Waterstone Advice!

[Dissolve]

Hi,

I've been using a combination waterstone for a while now and after trying scary sharpening and diamond stones I'm sticking with water stones. I've just acquired 3 new planes to add to my fleet so I'm going to sort out my sharpening rig. I don't have room for a grinder/tormek style jig so I'm going to need to stick with coarse stones as the first step.

Is 800 grit coarse enough to re-grind the bevel on a plane iron using a honing guide?

I've always found it difficult to get a mirror finish on the back of a plane iron using my 6000 grit water stone, I'm not looking to spend the earth, but would 8000 grit with a nagura stone be a good place to finish up polishing/honing?

If 800 is coarse enough to re-grind bevels how many stones would you place in between the two? Is 800, 1200, 4000, 8000 a good setup or should I look at less/more stones than that?

What are peoples thoughts on keeping the stones submerged in water? I like the idea of keeping the stones together on a board ready to go, but I know some people seem to insist they must all be kept submerged rather than letting them absorb water just before sharpening?

Any tips on keeping things less messy in the workshop? I know it's going to be more messy than other stones, but if I mount them all on a board (removeable) what materials would be best to make it from?

Thanks guys!

 

[JJ1]

The following site should give you all the advice you need http://www.fine-tools.com/scharf.html.

Whether or not the stones should be kept submerged very much depends on the type of stone. Some stones will benefit from a ten minute soak, whilst a prolonged soak would ruin certain stones. To the other extreme, some just need a spritz of water now and again.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

From my recollections of using waterstones years ago, I'd say that 800 grit is a bit fine for really aggressive reshaping of primary bevels. I had a 260 grit (I think) stone, which cut very fast, but wore very fast too. The simplest way of repairing the wear is a diamond plate, but in it's absence a sheet of coarse wet-and-dry stuck to a flat surface such as glass or melamine faced chipboard will serve well enough.

Working towards obtaining a grinder of some sort - even a hand-cranked one - is a worthwhile aim. A decently set-up grinder will save a lot of time when reshaping primary bevels, and especially when restoring secondhand tools, and in the unfortunate event of an edge getting a biggish chip in it.

On stone grades, the general principle of 'coarse, medium, fine' is not a bad one. With waterstones, something like 260 for heavy reshaping (in the absence of a grinder), 800 or 1000 for the main work of resharpening a working edge (which will be good enough for heavy chopping with chisels, and jack plane irons), and something like about 6000grit for final polishing of smoothing plane irons and paring chisels. Remember that the polishing stone only needs to work on the very edge, not the whole bevel, so increase your honing angle a degree or two above the angle you used on the 1000 grit stone, and just give two or three strokes. That should be all that's really needed.

In general, the simpler you can keep things, the better. Lower first cost, less space required, quicker results - aim to spend as little time as you can on sharpening, to maximise the time spent working wood.

 

[Dissolve]

I have some float glass I could use for initial/primary bevel shaping, would you recommend ordinary wet/dry for the first step or scary sharp papers?

I know it won't be that quick, but I have no space for a grinder (yet) so maybe using a few coarse grits of papers would do the trick for now!

Supposing I use papers to shape the primary bevels every so often, what sort of grade would yippy start at and finish on before moving over to the 800 stone?

I think for now I'll order an 800, 1200 and 6000 and see how I get on. Cost is a factor but if anyone thinks replacing the 6000 with a 4000 and an 8000 then that's an option?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I'd use the coarse waterstone (260 git, or as coarse as you can find) to reshape primary bevels, and flatten the stone (when it needs it) on the wet-and-dry. Trying to grind a lot of metal off a tool with even the coarsest abrasive papers will be a slow old job indeed.

With the primary shaped, establish a secondary (cutting) bevel with something like 800 to 1200 grit (medium) stone, and use the same stone to resharpen as the edge dulls, until the secondary becomes too large and takes too long to re-establish. Then go back to the 260, and regrind the primary bevel. Then create a new secondary on the medium stone again. Only use your fine polishing stone (6000 git, 8000grit or whatever you choose) when you need a really fine edge, and then just polish the very edge, not the whole secondary bevel. That'll make the job quicker - do the minimum amount of work you need to do to get an appropriate working edge.

 

[bugbear]

From my recollections of using waterstones years ago, I'd say that 800 grit is a bit fine for really aggressive reshaping of primary bevels.

Definitely. Many people use 1000 grit (only slightly coarser) as the final stone for kitchen knives; the edge is a little toothy compared to a full polished edge, but cuts well (some people actively prefer a micro serrated edge, which is why double-shear steel was preferred for butcher's knive over cast or bessemer steel).

bugBear

 

[MMUK]

I've always found it difficult to get a mirror finish on the back of a plane iron using my 6000 grit water stone, I'm not looking to spend the earth, but would 8000 grit with a nagura stone be a good place to finish up polishing/honing?

I've always found it easier to 'polish' using wet and dry paper on a flat board (granite or glass). I've gotten some nice polished mirror finishes using P1200 - see my WIP and resto threads.

 

[Dissolve]

So should 6000 be perfectly capable of psyching a mirror finish?

If so I'm doing something wrong! Haha

How far can you jump between the grits? I'm wondering if 800 for initial flattening then 1200, would 6000/8000 be too big of a gap?

I'll get a 220/very coarse stone soon for grinding the initial bevel but for putting a good edge on chisels/plane irons how many stones/grits would be sufficient?

Is 8000 overkill for a mirror finish?

 

[MIGNAL]

It's perfectly possible to go from 100G straight to an 8,000G (or 6,000, or 4,000) waterstone. In fact one of the set ups that I used for years was 100G on a hand crank grinder. The 8,000 waterstone would do the micro bevel after the hand crank. You just need the polished glint right along the full width of the blade. As soon as that is achieved, stop. Resharpening would then be always done on the 8,000 stone until the polished bevel became too wide. Then it was back to the hand crank, stopping as the rougher grind approached the polished edge. The skill came in leaving just a tiny glint of the polished edge. After a bit of practice it wasn't that difficult to do. A Hand crank gives you a lot of control. The whole system works because of this control and the fact that 8,000G waterstones still cut fairly fast.

 

[bugbear]

So should 6000 be perfectly capable of psyching a mirror finish?

Shiny and very sharp - Yes; full mirror - No.

BugBear

 

[Dissolve]

It's perfectly possible to go from 100G straight to an 8,000G (or 6,000, or 4,000) waterstone. In fact one of the set ups that I used for years was 100G on a hand crank grinder. The 8,000 waterstone would do the micro bevel after the hand crank. You just need the polished glint right along the full width of the blade. As soon as that is achieved, stop. Resharpening would then be always done on the 8,000 stone until the polished bevel became too wide. Then it was back to the hand crank, stopping as the rougher grind approached the polished edge. The skill came in leaving just a tiny glint of the polished edge. After a bit of practice it wasn't that difficult to do. A Hand crank gives you a lot of control. The whole system works because of this control and the fact that 8,000G waterstones still cut fairly fast.

I don't consider myself a master of sharpening "theory" if you will, but just to clarify, you're saying to use a very coarse waterstone for grinding the primary bevel, then taking the primary bevel to the 8000 grit polishing stone, raising the angle by a few degrees then touching the very edge onto the 8,000 to give you the finished edge?

I've seen many people swear by grinding the primary bevel, then creating a second bevel with medium stones THEN raising a few degrees and polishing the micro bevel.. is it necessary to have two bevels and a micro bevel rather than as you have described?

 

[MIGNAL]

No, the Handcrank wasn't a waterstone. Just a coarse wheel at 100G
It's a two bevel system. One created with a 100G Grinder (or very rough stone) and a second (higher) bevel created with a very fine finishing stone. In my case an 8,000G waterstone. I'm sure 6,000G will work. Any fine grade stone that cuts fairly quickly will do. My Arkansas stone was pretty poor with this method, far too slow cutting.
The rough stone only ever touches the blade edge at the start of the method. From then on you only use it to grind back to very near the tip of the blade. In other words, don't overshoot. If you overshoot with the rough stone it simply means that you have a lot more to do with the very fine stone. You also lose more blade metal.

 

[carlb40]

I have the ice bear 6000 grit stone and have never had a problem getting a mirror polish from it on my plane irons/ chisels.

I agree the 800 will be too fine for initial grinding. It will do the job - eventually, but other stones are quicker.

The 220/240 grit stone from axi is what i used in the past.

If you do use wet and dry, be careful with the courser grits. I have now ruined 2 guides from the grit getting in the rollers and causing uneven wear. One of which was my favourite - the kell mk2.
So a new one is now needed.

I now use scary sharp on individual trespa 'stones' and find it quicker for sharpening.
I have also recently restocked on the original films and also purchased the industrial versions to do a direct comparision.

After re reading your OP. These are/were the 3 stones i used and never felt the need to have anything between the 1200/6000

http://www.axminster.co.uk/japanese-coarse-waterstones

http://www.axminster.co.uk/japanese-medium-waterstone

6000g version
http://www.axminster.co.uk/japanese-fin ... aterstones

 

[Jacob]

If you just want sharp tools you can avoid all the above complications and use an oil-stone freehand.
Modern sharpening has become a hobby in it's own right, but isn't necessarily the best thing, if you just want to do woodwork.

 

[Vann]

...is it necessary to have two bevels and a micro bevel rather than as you have described?

Some people prefer a single bevel, some have two, some go for primary, secondary and micro bevels. Jacob of this forum recommends a convex bevel (effectively dozens of tiny bevels forming a curve).

It doesn't really matter - whatever works for you - so long as the bevel at the pointy end is the one you need (e.g. 30* for a bevel-down plane blade. HTH.

I initially aimed for three, but now usually settle for two bevels. When preparing a new old blade I prepare my cutting edges on a hand crank grindstone (I prefer not to risk overheating on my power grinder), then use the coarse side of my old oilstone for coarse grinding, a 1200g waterstone for fine grinding, and a 6000g waterstone for the final edge. Unless I ding the damn thing I seldom use more than the last two stones after that (to renew the edge as it dulls with wear). I don't seem to be able to get a mirror polish off my 6000g waterstone either (well it's more like the mirror when I step out of the shower :roll: ).

Cheers, Vann.

 

[mqbernardo]

FWIW a Naniwa SuperStone 5 K leaves a mirror polish. Slow to get it, but it gets there.
As an aside, i just got a Naniwa Snow White 8K stone (from here ), and it seems to tackle a blade directly from a Shapton Pro 1K pretty fast (well, at least much faster than my previous 8K SuperStone which is what i can compare it with). Nice stone.

 

[Dissolve]

I have the ice bear 6000 grit stone and have never had a problem getting a mirror polish from it on my plane irons/ chisels.

I agree the 800 will be too fine for initial grinding. It will do the job - eventually, but other stones are quicker.

The 220/240 grit stone from axi is what i used in the past.

If you do use wet and dry, be careful with the courser grits. I have now ruined 2 guides from the grit getting in the rollers and causing uneven wear. One of which was my favourite - the kell mk2.
So a new one is now needed.

I now use scary sharp on individual trespa 'stones' and find it quicker for sharpening.
I have also recently restocked on the original films and also purchased the industrial versions to do a direct comparision.

After re reading your OP. These are/were the 3 stones i used and never felt the need to have anything between the 1200/6000

http://www.axminster.co.uk/japanese-coarse-waterstones

http://www.axminster.co.uk/japanese-medium-waterstone

6000g version
http://www.axminster.co.uk/japanese-fin ... aterstones

After grinding the initial bevel with the 240 grit stone, did you work on that same bevel any more with the 1200 or did you then use 1200 to create a secondary bevel which you then polished at the same angle on the 6000 stone?

It's strange how some people say 6000 is plenty fine enough to polish a mirror finish and others just can't do it. Would you mind explaining (briefly) what steps you took on those three stones to prepare a chisel/plane iron?

It makes sense to me to grind a primary bevel then create the secondary bevel to sharpen/hone rather than polishing the entire primary bevel, but could anyone shed some light on why people grind the initial bevel, followed by a secondary bevel (medium stone) which is then further bevelled on super fine stones? What benefit does this method have over a primary bevel and a secondary/honed bevel?

Thanks!

 

[carlb40]

After the course stone i then used the 1200 and 6000 on the primary bevel. Then if sharpening plane irons or chisels other than my jap ones whiche required a secondary bevel, then i just went straight to the 6000. I found the 1200 a little too course for micro bevels.

EDIT

Now i have more time. Lets take a new chisel/ plane iron as an example. First up i would flatten / polish the back. That would leave course scratch marks and i would keep going yuntil flat. Then after wiping the blade i would then move onto the 1200g stone and do the same, until it left a flat but dull greyish surface. Then i would move onto the 6000g and do the same again until it was a mirror surface. Then i would repeat the above on the bevel, plus if not a jap chisel add the micro bevel.

 

[Vann]

EDIT

...leave course scratch marks and i would keep going yuntil flat. Then after wiping the blade i would then move onto the 1200g stone and do the same, until it left a flat but dull greyish surface. Then i would move onto the 6000g and do the same again until it was a mirror surface. Then i would repeat the above on the bevel, plus if not a jap chisel add the micro bevel.

Interesting approach. I cannot see a reason to polish any bevel at the final 6000g - except the final micro bevel. If I did my coarse, medium and fine grinding/honing all on the same bevel, I would stop there and not put on a micro-bevel.

I use two or three bevels to save all the work of polishing the entire previous bevel up to the next grit. After all, it's only the cutting edge that needs to be polished - the next 3 or 4 mm don't matter to the wood.

My tuppence worth...

Cheers, Vann.

 

[carlb40]

EDIT

...leave course scratch marks and i would keep going yuntil flat. Then after wiping the blade i would then move onto the 1200g stone and do the same, until it left a flat but dull greyish surface. Then i would move onto the 6000g and do the same again until it was a mirror surface. Then i would repeat the above on the bevel, plus if not a jap chisel add the micro bevel.

Interesting approach. I cannot see a reason to polish any bevel at the final 6000g - except the final micro bevel. If I did my coarse, medium and fine gringing/honing all on the same bevel, I would stop there and not put on a micro-bevel.

I use two or three bevels to save all the work of polishing the entire previous bevel up to the next grit. After all, it's only the cutting edge that needs to be polished - the next 3 or 4 mm don't matter to the wood.

My tuppence worth...

Cheers, Vann.

I just like my tools shiny :mrgreen:

The japanese chisels only use a primary bevel, so they would need the full 6000g. However some people do apply a micro bevel to them, i stick to the single bevel on them.