceed to flattening them. The pencil marks disappear around the sides first, then the center (usually depending if I was using the sharpening jig or not) later as I check the progress. The finer grits need less flattening than say the 1000 grit stone, although I flatten them all while I'm at it.

[Jason Lester]

The Shapton 220 is a very hard stone, and consequently doesn't shed dulled/used-up grit as it should. IMO it only works well on fairly soft steels, and is probably the biggest waterstone purchasing mistake I've ever made.

IMO coarse-grit (<1000) Shaptons are problematic in general. The 120 is difficult to use like the 220. The 320 and 500 work very well, but they're fairly quick to dish. That isn't a problem on its own (most coarse waterstones are fairly soft) but the Shaptons also cost an arm and a leg, at ~5X as much per mm thickness as other quality stones of similar grit. That combination makes them hideously uneconomical to use.

I wouldn't recommend any Shapton below #1000 at this point.

Patrick,

What would you recommend for a really coarse one? The biggest problem I still have is the step between the grinder and the first "medium" grade (like the 1000 stones). My bench grinder technique is lacking. I can get the bevel right and square, but it usually isn't very pretty and may not accurately match the honing guide. I need something that will cut quick enough to get from that to a smooth bevel ready for honing.

Otherwise though, I'm happy with the Shaptons. My plane blade that needed sharpening was the PM-V11 from Veritas. The 1000 was indeed very slow on it, but the three new stones polished it very nicely.

[Derek Cohen]

Jason, if you are finding the Shapton (Pro?) 1000 slow on your PM-V11, then it must be your sharpening method. This stone is a good one in my view. What do you do?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jason Lester]

Jason, if you are finding the Shapton (Pro?) 1000 slow on your PM-V11, then it must be your sharpening method. This stone is a good one in my view. What do you do?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Slow in relation to 120 grit sandpaper I guess I should say. My problem is mentioned above, getting from the grinder to the medium-grade grits. 2 degrees off from the grinder angle to the honing guide makes for a long honing session on that initial grit, for me at least.

[Stewie Simpson]

Jason; from the grinder my 1st stone is a fast cutting Norton Crystolon Oilstone. Fine grit, which equates to 320 grit if you reference their website. https://www.sharpeningsupplies.com/What-Grit-is-a-Norton-Fine-Medium-and-Coarse-W171.aspx

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/water%20stone%20flattening/_DSC0186_zpsz0bpsihk.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/water%20stone%20flattening/_DSC0186_zpsz0bpsihk.jpg.html)

[Derek Cohen]

Slow in relation to 120 grit sandpaper I guess I should say. My problem is mentioned above, getting from the grinder to the medium-grade grits. 2 degrees off from the grinder angle to the honing guide makes for a long honing session on that initial grit, for me at least.

Jason, what grit is the wheel on the grinder, and do you grind to the edge? It sounds as though you are honing a secondary bevel with a guide. Correct?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick,

What would you recommend for a really coarse one? The biggest problem I still have is the step between the grinder and the first "medium" grade (like the 1000 stones). My bench grinder technique is lacking. I can get the bevel right and square, but it usually isn't very pretty and may not accurately match the honing guide. I need something that will cut quick enough to get from that to a smooth bevel ready for honing.

Otherwise though, I'm happy with the Shaptons. My plane blade that needed sharpening was the PM-V11 from Veritas. The 1000 was indeed very slow on it, but the three new stones polished it very nicely.

A few that I think work nicely (and their cost per mm thickness) are: Suehiro Cerax 320 ($1/mm), Sigma Select II 240 ($1.50/mm), Sigma Power 400 ($2/mm). The Cerax is hard to beat for the money. I've also heard good things about the Naniwa Chosera 400 ($2.33/mm) but have never used one.

The Sigma Power 120 ($1/mm for the 50 mm thick "oversize" version) is also a very nice stone, but a bit harder to use as it has a very hard binder and needs to be resurfaced on unusually coarse SiC grit every so often. It's fairly similar (same abrasive, even harder binder) to the Crystolon stones that Stewie recommends. Stew throws in #36 SiC grit for resurfacing if you buy it from TfJ.

Basically all good coarse stones are soft and need flattening a lot more often than your Shapton 1K. Waterstones need to shed used/worn abrasive to work, and a layer of coarse abrasive is thicker than a layer of fine abrasive. The result is that dishing happens proportionately faster. When flatness is critical I use coarse (45 or 60 um) diamond paste on a steel plate instead of a waterstone.

One word of caution: Don't try to flatten really coarse stones (say, below #500) with diamond plates. I once stripped the diamonds from a DMT Dia-Flat while flattening a Sigma Select II 240 (a pretty aggressive stone). If you go down the coarse waterstone route you'll need to learn how to use loose SiC. Stewie's recent posts about flattening his Crystolons are a good starting point IMO. With experimentation you'll find that some diamond plates can go lower than I've described (I use an Atoma 140 on the Cerax 320 all the time) but 500 is a good "generic" limit.

[John Kananis]

My 2 cents (FWIW) - I've personally gone to paste on steel plates (with one extra coarse DMT for really rough work) but regardless, I have a hard time understanding why folks don't go with diamond plates at least for the rough work - IMHO there is way too much maintenance required at the lower grit water stones and they're no where near as efficient as diamond.

[Jason Lester]

Jason, what grit is the wheel on the grinder, and do you grind to the edge? It sounds as though you are honing a secondary bevel with a guide. Correct?

Regards from Perth

Derek

I'm using the 80 grit white wheel from Lee Valley, I believe it is Norton 3x. It's on a high speed Craftsman 6" grinder upgraded with the Lee Valley tool rest. I dress it with a diamond multi point dresser.

I've been grinding at 25 degrees and honing at 30. I use the Veritas Mark II guide.

[Jason Lester]

Thanks Patrick, I haven't heard of some of those and will look into them. Interesting tip about the diamonds getting stripped!

[Derek Cohen]

I'm using the 80 grit white wheel from Lee Valley, I believe it is Norton 3x. It's on a high speed Craftsman 6" grinder upgraded with the Lee Valley tool rest. I dress it with a diamond multi point dresser.

I've been grinding at 25 degrees and honing at 30. I use the Veritas Mark II guide.

Hi Jason

If you are grinding to the edge of the blade with that wheel, you will create a rough edge. That takes extra time to hone. Grind just short of the edge (unless needing to remove a chip), so retaining the smoothed but work edge, and hone that.

I moved to CBN wheels, and that speeded up honing as the resultant edge off the grinder was smooth and even.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

I'm using the 80 grit white wheel from Lee Valley, I believe it is Norton 3x

Total nitpick, but: That's a conventional friable aluminum-oxide wheel. The seeded-gel 3X wheels are blue. I'd actually recommend the one you have over 3X for anybody starting out, though, as the 3X wheels require more pressure (which means more risk of burning if you aren't careful) to work well. Basically you have to periodically apply enough pressure to make the seeded-gel "grain clumps" shard and expose fresh cutting edges.

[Jason Lester]

Thanks for all the tips and pointers. I spent some more time in the shop this evening after work. I have a new definition of sharp now, I think. I honed an A2 blade that still has the factory 25 degree bevel on it. It goes in a #5 that I rescued. The combination of it and my #4 Veritas made the thinnest shavings I've ever seen. I started with some scrap ash leftover from my bench build. When it went through it so easy, I got out a piece of curly cherry and tried for the thinnest full length/width shaving I could get with no tearout. Needless to say, I'm impressed:

344484

My stupid caliper battery died, so I can't actually measure the thickness.

The aftermath:

344485

I did go ahead and order a King 300 stone to try out. I saw an older thread where a few people mentioned it as a good coarse stone and it was fairly cheap from Amazon Prime.

[Patrick Chase]

Thanks for all the tips and pointers. I spent some more time in the shop this evening after work. I have a new definition of sharp now, I think. I honed an A2 blade that still has the factory 25 degree bevel on it. It goes in a #5 that I rescued. The combination of it and my #4 Veritas made the thinnest shavings I've ever seen. I started with some scrap ash leftover from my bench build. When it went through it so easy, I got out a piece of curly cherry and tried for the thinnest full length/width shaving I could get with no tearout. Needless to say, I'm impressed:

344484

My stupid caliper battery died, so I can't actually measure the thickness.

The aftermath:

344485

Nice! It would appear that you're now firmly on the road to financial ruin...err...I mean better results.

I feel obliged to say that for the most part thin shavings are something you make if you must, not because they're inherently a good thing. It's good to have that in your bag of tricks because there will be times when you don't have any other choice, but you'll be more productive if you can get the same surface quality with thicker shavings. That's where things like cap-iron setup become critical. This (http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=69302) is funny mostly because there's a lot of underlying truth.



I did go ahead and order a King 300 stone to try out. I saw an older thread where a few people mentioned it as a good coarse stone and it was fairly cheap from Amazon Prime.

I should have been more explicit earlier: If you can wait a couple weeks then toolsfromjapan is hard to beat for either price or selection. The exchange rate is about Y100 == $1 right now, so his price on the King 300 is about $28, though shipping adds a bit.

[Jason Lester]

Definitely not useful, just interesting to see how thin I could go. The really thin ones were from the Veritas #4 smoother. I keep one #5 set as a combo smooth/jack, one #5 as a scrub, and a #8 as a jointer or when I need some extra mass.

[Prashun Patel]

Jason-

Is your grind angle so far off from your honing guide angle that you are having to correct the grind from the heel of the blade?

If yes, then IMHO, you might just make your grinder angle more shallow or your honing guide a tad higher, so that your correction is just a secondary bevel at the tip. That won't take much effort at all. Getting square off the grinder is the hard work, tweaking the angle should be relatively easy.

Now, if you are having trouble getting grinder scratches out with the 1000 that's another story. But it is more efficient to focus on your grinding technique then to use a coarser stone to correct.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted.

[Stewie Simpson]

Hopefully Jason has read the manufacturers recommendations, and worked a 32-33 degree secondary honing angle on his A2 plane iron.

[Stewie Simpson]

FWIW. I will stick to using traditional hsc tool steel for all of my plane irons and chisels. If I experience some degradation of the cutting edge while working with some of the harder timbers I use, I simply increase the final honing angle. Its not rocket science.

There has also been a trend in recent times, led by the major hand tool manufacturers to supply harder and harder tool steels in an effort to capture and control the tool market. Lie Neilson, as one example, has moved away from offering the customer the right of choice, and only offer their plane irons and chisels in A2 steel. The other major mob to their credit are still offering the customer a reasonable choice between 01, pm, and A2. How long that lasts, time will tell.

As the move continues away from traditional hcs steels, customers have also been forced to abandon their traditional honing media, and moved towards harder ceramic and diamond stones.

I understand and respect the right of others to choose their own path within the choice of tooling they prefer to use.

My apologies for the slight whinge.


Stewie;

[Patrick Chase]

FWIW. I will stick to using traditional hsc tool steel for all of my plane irons and chisels. If I experience some degradation of the cutting edge while working with some of the harder timbers I use, I simply increase the final honing angle. Its not rocket science.

There has also been a trend in recent times, led by the major hand tool manufacturers to supply harder and harder tool steels in an effort to capture and control the tool market. Lie Neilson, as one example, has moved away from offering the customer the right of choice, and only offer their plane irons and chisels in A2 steel. The other major mob to their credit are still offering the customer a reasonable choice between 01, pm, and A2. How long that lasts, time will tell.

As the move continues away from traditional hcs steels, customers have also been forced to abandon their traditional honing media, and moved towards harder ceramic and diamond stones.

I understand and respect the right of others to choose their own path within the choice of tooling they prefer to use.

My apologies for the slight whinge.

Stewie;

I think that your points are very good and valid.

I make different choices than you for my own tools, for reasons that have been beaten to death in other threads, but I think we'll all end up losing if the option of HCS goes away. I don't think it will entirely do so, though, for a couple reasons:

1. There are a LOT of hand-tool woodworkers out there who prefer traditional tools in general, and who specifically use more traditional approaches to honing (arks, etc). As long as those people exist there will be a market for HCS, and somebody will serve it. I was frankly surprised when L-N dropped O-1 because they cater somewhat more to traditionalists than does their Northern competitor. I'm also surprised L-N is sticking with A2, but that's another discussion.

2. If you're willing to use Japanese tools then I can't imagine White steel (which is HCS) going away. It's far too well entrenched and its reputation too unassailable in the Japanese market.

[Jason Lester]

The King 300 made it today. I used it and the Shaptons to sharpen a Craftsman 1/2" chisel. Very happy with the speed and sharpness I got in a pretty short time. It's the first time I could easily do the end grain paring test.