I never found any value in the ruler trick for plane irons

[Sean Tracey]

I ordered a new plane awhile back and I found that they had dressed the back of the plane iron with the ruler trick. Some may think the ruler trick is brilliant, but I really wish they hadn't of done that. Since it had already been ruler tricked, I stayed with it for awhile. Really, I have found the ruler trick to be a no value nuisance. My plane iron was pretty close to flat before somebody then threw all that easy to work with flatness right out the window and used the ruler trick. So then you have to keep a certain ruler around, hold the ruler in place, use a small portion of the stone. I find that clumsy compared to a small one time investment of flattening the back and polishing.

The plane iron is pretty flat to begin with and I have an 80 grit lobster stone that will quickly level it. Hone it on some progressively finer diamond stones and then polish on a 5000 grit and 8000 grit water stone and I never have to do more to the back than remove the bur which I find very easy to do with a flat back. I can use the entire stone to do so with a flat back. It easy to hold the blade and easy to move it in the motion I am used to. I can effectively use a strop for easy touch ups on both sides of the blade.

I don't know if I am the only person who see's it this way, but next time I order a new plane, I'm going to remember to ask them to send the iron without any back side honing. Far easier to flatten and polish an iron fresh off the grinder than deal with a ruler tricked iron.

Maybe, I'm the only one who thinks it's easier to flatten the back once than to mess with a ruler tricked iron, but If you prefer a flat back, be warned.

[Andrew Hughes]

I also found the ruler trick too much for my liking. So just lift the iron slightly and look for the mark on the stone where I want contact. Much quicker my shaptons are flat but not as flat as the iron.
Its okay to do it your way.:)

[Jim Koepke]

My mind likes to keep it as simple as possible. A flat bevel and a flat back are good for me.

Kiss - Keep it simple sharpening

jtk

[bridger berdel]

I've used a little bit of back bevel on irons where the back is badly pitted, but never on a perfectly good iron.

[Don Dorn]

I use the ruler trick without the ruler. Lazy I guess, but lift the iron just a bit - end result works so I tend to stick with it. Prior to that, I flattened the backs and that worked too, no better, no worse.

[Tom M King]

I always thought it was used if you couldn't quite get to a sharp edge without it. I've never done it.

[Sean Tracey]

Thank you gentlemen. Back in about 1994, I restored an old wooden plane with an ancient iron. I invented my own version of the ruler trick to restore the pitted back. But the brand new plane iron being ruler tricked was too much. I hit sharpening overload.

[Brian Holcombe]

I don’t use the ruler trick. However, what you’re describing sounds like a larger back bevel and must be rather significant to last multiple sharpenings.

The ruler trick, as I understand it, is removed and reapplied every time the iron is sharpened.

[Simon MacGowen]

I ordered a new plane awhile back and I found that they had dressed the back of the plane iron with the ruler .

This is the first time that I heard a new blade came "ruler tricked" from a vendor. Is it a small vendor or could you share your blade source?

Simon

[steven c newman]

Hmmm...There are some people out there, that swear the only way to sharpen an edge..is to have 2-4 "Micro bevels" or the blade will not work......:rolleyes:

Back bevel on a plane iron? Soooo, where does the chipbreaker reside?

386713
This is the "logo side" on a 2" wide Millers Falls iron......I guess they thought the bevel should be covered by the chipbreaker?
386714
Still had the factory 25 degree grind....not much to sharpen..
386715
The bevel had a hollow grind to it, and was worn a tad on one corner...
386716
Not too bad..for a 70 year old plane...

[Robert Engel]

Sean,

What brand is the plane?

I've never heard of a manufacturer deliberately back beveling a plane iron. It doesn't even make any sense that they would do that (customer pref, added cost, etc.).

Way more likely the plane wasn't flattened all the way to the edge.

I'm pretty sure if you call the manufacturer they will tell you this.

[James Pallas]

I love these threads. I guess I learned from a bunch of hacks that hung commercial doors all day. Most used carborundum stones. Would rub on the bevel to get a burr. Then go to the short end of the stone lay the iron flat on its back across the stone raise it up a tiny bit pull it off the stone going back and out over the edge of the stone, wire edge wipes off. Give the iron a rub or two on your striped coveralls and go to planing doors. I guess you could call it the edge trick. Does the same thing to me.
Jim

[John C Cox]

I tried it for a while. Decided I didn't like it because I couldn't get the chipbreaker set tight enough. Too many shavings stuck under the chip breaker unless it was way back off the edge..

and so I went back to a flat back and that seems to work fine...

[Simon MacGowen]

I tried it for a while. Decided I didn't like it because I couldn't get the chipbreaker set tight enough. Too many shavings stuck under the chip breaker unless it was way back off the edge..

and so I went back to a flat back and that seems to work fine...

I don't use the ruler trick because I have never had a problem with my edge. The back bevel is supposed to be very small (less than 0.25mm from the edge, I would guess), and in a normal breaker setting (1/64" or so), the tiny back bevel should not cause an issue. Perhaps, David Charlesworth could chime in here.

Simon

[John C Cox]

I understand the rationale. Brent Beach showed how plane irons develop a light "wear bevel" on the back... Rather than grinding the wear bevel off - he advocated simply sharpening it... Thus "the ruler trick", lightly stropping the back, or some such...

And you do have to do something so you aren't just "playing with the burr" when sharpening....

I just prefer to sharpen it back off as well as I can back to flat...

[Jim Koepke]

Brent Beach showed how plane irons develop a light "wear bevel" on the back...

My approach is to not let a large wear bevel develop. Usually the wear bevel on my blades can be taken of on 1000 grit stone rather quickly. Of course, if one uses there blade until it just won't cut anymore it may develop a wear bevel needing the attention of a grinder.

My motto: "sharpening less by sharpening often."

jtk

[Simon MacGowen]

M

My motto: "sharpening less by sharpening often."

jtk

Sound advice regardless of the level of skill.

Simon

[lowell holmes]

I have used the ruler trick to take the back curl from a plane iron edge. I only do a light honing on the back edge, iirc one or two strokes.
What does it hurt?

[ken hatch]

Jim,

We are close: Mine has alway been “Sharpen more to sharpen less”. Same difference. Don’t wait until the iron feels or looks dull, sharpen the first time the question crosses your mind.

ken

[Brian Holcombe]

I understand the rationale. Brent Beach showed how plane irons develop a light "wear bevel" on the back... Rather than grinding the wear bevel off - he advocated simply sharpening it... Thus "the ruler trick", lightly stropping the back, or some such...

And you do have to do something so you aren't just "playing with the burr" when sharpening....

I just prefer to sharpen it back off as well as I can back to flat...

My experience at Kez NYC a few years back (planing competition) provided that leaving any wear bevel, no matter what you do with it it (such as stropping), will not produce a superior edge to removing it.

[Stewie Simpson]

There is a video where DC states the motivation for the ruler trick was to address stiction with water stones.

[Alan Schwabacher]

The ruler trick involves a much shallower back bevel than you could possibly get by lifting the iron. It is only for the very finest stone, and provides probably a small multiple of the bevel angle you get by simply pushing down harder close to the edge while keeping the back flat to the stone. It is really just a way to focus your attention there for the final touch on a stone. Done as specified by Charlesworth, there is no way it could interfere with a cap iron.

This does not mean anyone needs to use it, or even pay attention to what it is, but it is not a substantial back bevel.

[Derek Cohen]

I ordered a new plane awhile back and I found that they had dressed the back of the plane iron with the ruler trick. Some may think the ruler trick is brilliant, but I really wish they hadn't of done that. Since it had already been ruler tricked, I stayed with it for awhile. Really, I have found the ruler trick to be a no value nuisance. My plane iron was pretty close to flat before somebody then threw all that easy to work with flatness right out the window and used the ruler trick. So then you have to keep a certain ruler around, hold the ruler in place, use a small portion of the stone. I find that clumsy compared to a small one time investment of flattening the back and polishing.

The plane iron is pretty flat to begin with and I have an 80 grit lobster stone that will quickly level it. Hone it on some progressively finer diamond stones and then polish on a 5000 grit and 8000 grit water stone and I never have to do more to the back than remove the bur which I find very easy to do with a flat back. I can use the entire stone to do so with a flat back. It easy to hold the blade and easy to move it in the motion I am used to. I can effectively use a strop for easy touch ups on both sides of the blade.

I don't know if I am the only person who see's it this way, but next time I order a new plane, I'm going to remember to ask them to send the iron without any back side honing. Far easier to flatten and polish an iron fresh off the grinder than deal with a ruler tricked iron.

Maybe, I'm the only one who thinks it's easier to flatten the back once than to mess with a ruler tricked iron, but If you prefer a flat back, be warned.

Hi Sean

I am curious how you knew the blade had the Ruler Trick? What signs were there?

This is the first I have ever heard of a new blade being prepared with the RT. I am surprised since it is an extra task to perform and most sellers do not do this. Can you be sure it was the RT and not someone dubbing the blade? Will you say the name of the seller?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Ross Manning]

The ruler trick involves a much shallower back bevel than you could possibly get by lifting the iron. It is only for the very finest stone, and provides probably a small multiple of the bevel angle you get by simply pushing down harder close to the edge while keeping the back flat to the stone. It is really just a way to focus your attention there for the final touch on a stone. Done as specified by Charlesworth, there is no way it could interfere with a cap iron.

This.

If you guys are using ruler trick to make such a large back bevel that it interferes with the chip breaker you have really misunderstood. It only needs a very few swipes on the finest stone.

[Charles Guest]

I ordered a new plane awhile back and I found that they had dressed the back of the plane iron with the ruler trick. Some may think the ruler trick is brilliant, but I really wish they hadn't of done that. Since it had already been ruler tricked, I stayed with it for awhile. Really, I have found the ruler trick to be a no value nuisance. My plane iron was pretty close to flat before somebody then threw all that easy to work with flatness right out the window and used the ruler trick. So then you have to keep a certain ruler around, hold the ruler in place, use a small portion of the stone. I find that clumsy compared to a small one time investment of flattening the back and polishing.

The plane iron is pretty flat to begin with and I have an 80 grit lobster stone that will quickly level it. Hone it on some progressively finer diamond stones and then polish on a 5000 grit and 8000 grit water stone and I never have to do more to the back than remove the bur which I find very easy to do with a flat back. I can use the entire stone to do so with a flat back. It easy to hold the blade and easy to move it in the motion I am used to. I can effectively use a strop for easy touch ups on both sides of the blade.

I don't know if I am the only person who see's it this way, but next time I order a new plane, I'm going to remember to ask them to send the iron without any back side honing. Far easier to flatten and polish an iron fresh off the grinder than deal with a ruler tricked iron.

Maybe, I'm the only one who thinks it's easier to flatten the back once than to mess with a ruler tricked iron, but If you prefer a flat back, be warned.

Less is more. The fewer gew-gaws in the shop the better. If you want a flat back, there's never been a time in the history of woodworking when it was easier to accomplish.

[Charles Guest]

Sean,

What brand is the plane?

I've never heard of a manufacturer deliberately back beveling a plane iron. It doesn't even make any sense that they would do that (customer pref, added cost, etc.).

Way more likely the plane wasn't flattened all the way to the edge.

I'm pretty sure if you call the manufacturer they will tell you this.

It sounds like the manufacturer took a plane on return and re-used the iron in a new plane. They didn't notice that the guy or gal who returned the plane had back-beveled the iron. They probably put a fresh grind on the bevel, didn't look at the back, and out the door she went. I doubt seriously when a plane is returned that the whole thing is junked lock, stock, and barrel and this is likely so even with boutique or semi-boutique manufacturers.

[Robert Hazelwood]

I have considered trying the ruler trick from time to time on plane irons. Not because I have any trouble with getting and maintaining a flat back, but because I've noticed that plane irons take much longer to sharpen than chisels due to having to remove the wear bevel. Especially on something like a try plane, where you take heavy shavings and so can push the iron pretty far into the wear cycle. It can take several rounds of creating a sizable burr on the coarse stone and removing it on the finishing stone before the wear bevel disappears. On a chisel there normally isn't any visible wear bevel- once you have created any burr at all you can move on to the next stone, so unless there is edge damage even a Japanese chisel can be sharpened very quickly.

It seems like the ruler trick would sharpen the wear bevel instead of removing it- turning it into an actual bevel with proper geometry and a clean intersection with the main bevel while facilitating removal of the burr. Which is the whole point of removing the wear bevel when maintaining a flat back- you can't get to the very edge until the wear bevel is gone.

But alas I have never tried it because I've never had one of those little rulers hanging around, and outside of ruminations during sharpening it hasn't occurred to me to buy one. So obviously my current regime isn't *that* onerous, though I have made one change recently, which is working the back of my jack and try plane irons on my soft ark as the first step in sharpening. This gets rid of 90% of the wear bevel in 10-20 seconds, leaving much less bevel work and prolonging the number of honings between grinding sessions. This is at the expense of the level of polish on the backs of the irons, but that doesn't seem to bother anything in use. I would not do this to a smoothing plane iron, but those don't get as much wear between sharpenings anyways.

[Jim Koepke]

It seems like the ruler trick would sharpen the wear bevel instead of removing it- turning it into an actual bevel with proper geometry and a clean intersection with the main bevel while facilitating removal of the burr. Which is the whole point of removing the wear bevel when maintaining a flat back- you can't get to the very edge until the wear bevel is gone.

The problem then becomes the larger the wear bevel, then the larger the area that needs tricking to get to a defined arris.

Maybe since a bum shoulder doesn't let me take real thick shavings, it doesn't take a lot of blade wear to indicate the time for sharpening. Shavings over ~0.015" get my shoulder to ache in no time.

jtk

[Tony Zaffuto]

I have used the ruler trick to take the back curl from a plane iron edge. I only do a light honing on the back edge, iirc one or two strokes.
What does it hurt?

I do the same, but I've never called it the "ruler trick"! Basically raise the blade less than a red whisker and lightly hone side to side, 1 or 2 licks!

[James Pallas]

I do the same, but I've never called it the "ruler trick"! Basically raise the blade less than a red whisker and lightly hone side to side, 1 or 2 licks!
Tony as long as your happy with your routine and you like how it works, it's perfect. As I said earlier I like these threads. Every time one starts it reminds me of that now old song that goes "must be fifty ways to leave your lover". The song plays in my head every time and once in a great while we get a new way. Everyone can try it and report back so I don't have to do the experimentation. :)
Jim

[Kees Heiden]

There is a whole range of sharpness levels between dull and "sub micron shavings in one of these Japanese planing contests". The amount of attention paid to the back of a blade is one aspect in this range.

In a plane you get a backside wear bevel that can be a very obvious shining line along the edge. This wear bevel is the result of the shaving gliding over the back of the blade. Do you need to remove it? Well, that depends on the level of sharpness you are shooting for. The shavings allready polished the back of the blade quite a bit. Not Shapton 30 000 grit polish, but still quite good. The shinyness of this line is an indicator that it isn't so bad at all.

When you sharpen the bevel, especially on an oilstone, you get a substantial burr, leaning over to the backside. Pushing the back over the stone bends this burr back to the bevel side again, even without really touching the wear bevel at all. A bit of back and forth between bevel and back side bends the burr enough to weaken it so it breaks off. Then a bit of stropping removes even more remnants of this burr.

I think this is why craftsman of old could get away with a pretty hasty sharpening regime, without ever really touching up the back or even flattening it . They weren't producing the sharpest ever edges with this method, but still good enough for their work. I suppose even back then there were heated debates in the pub on this subject, if they didn't have anything more usefull to discuss.

[ken hatch]

There is a whole range of sharpness levels between dull and "sub micron shavings in one of these Japanese planing contests". The amount of attention paid to the back of a blade is one aspect in this range.

In a plane you get a backside wear bevel that can be a very obvious shining line along the edge. This wear bevel is the result of the shaving gliding over the back of the blade. Do you need to remove it? Well, that depends on the level of sharpness you are shooting for. The shavings allready polished the back of the blade quite a bit. Not Shapton 30 000 grit polish, but still quite good. The shinyness of this line is an indicator that it isn't so bad at all.

When you sharpen the bevel, especially on an oilstone, you get a substantial burr, leaning over to the backside. Pushing the back over the stone bends this burr back to the bevel side again, even without really touching the wear bevel at all. A bit of back and forth between bevel and back side bends the burr enough to weaken it so it breaks off. Then a bit of stropping removes even more remnants of this burr.

I think this is why craftsman of old could get away with a pretty hasty sharpening regime, without ever really touching up the back or even flattening it . They weren't producing the sharpest ever edges with this method, but still good enough for their work. I suppose even back then there were heated debates in the pub on this subject, if they didn't have anything more usefull to discuss.

Especially if they were Scottish craftsmen.:D

ken

P.S. Good post Kees. Sharp enough is just that....Sharp enough for the work to be done. With water stones the "ruler trick" (BTW, I hate that term) can help get there for most uses.

[Warren Mickley]

T

When you sharpen the bevel, especially on an oilstone, you get a substantial burr, leaning over to the backside. Pushing the back over the stone bends this burr back to the bevel side again, even without really touching the wear bevel at all. A bit of back and forth between bevel and back side bends the burr enough to weaken it so it breaks off. Then a bit of stropping removes even more remnants of this burr.

I think this is why craftsman of old could get away with a pretty hasty sharpening regime, without ever really touching up the back or even flattening it . They weren't producing the sharpest ever edges with this method, but still good enough for their work. I suppose even back then there were heated debates in the pub on this subject, if they didn't have anything more usefull to discuss.

When you talk about "craftsman of old", are you talking about guys in 1965, when Paul Sellers was being trained, or are talking about guys in 1780, when Peter Nicholson was being trained? If you are talking about craftsmen in the 18th century not flattening backs, I would be interested in any documentation.

[Kees Heiden]

No of course there is no documentation of lazyness. Nicholson documented how it should be done. The last handtool woodworkers, teached around WW2 told us about methods like where they would rip of the burr by pulling the edge through a piece of wood. Have you ever found an old tool showing signs of carefully flattened backs? Even the Seaton chest chisels are not very flat. BTW, I quickly scanned through Nicholson and found nothing about the back of the blade in the sharpening section. Only the "bezel" is mentioned.

For sure, I don't think every craftsman was hasty or lazy and especially in the upper echolons I supose they where neater then in a country carpenters shop.

Then there is also "experimental archeology". When I sharpen a plane blade like explained above, I get a usefull edge.

That, and I don't believe in the infallibility of mankind.

[Kees Heiden]

I would say Nicholson is suspect too. He advocates the dreadfull shortcut of the micro bezel!

[Jim Koepke]

If you are talking about craftsmen in the 18th century not flattening backs, I would be interested in any documentation.

My thinking on this may be wrong, but in the 18th century wasn't one of the first things an apprentice learned was taking care of their master's tools? Maybe the 'craftsmen' of the 18th century didn't flatten their edge tool backs because it was done by the apprentices working around them.


If one is removing shavings in bulk a little wear bevel isn’t a major problem. It may cause a need for more effort by the user.

For a smoother, wear bevels may be uneven. One may want to avoid this unevenness on their finished surface. This becomes a reason to sharpen more often.

Sharpening often can lead to sharpening less.

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

Wait a sec! I do have documentation!

Holtzappfl, volume 2 of Turning and Mechanical Manipulation, Chapter 23, section 4.

386883

[James Pallas]

No of course there is no documentation of lazyness. Nicholson documented how it should be done. The last handtool woodworkers, teached around WW2 told us about methods like where they would rip of the burr by pulling the edge through a piece of wood. Have you ever found an old tool showing signs of carefully flattened backs? Even the Seaton chest chisels are not very flat. BTW, I quickly scanned through Nicholson and found nothing about the back of the blade in the sharpening section. Only the "bezel" is mentioned.

For sure, I don't think every craftsman was hasty or lazy and especially in the upper echolons I supose they where neater then in a country carpenters shop.

Then there is also "experimental archeology". When I sharpen a plane blade like explained above, I get a usefull edge.

That, and I don't believe in the infallibility of mankind.
You've got it Kees. They tool makers of the past and now I'm talking about Bailey and Stanley and others would have been flattening backs if that is what craftsmen demanded. That flat back thing came serious in my lifetime. They had the tooling and the technology to do it. They could taper saw plates to thousands of an inch and the like because it sold saws. They continuously improved planes until they went out of the hands of workers. If the so called ruler trick took hold the new makers of planes wouldn't be flattening backs today. I'm not talking about cheap ones. I have to be with Kees on this one. Because of some writer of text books says something it must be so. We can't go back and watch what was actually happening in the shops of old to be sure but I don't think the flat back was lost any more than the chip breaker thing was lost. I wonder what will be said about us 200 years from now. Maybe that we waxed our cars to make them go faster instead of just look good.
Jim

[lowell holmes]

I thought the ruler trick was to get rid of the burr on the back of the bevel. You shouldn't see a back bevel.

[Warren Mickley]

Wait a sec! I do have documentation!

Holtzappfl, volume 2 of Turning and Mechanical Manipulation, Chapter 23, section 4.

386883

Yes, the FLAT face of the iron is laid quite flat on the oilstone. That is a long way from what you said earlier:

"without ever really touching up the back or even flattening it ."

[Simon MacGowen]

After some 40 posts, we still don't know what the OP actually has experienced: a ruler-tricked blade bought brand new (from whomever we still don't know), or something else. I have yet to find a vendor who sells ruler-tricked irons. Anyone?

Simon

[Kees Heiden]

Yes, the FLAT face of the iron is laid quite flat on the oilstone.

“To remove the wire edge”

Nowhere in old documentation is mentioned that a new tool should be flattened, and on old tools we don’t often find the evidence.

In the end it’s all interpretation. I understand the term “flat face of the iron” as oposed to the beveled face. Not that the author neccessarily means a mirror.

[Warren West]

if they didn't have anything more usefull to discuss. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

[Chris Parks]

After some 40 posts, we still don't know what the OP actually has experienced: a ruler-tricked blade bought brand new (from whomever we still don't know), or something else. I have yet to find a vendor who sells ruler-tricked irons. Anyone?

Simon

Common sense says why would they bother.

[Sean Tracey]

Sean,

What brand is the plane?

I've never heard of a manufacturer deliberately back beveling a plane iron. It doesn't even make any sense that they would do that (customer pref, added cost, etc.).

Way more likely the plane wasn't flattened all the way to the edge.

I'm pretty sure if you call the manufacturer they will tell you this.
I agree that it does not make sense to ruler trick a brand new plane iron with a certain caveat which I will get to later. This also played into my surprise upon finding the ruler tricked new iron.

But it was definitely ruler tricked to a decently fine stone as the sharpening pattern was across the width of the blade. The blade was honed perfectly flat from blade tip to where the angle of ruler tricking lifts the blade from the stone. The ruler tricking and honing of the blade were top notch quality and effectiveness. I bought the plane well more than 5 years ago, maybe more than 8 years ago. It is an iron body #4 of high quality manufacture. It cut perfect right out of the box with no sharpening needed. I really like the plane and was able to plane twisted boards flat with no real experience. Very satisfying. I discovered the ruler tricking when I went to sharpen it the first time. I was mildly miffed, but since it was already done, I knew that the fast way to keep using the plane was to continue to ruler trick it. My stones are not as wide as the factories, so my ruler tricking flat area was definitely narrower than the factory flattening.

I believe from the manufacturers point of view ruler tricking makes sense. It allows them to provide an actually perfectly honed (not merely rough ground) iron. I believe the manufacturer has found that the majority of purchasers are going to try the plane right out of the box. If the plane cuts well out the box, then customer satisfaction will be maximized. A very sharp blade is a major key for accomplishing good performance, and I believe the fastest way to provide custom honed blades is to ruler trick the blade. When the iron get's dull, now the customer knows the plane needs sharpening and will have to learn to do so and will also be less likely to fault the plane if their sharpening skills are not up to the high standards of the original factory sharpening.

My comments are not meant to be a criticism of the manufacturer, they provided a well made plane with a hand honed iron of excellent sharpness. If I had to hand hone hundreds of irons, I could definitely see the advantage of ruler tricking. If I had a really badly pitted old iron, I could see that ruler tricking may be the only practical way to get a good restoration. But I don't see the advantage of ruler tricking for an individual who works with planes. You flatten the back one time which takes a bit longer than ruler tricking, but I find it much easier on every subsequent sharpening to have a flat back.

The point of my post was mostly to find out what others thought of ruler tricking. It's been informative. Now that my sharpening technique is all worked out, I definitely prefer a flat backed iron.

[Brian Holcombe]

“To remove the wire edge”

Nowhere in old documentation is mentioned that a new tool should be flattened, and on old tools we don’t often find the evidence.

In the end it’s all interpretation. I understand the term “flat face of the iron” as oposed to the beveled face. Not that the author neccessarily means a mirror.

The way I read it, he seems to suggest that there is some work going on there. He says both surfaces should be keen, which in my opinion suggests a bit of work being applied to the back rather than simply wiping off the wire edge.

This is consistent with my experience, I don't spend a lot of time on the back but I do so with a flat stone and after enough times the iron is extremely flat and the wire edge removes nicely.

I'll be frank in that I see this as the easiest approach, it pays considerable dividends in that efforts are not continuously needed to repaid damage or chase off the wire edge with continued rounding. I'm not using anything that wouldn't have been available to an 18th century craftsman for that part of the work.

[Kees Heiden]

Yeah, I don't advocate sloppy sharpening. I am a compulsive back flattener too. But I am also a curious guy, so I start to wonder when:

- I never find an old tool with any sign of back flattening. They are always convex with deeply dubbed corners.
- The backs of the Seaton chest tools are a mixed bunch too.
- Nicholson doesn't even mention the back in his article on sharpening.
- I saw demonstrations of old guys sharpening just the bevel and ripping of the wire edge in a block of wood.
- I read the same trick in Holtzappfl (Allthough he indeed also dutifully says to work the bevel and the back)

In the end I take the hint that the wear bevel on the back isn't the most terrible thing. Sharpen the bevel, get somehow rid of the wire edge and you have a decent edge. More work on the back is a refinement.

But I also realise that this is all interpretation.

[Tony Zaffuto]

Are us mostly hobbyists complicating this whole matter? As these were jobs, did the old timers have many tools, with maybe a couple of bench chisels for general benchwork, that didn't need much more than quick honing, and a few much finer tools, think a dovetail chisel, that he/she would pay closer attention to? How about paring chisels? Long, thin and low bevel? Maybe a couple of licks behind the bevel, to keep the last 1/2" flat only? Afterall, paring chisels are a bit flexible.

[Kees Heiden]

Sounds reasonable.

[Chris Parks]

I read a story I don't know how many years ago documenting the limitations of sharpening edge tools in the UK in times past because of the limitations of the sharpening stones and media that was available to them and how it all changed when different media became available. I think in discussions of the past in threads like this those limitations are either not known or glossed over. I wish I could find it again but I can't remember if it was a magazine, a book or on the net. From memory a lot of the time they put up with what they could achieve and not what they would have liked.

[Kees Heiden]

They did have reasonable stones, like the local slate (Idwal for example), or imported stones like the Turkey stone. They also had grinding stones, flat or rotating, made from sandstone. But as soon as Arkansas and Washita came on the market, these almost completely took over, because those worked quite a bit quicker.

So I don't think they were really limited by the stones they had, it just took more time to raise a wire edge.

[steven c newman]

There WAS a video put out not that long ago, Kees may have posted it....About a little shop in France?....where they were making wood-bodied planes.....came time to sharpen an iron to use in the plane...first a grinder was used..then ( HORRORS :eek:) a SINGLE oil stone was used. Then the iron was put to use IN the new plane, and thin wispy ribbons came up out of the plane.

Might be worth the effort to find that video, again?

[Simon MacGowen]

Are us mostly hobbyists complicating this whole matter?

Not just this sharpening matter but many others like round vs flat mallets, bench chisels vs mortising chisels (for mortising), bevel up vs bevel down planes, etc.

Hobbyists are not the only ones to blame; the vendors and manufacturers all take part in complicating things knowingly or unknowingly. Well, at least some of them see product and sales opportunities in the complication process.

Simon

[Jim Koepke]

Well, at least some of them see product and sales opportunities in the complication process.

Of course, how many of us have more than one smoothing plane of the same size simply because we can?

How much of our "flat back" society is built upon more recent theory?

The big obvious elephant in the room none have pointed out is the geometry of the Japanese chisel. With a hollow back it kind of demonstrates one doesn't need a perfectly flat back to do fine work.

After this we can argue about how many angels can dance on the edge of a smoothing iron. Will it technically be more if one cambers the blade?

jtk

[Simon MacGowen]

After this we can argue about how many angels can dance on the edge of a smoothing iron. Will it technically be more if one cambers the blade?

jtk

Or does it matter if the edge, cambered or not, is made of blue steel, white steel, o1, a2, or pmv11?!:D

Simon

[Jim Koepke]

Or does it matter if the edge, cambered or not, is made of blue steel, white steel, o1, a2, or pmv11?!:D

Simon

Would there be advertising slogans like "More Angels can balance longer on an A2 edge than any other"?

jtk

- Angels put the A in A2

[steven c newman]

As a side note to the above video...it also showed both Gentlemen in the shop, using their shoulders to push their chisels. Mainly to pare away the waste where the irons will go,,after chopping most of it out.
Can't remember which type of mallet they used, though.....

[Simon MacGowen]

Would there be advertising slogans like "More Angels can balance longer on an A2 edge than any other"?

jtk

- Angels put the A in A2

"More Angels can balance longer on an A2 edge than any other...especially if you hone the edge with [fill in the vendor's product name]. 75,301 woodworkers who have tried it can't be wrong!"

Simon

[James Pallas]

Can't have many angels on an A 2 edge. Too many chips, no place for their feet.
Jim

[James Pallas]

I would suggest that you can read pages 58 and 59 of The Complete Woodworker, by Bernard E. Jones. It describes sharpening on the bevel, removing the wire edge by pulling the iron flat on the stone to remove the wire edge and using a strop to remove any remaining wire edge.
Jim

[Brian Holcombe]

All those chips would make a nice mountain range, perfect for angels to perch on.

[david charlesworth]

There are too many opinions here to satisfy with a quick answer.

We have posts from those who don't like it on principle. Those who did it wrong, and those who don't understand it!
Another group either use it successfully or are prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt.

The RT produces an angle of approximately 2/3 of one degree on the flat side.
This is done on an 8 or 10thousand grit polishing stone, mine never get wider than about 1.3 mm.
The chipbreaker fits perfectly, as I give it approx. 1 1/2 degree of clearance angle, on the front u/s edge. (It can be set as close as Kato & Kawai suggest.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

[John C Cox]

David,

Thanks for the explanation - as I think critical details you list here are left out of what "Most people hear"... Certainly it includes details that are much different than what I was doing in the past and did not like....

Using a thin 1/2mm or 1mm thick steel ruler to hit the back side of an iron on a 8,000-10,000 grit polishing stone... No doubt that's why it works for you...

I was using approximately a 1/8" thick ruler on either P2,500 wet/dry paper or on my 3 micron DMT XXF diamond plate... Those are 3-5x more coarse than what you were using.. And probably 5x-10x the angle... Which is probably why my chip breaker wouldn't fit right....

[lowell holmes]

I'm not smart enough to sort through all of the opinions stated above, but I do know a slight micro bevel on the back side of the iron
creates superior results. I typically just very lightly hone the back side of the bevel.

[ken hatch]

There are too many opinions here to satisfy with a quick answer.

We have posts from those who don't like it on principle. Those who did it wrong, and those who don't understand it!
Another group either use it successfully or are prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt.

The RT produces an angle of approximately 2/3 of one degree on the flat side.
This is done on an 8 or 10thousand grit polishing stone, mine never get wider than about 1.3 mm.
The chipbreaker fits perfectly, as I give it approx. 1 1/2 degree of clearance angle, on the front u/s edge. (It can be set as close as Kato & Kawai suggest.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth


David,

I believe it was Plato that said "Opinions without knowledge are shameful and ugly things".

I wish you had called it something other than a "trick" when you popularized the technique but it is what it is and thanks for showing how to do it.

ken

[Simon MacGowen]

There are too many opinions here to satisfy with a quick answer.

We have posts from those who don't like it on principle. Those who did it wrong, and those who don't understand it!
Another group either use it successfully or are prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt.

The RT produces an angle of approximately 2/3 of one degree on the flat side.
This is done on an 8 or 10thousand grit polishing stone, mine never get wider than about 1.3 mm.
The chipbreaker fits perfectly, as I give it approx. 1 1/2 degree of clearance angle, on the front u/s edge. (It can be set as close as Kato & Kawai suggest.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

You are a gent. I am still interested in knowing which vendor under the sky hones its irons with your trick before they are sold.

Simon

[david charlesworth]

Simon,

None that I am aware of! Though the backs irons are quite variable from different manufacturers.

David

[Stewie Simpson]

So how does the ruler trick work with a cambered iron. http://www.leevalley.com/en/images/item/Instructions/05M0901i42.jpg

[lowell holmes]

The ruler trick is used to get the burr off of the back side of and edge and create a bit of back bevel. I don't always do it, but I do hone the back side of the edge.

[Alan Schwabacher]

So how does the ruler trick work with a cambered iron.

Exactly as it does with a straight edge. It's a very shallow bevel that is not noticeably different from honing the blade flat on the stone. It really is a lot like pushing down harder near the edge with the blade flat to the stone, except that it does not stick. You are putting in a back bevel if you push down harder near the edge, and the ruler trick is maybe 2 or 3 times that bevel. Smaller than the back bevel you get if you strop the back on leather with abrasive, even if you are careful to not round over the back.

The OP ran into a blade that had a back bevel that sounds like it was much more than the ruler trick would have given. Nobody is forcing you to use it if you don't want to. Even a much larger back bevel can be of use at times. Why are we still talking about this?

[Jim Koepke]

So how does the ruler trick work with a cambered iron.

One can mimic a cambered iron by means of a partial 'ruler trick'.

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?158373

Honing of any kind including the ruler trick removes metal from the edge however slight an amount it may be. Ruler tricking only the edges in effect mimics cambering the bevel side.

The amount of camber can be controlled by how much metal is removed from either side of the blade.

jtk

[James Pallas]

So how does the ruler trick work with a cambered iron. http://www.leevalley.com/en/images/item/Instructions/05M0901i42.jpg
Stewie, since the back of the iron is in one plane, or should be, and the ruler trick starts with the edge being off of the stone the whole edge is going to hit the stone at some point while pulling the iron back across the edge
Jim

[Stewie Simpson]

Thanks James.

[James Pallas]

Thanks James.
You are welcome Stewie. I understand how the ruler trick works but I don't use it. I don't go to extremes flattening backs either. It is nice however that premium iron makers do such a good job of flattening backs.
Jim