veritas LAJ A2 or O1 blades?

[mickthetree]

Afternoon all

I picked up a Verita LAJ and jointer some months back and have got on well with them. They came with A2 blades and its time to sharpen them.

I have only used O1 steel in the past and am wondering if I wouldn't be better getting O1 blades for them instead.

Any consensus on blade choice for these planes?

I got a load of spare blades with them so am going to have a sharpen up this evening, but thought I'd gauge opinion.

 

[Richard T]

Hi Mick,
I have an A2 iron with my LAS - they were the only type available at the time I bought it and I sharpen it with an oilstone in the same way as I do with old steel.

To me it feels a bit different and is a slightly less willing to abrade but nothing too noticeable and my fears of 'maybe it's going to be a pig to sharpen' were soon dismissed. Its edge - keeping abilities (I find) are really good and I have had no reason to consider getting an 01.

I know some people have reported trouble with A2 but the one I have is fine.

 

[bugbear]

I picked up a Verita LAJ and jointer some months back and have got on well with them. They came with A2 blades and its time to sharpen them.

Great edge retention!!

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

....

I know some people have reported trouble with A2 but the one I have is fine.

Ditto. I'd stick with what you've got. They only supply alternative steels so that people will buy more stuff - no-one really needs them.

 

[mickthetree]

I picked up a Verita LAJ and jointer some months back and have got on well with them. They came with A2 blades and its time to sharpen them.

Great edge retention!!

BugBear

Ha yes indeed, think it is about time.

I shall give it my usual treatment and see how I get on.

Many thanks.

 

[mickthetree]

....

I know some people have reported trouble with A2 but the one I have is fine.

Ditto. I'd stick with what you've got. They only supply alternative steels so that people will buy more stuff - no-one really needs them.

Cheers Jacob

How did you get on with the O1 blades you got for your smoother?

 

[Jacob]

....

I know some people have reported trouble with A2 but the one I have is fine.

Ditto. I'd stick with what you've got. They only supply alternative steels so that people will buy more stuff - no-one really needs them.

Cheers Jacob

How did you get on with the O1 blades you got for your smoother?

I didn't try it. I only bought it because it was cheap and I thought it'd help sell the plane (now sold). Probably a waste of money! No prob with the A2 however, even with my primitive sharpening techniques.

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

The low angle planes are a bit of a conundrum. There have been reports of the A 2 blades chipping slightly at low honing angles. This, on the one hand is no biggie, since the beauty of a LA plane is having a blade with higher honing angles lets them contend with difficult grain, so anything over 35 deg will not have the chipping problem and will sort out ornery wood. 38 being about equivalent to York Pitch and 43 gives an IA of 55.

High carbon steel will take a finer edge but not stay as sharp as long, though will not chip at the usual 25-30 deg honing angles. The main reason for having O1 steel is if you want your LA to really be LA and perhaps give a slightly finer finish.

This is where I have a slight problem, though have not had time to test my LA jack fully to be decided one way or the other; perhaps, since you have many spare blades, you may research this. When honing, the two planes of the blade meet at a very slight radius. The smaller this radius is, the sharper the blade. O1 enables the finest of these radii, hence the better edge than A2. But, the higher the honing angles mean that this radius can never, naturally, be as fine as the lower angles. Therefore, it is probable that O1 steel will be an advantage for sharpness with the higher angles.

For starters, I would get an O1 blade,( if the mood takes you to experiment) and hone it at the usual 25-30 and hone your A 2 blades at higher angles. If you have a spare A2 blade after that, then sharpen at the same angle as the O1 so you can compare edge retention compares to sharpness and edge chipping.

If you are not really bothered about using the LA at low angle, then stick to your A2 blades, they are fine, really. You might just have to creep up on the angle that does not chip for your lowest honing angle. If you hone at 30, then incrementally increase this a couple of degrees at a time, till the chipping is no longer a problem. This will depend a bit on what sort of woods you use, but the consensus is, it will be about 35 deg.

Hope this helps,

Mike.

 

[Argus]

.

I can confess that I also use a primitive sharpening technique - no guides, that is.

I find that you need to give an A2 blade a bit more prolonged welly on a (diamond plate) than a conventional steel blade, but it is fine once sharpened.

I can't get retentive about steel quality. There's good stuff and then there's better stuff.

Effort in equals results out.

.

 

[woodbrains]

.

I can confess that I also use a primitive sharpening technique - no guides, that is.

I find that you need to give an A2 blade a bit more prolonged welly on a (diamond plate) than a conventional steel blade, but it is fine once sharpened.

I can't get retentive about steel quality. There's good stuff and then there's better stuff.

Effort in equals results out.

.

Hello,

Nothing wrong with not using honing guides, whatever works, though you're not too primitive, diamond plates are not exactly old school!

True, there is good stuff and better stuff, some people are more keen than others to find out which is which and why. Lots depend on working methods and materials and other variables, so what might make a big difference to some, might not to others. Ultimately, advice has to be taken as a starting point, but has to be tested to reach a definitive answer.

If we didn't question and try things out, the Bronze Age would not have happened, we would still be using flint, and all these wonderful tools and steels would not be here to confuse and amaze us.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

A2 is fine on oil stones. I thought it'd be a problem but it wasn't.

 

[woodbrains]

A2 is fine on oil stones. I thought it'd be a problem but it wasn't.

Yes, I used oilstones for a long while after I got a few A2 blades (Hock A2 cryo are excellent and were inexpensive when I got them, sadly expensive now). Could still be using them too 'till I switched to Japanese water stones, which are faster, if that matters, and a bit finer. Gets that sharpening radius as small as possible! All forms of 'usual' woodworking sharpening media work, A 2 is not too exotic.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

A2 is fine on oil stones. I thought it'd be a problem but it wasn't.

Yes, I used oilstones for a long while after I got a few A2 blades (Hock A2 cryo are excellent and were inexpensive when I got them, sadly expensive now). Could still be using them too 'till I switched to Japanese water stones, which are faster, if that matters, and a bit finer. Gets that sharpening radius as small as possible! All forms of 'usual' woodworking sharpening media work, A 2 is not too exotic.

Mike.

Not sure where "radius" comes into it. AFAIK a freshly sharpened edge is fairly jagged under a microscope - more like a saw than a cohesive edge. Not surprising really - abrasives essentially scratch the two faces leaving tattered remnants of the burr between. Finer abrasives = finer scratches and smaller tattered bits of burr - which inevitably means more rapid blunting in use.

http://www.spyderco.com/forums/showthre ... cope/page5

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

The theoretical ideal is for the two meeting surfaces to meet with no physical intersection. By eye this looks like what is achieved, (providing we are really sharpening we do ) but in reality, the surfaces never truly meet; there is a change in direction, a u turn, if you like, at the tip. This is the sharpening radius, which is smaller, the finer the abrasive we use to get there. The scratches are there all the same, and obviously finer with smaller abrasive grit. Reductio ad absurdium, the smallest sharpening radius obtainable would be one atom across, but still a radius, edges truly meeting with no junction between is not possible.

Mike.

 

[Tom K]

Atomic sharpening versus the convex bevel?

 

[Jacob]

Hello,

The theoretical ideal is for the two meeting surfaces to meet with no physical intersection. By eye this looks like what is achieved, (providing we are really sharpening we do ) but in reality, the surfaces never truly meet; there is a change in direction, a u turn, if you like, at the tip. This is the sharpening radius, which is smaller, the finer the abrasive we use to get there. The scratches are there all the same, and obviously finer with smaller abrasive grit. Reductio ad absurdium, the smallest sharpening radius obtainable would be one atom across, but still a radius, edges truly meeting with no junction between is not possible.

Mike.

Nope. You will get something like a radius on a blunt blade but sharp is jagged with no radius involved. Have a look at the microscope pictures. As the magnification increases the notion of "surface" disappears and you are looking at a very rough landscape.
You could get a similar effect on a larger scale if you formed a 30 bevel on a board edge, with a coarse rasp.

 

[longinthetooth]

The truth may be a hybrid of woodbrains' & jacob's offerings. Who cares, if it cuts?

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

The theoretical ideal is for the two meeting surfaces to meet with no physical intersection. By eye this looks like what is achieved, (providing we are really sharpening we do ) but in reality, the surfaces never truly meet; there is a change in direction, a u turn, if you like, at the tip. This is the sharpening radius, which is smaller, the finer the abrasive we use to get there. The scratches are there all the same, and obviously finer with smaller abrasive grit. Reductio ad absurdium, the smallest sharpening radius obtainable would be one atom across, but still a radius, edges truly meeting with no junction between is not possible.

Mike.

Nope. You will get something like a radius on a blunt blade but sharp is jagged with no radius involved. Have a look at the microscope pictures. As the magnification increases the notion of "surface" disappears and you are looking at a very rough landscape.
You could get a similar effect on a larger scale if you formed a 30 bevel on a board edge, with a coarse rasp.

Hello,

Jacob, there is no nope about it, because you are right in what you say. Rasp a 30 deg bevel and you will see what I mean. The rasp scratches from the 2 planes that make up the bevel do not truly meet, but there is a sort of 'doughing over' at what, if we stand back to view, looks like a sharp apex. Swap to a finer rasp and the intersection will appear sharper on slightly closer inspection. Swap o a file and the intersection is even sharper, till we look right up close, when we see a smaller doughed over edge. Now swap to a plane, the edge is super sharp, but under a lens, the rounded apex will be apparent.

This is important , because, if the same experiment is done at 50 deg, the doughed over edge is more prevalent at every stage. Which is the point I am making, sharpening steel is essentially the same, but as the bevel gets bigger, the ability to acheive the same llevel of sharpness is diminished. But since A2 steel will not sharpen quite as well a O1 (this sharpening radius is bigger at 30 deg and worse at larger angles) O 1 is going to be sharper at any of the bevels we choose than A2 . Which s where the irony appears, since A2 by nature tends to hold its edge better at larger honing angles.

The radius you are talking about on a blunt blade is essentially the wear bevels from both mating surfaces getting larger. Sharpening reduces the wear bevels closer to a true intersection, but still at a smaller radius, you must see this.
Mike.

 

[woodbrains]

The truth may be a hybrid of woodbrains' & jacob's offerings. Who cares, if it cuts?

I never said the bevels weren't made up of scratches, it was never not a hybrid. The point is I am describing why things cut. And some things cut better.

Mike.

 

[Vann]

...you must see this.

This IS Jacob you're talking to :!:

Cheers, Vann.