Which grade of Diamond plate for final honing

[Trafalgar]

When it comes to abrasives and sharpening media, people seem to be getting out of touch with reality.

Just take a hard look at the work of 17th, 18th, 19th century artisans - be they joiners, gunsmiths, clock makers, whatever.

It is very obvious these people could never achieve to do any good woork - barely average - with the poor materials and equipment available at the time, isn't it? Fortunately they didn't know it and left us all those works of art for us to wonder at...

Hello,

We often have the contention that workers of old did fabulous work with lesser tools than we have today, and I'm afraid it is bunkham. The tools they had were often the best that were available, as toolmakers exhibited the same pride and skil as the artisans who used the tools. Steel was as good as it could be made, where as steel is made as good as it can be to a price, so old steel is often at least as good as we have nowadays and arguably sometimes better. The tools they had were better than most of the tools offered to the DIY market and even many of the tools offered to the Trade. I would prefer to have any old tool, woodie, infil, whatever than something made by Stanley of Irwin etc. of the last 30 years. Thankfully some tool makers are giving us tools that are back to the standards of tool these old makers had. And at prices in real terms that are no more expensive in real terms as the old craftsmen would have had to pay.

Some of the reasons that their work was so good, aside from their skill, was time, they spent a lot more man hours on what they made, because things were not done to such price cutting as we now have to endure and also people worked long hours with poor pay and conditions. There are many reasons,work of those times were good, but it wasn't done with poor tools by any stretch. Nor ones which were not sharpened with the best media available, slate, carborundum, novaculite, etc. whatever could be quarried locally. All these things are good now and if they are obtainable, are still used. We live in a modern age though, so if we make alternatives that are more convenient, or surpass what has gone before, why should we not use them. After all, we do not have the fabulously tractable old growth Cuban Mahogany that was abundant then either. We have to make stuff from far less easy stuff.

Mike.

You ought to read this if you think they 'spent more man hours on what they made:'

http://www.wpatrickedwards.com/particle.htm

Patrick Edwards' Home Page:

http://www.wpatrickedwards.com/

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

I'm not saying they were not quick or did not work intensely, but the fact is a pice of furniture would have been made by many hands in a production line type affair. There were lots of man hours, because there were lots of men contributing to the whole. It matters not. They still used good sharp tools, the notion that they did great work with lesser tools is false.

Regarding the naming of things, we have to call a thing something to communicate what we mean. Japanese stones is a fairly universal name for what we all know them to be. Authenticity is irrelevant; after all, Warrington hammers, Lancashire pattern pincers or Lonon pattern chisels were often not made any where near where the name suggests. In fact have you ever made London pattern dovetails?

Mike.

 

[Shrubby]

To add to the discussion on sharpening methods of days gone - I've inherited sharpening kit and in both instances there was a double sided oilstone you would expect and another much finer stone in a fitted wooden box carefully wrapped in cloth like some ancient treasure. One a Celebrated German Razor Hone and the second a very hard mottled green stone which is nice to finish curved tools on. Both of the finer stones showed lots of signs of use .Sadly the original owners weren't around to tell the tales that go with the tools
Matt

 

[GLFaria]

When it comes to abrasives and sharpening media, people seem to be getting out of touch with reality.

Just take a hard look at the work of 17th, 18th, 19th century artisans - be they joiners, gunsmiths, clock makers, whatever.

It is very obvious these people could never achieve to do any good woork - barely average - with the poor materials and equipment available at the time, isn't it? Fortunately they didn't know it and left us all those works of art for us to wonder at...

Hello,

We often have the contention that workers of old did fabulous work with lesser tools than we have today, and I'm afraid it is bunkham. The tools they had were often the best that were available, as toolmakers exhibited the same pride and skil as the artisans who used the tools. Steel was as good as it could be made, where as steel is made as good as it can be to a price, so old steel is often at least as good as we have nowadays and arguably sometimes better. The tools they had were better than most of the tools offered to the DIY market and even many of the tools offered to the Trade. I would prefer to have any old tool, woodie, infil, whatever than something made by Stanley of Irwin etc. of the last 30 years. Thankfully some tool makers are giving us tools that are back to the standards of tool these old makers had. And at prices in real terms that are no more expensive in real terms as the old craftsmen would have had to pay.

Some of the reasons that their work was so good, aside from their skill, was time, they spent a lot more man hours on what they made, because things were not done to such price cutting as we now have to endure and also people worked long hours with poor pay and conditions. There are many reasons,work of those times were good, but it wasn't done with poor tools by any stretch. Nor ones which were not sharpened with the best media available, slate, carborundum, novaculite, etc. whatever could be quarried locally. All these things are good now and if they are obtainable, are still used. We live in a modern age though, so if we make alternatives that are more convenient, or surpass what has gone before, why should we not use them. After all, we do not have the fabulously tractable old growth Cuban Mahogany that was abundant then either. We have to make stuff from far less easy stuff.

Mike.

That's not my point. I am not talking of time or price. My point is, basically, that there is no need to go to certain extremities in the hope of getting a good work done for it. Past the basics - and I am in no doubt that "basics" has a totally different meaning if you are a professional or just an amateur - what counts is the workman's knowledge and ability.
Ever looked carefully at a fine hunting rifle of the 18th century? The quality of the surfaces, the staightness of the lines and arrises, the finish?

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

No; time, effort, motivation etc. etc. are just some of the other factors that added to the reasons good work was done in days of old. Which was part of the reason why they had good tools ( the best that were around) and well looked after and sharpened. All the stars were in alignment. Any one that would have been lacking and they would not have produced the fine work they did.

The fineness of the work, be it an old shotgun, or whatever only reinforces that the tools were great and the sharpening was equal to it. Abrasive paper is only relatively recent introduction. They did have some abrasives available, but they were not as reliant on it as modern woodworkers. The fine edges came more or less, straight from the tool. This cannot be done unless the tools were razor sharp and working well.

I have met many excellent craftsmen and many are capable of doing work equal or surpassing what has gone. The reasons it often is not done, is not lack of skill, or over fussing with tools, but economics, pure and simple.

Mike.

 

[bugbear]

To add to the discussion on sharpening methods of days gone - I've inherited sharpening kit and in both instances there was a double sided oilstone you would expect and another much finer stone in a fitted wooden box carefully wrapped in cloth like some ancient treasure. One a Celebrated German Razor Hone and the second a very hard mottled green stone which is nice to finish curved tools on. Both of the finer stones showed lots of signs of use .Sadly the original owners weren't around to tell the tales that go with the tools
Matt

Thre latter is the fanous Charnley Forest, They give a very fine finish, but hell, they're slow.

But considered worth the time in the old days.

BugBear

 

[Trafalgar]

Hello,

I'm not saying they were not quick or did not work intensely, but the fact is a pice of furniture would have been made by many hands in a production line type affair. There were lots of man hours, because there were lots of men contributing to the whole. It matters not. They still used good sharp tools, the notion that they did great work with lesser tools is false.

Regarding the naming of things, we have to call a thing something to communicate what we mean. Japanese stones is a fairly universal name for what we all know them to be. Authenticity is irrelevant; after all, Warrington hammers, Lancashire pattern pincers or Lonon pattern chisels were often not made any where near where the name suggests. In fact have you ever made London pattern dovetails?

Mike.

In the main I agree Mike. "Japanese" has become a generic term for waterstones. Yes, I have made very skinny dovetails. But London Pattern does communicate the concept in only a few words.

As for the woodworkers of yore, whatever they may have found lacking in their overall toolkit they found a way to overcome it:

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/D ... oryID=1336

If this is the kind of work that can be accomplished with lousy honing media, bad steel, and the resulting dull edge tools then I need some of each. Don't you?

 

[Bluekingfisher]

I finally got around to using the 2000 grit W&D paper. I have to say, I wasn't able to see or detect any noticeable difference in the final polish of the honed edge or a difference in the quality of the cut over the 1200 grit variert.??

The 1200 grit paper I am using is the stuff from Tool Station at £2.60 for a pack of ten 280mm x 230mm sheets. I use it dry and it doesn't tear, unless of course you go at it like a bull in a china shop. There may of course be a difference of the grits from the various brands. However, for the difference in price i will stick with the Tool Station stuff

i also found that using the Silverline polishing compound (0n a leather strop) gave a better polished surface on its own as opposed to using a drizzle of oil, which I assume it purely to create a little lubrication and prevent the blade sticking?

David

 

[bugbear]

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/D ... oryID=1336

If this is the kind of work that can be accomplished with lousy honing media, bad steel, and the resulting dull edge tools then I need some of each. Don't you?

You are Phil Connors, and I claim my five pounds

post877708.html?hilit=hindered#p877708

BugBear

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Who's Phil Connors?

 

[J_SAMa]

I finally got around to using the 2000 grit W&D paper. I have to say, I wasn't able to see or detect any noticeable difference in the final polish of the honed edge or a difference in the quality of the cut over the 1200 grit variert.??

Above 1200, the scratches are basically invisible... Not noticing the difference in quality of cut may be due to the way you sharpen, e.g. if you removed the burr properly

i also found that using the Silverline polishing compound (0n a leather strop) gave a better polished surface on its own as opposed to using a drizzle of oil, which I assume it purely to create a little lubrication and prevent the blade sticking?

That might have been because the blade wasn't wiped down properly, and the residual oil/compound mixture made the surface appear matte... Are you using a thick oil? I only ever pour some baby oil (same as what I use on oilstones) over a FRESH strop, before I even apply the compound. The oil will soak into the leather and as I press the blade onto it during any subsequent uses it will seep back up a little, lubricating the strop. For obvious reasons, don't use BLO or any finishing oil that will dry up. Some compounds are very "waxy" and may not even need additional lubrication. The leather I have is chamois, the type used for cars. It's thin and can get "compressed" a little during use, resulting in a very little "give".

But use whatever substrate with whatever lubrication you want, you will always end up with a very sharp edge. The green compound is wonderful stuff.

Sam

 

[bugbear]

I mean, why not? If we should move from a Black Arky to a waterstone then why stop at a waterstone? And I'm sure there are other industrial and aerospace polishes even finer than those above. It becomes arbitrary, almost, one's stopping point.

Indeed. Especially when using a jig, it's really easy to proceed though a sequence of ever finer grits, 5-10 strokes each. One may or may not detect much difference much of the time, but "why not" (since it's easy) is indeed a driving motivation. Since the wear
on the fine abrasives is very low, even expensive and/or delicate ones have a long life (and hence low cost-per-use)

BugBear

 

[Bluekingfisher]

I finally got around to using the 2000 grit W&D paper. I have to say, I wasn't able to see or detect any noticeable difference in the final polish of the honed edge or a difference in the quality of the cut over the 1200 grit variert.??

Above 1200, the scratches are basically invisible... Not noticing the difference in quality of cut may be due to the way you sharpen, e.g. if you removed the burr properly

i also found that using the Silverline polishing compound (0n a leather strop) gave a better polished surface on its own as opposed to using a drizzle of oil, which I assume it purely to create a little lubrication and prevent the blade sticking?

That might have been because the blade wasn't wiped down properly, and the residual oil/compound mixture made the surface appear matte... Are you using a thick oil? I only ever pour some baby oil (same as what I use on oilstones) over a FRESH strop, before I even apply the compound. The oil will soak into the leather and as I press the blade onto it during any subsequent uses it will seep back up a little, lubricating the strop. For obvious reasons, don't use BLO or any finishing oil that will dry up. Some compounds are very "waxy" and may not even need additional lubrication. The leather I have is chamois, the type used for cars. It's thin and can get "compressed" a little during use, resulting in a very little "give".

But use whatever substrate with whatever lubrication you want, you will always end up with a very sharp edge. The green compound is wonderful stuff.

Sam

Hi Sam,

Firstly, I use a strop of leather, approx 2mm thick (originally the interior pocket of a satchel) glued to a piece of MDF. I just charge the leather with the green compound and with the blade still in the Veritas honing jig, draw it toward me 15-20 times.

This has given excellent results on its own. I then remove the iron from the jig, place it on the strop and draw it towards me once, check it to ensure the wire has been removed. I it again if required. i also use the heel of my hand as a strop, giving it a couple of light strokes. This is enough to shave the hair on my arm which I assume is sharp enough?

As mentioned, stepping up to 2000 didn't show any difference. My eyes are starting to fail admittedly but i wasn't able to see scratch marks on the beveled edge at 1200 grit.

BTW - I hone the primary bevel at 25 degrees and the micro bevel at 30. Does it need to be honed at a steeper angle.

I used light 3 in 1 oil on the experiment, you are right, it produced a matt glaze to the blade although that was easily cleaned off with a soft rag.

David

 

[Cheshirechappie]

David - it sounds to me like you're getting pretty close to cracking sharpening. If you can get an arm-hair shaving edge without much bother, you really don't need to go any further. For some applications - rough planing, heavy chopping with chisels - that's arguably sharper than you need; you could stop one stage further back in the sharpening regime; as long as you remove the wire edge, it'll do.

Primary bevel at 25 degrees and secondary (or micro, or whatever anybody else calls it) at 30 degrees is good for about 95% of applications. Some blades (those of A2 steel sometimes, but not always) like a slightly higher 'secondary' angle, as do tools for heavy chopping, such as mortice chisels used in hardwoods. A few tools, such as carving chisels for use on softer woods and very fine paring chisels, can go to lower angles (grind at 20 degrees, hone at 22 or so degrees, for example), but these are exceptions, not the general rule. Experience will tell you what a particular plane iron or chisel will like for a particular duty, but 25/30 degrees is almost always a good starting point.

There's no reason at all why people shouldn't experiment a bit with sharpening to see what works for them, especially in the 'improver' stages of woodworking. Most experienced workers, though, gravitate to a fairly simple and quick system, with three stages being quite common - 1) grind for bulk removal of metal to repair damaged or 'honed out' edges, 2) honing on something like a fine India, or medium to fine diamond or water stone for workaday edges, and 3) a fine polishing stone or other fine media for when the ultimate edge is needed. The strop can be used after honing to remove the wire edge, though the edge from some polishing stones (Welsh slate, translucent Arkansas, fine waterstones) is good enough to need no stropping.

There are, of course, umpteen variations on this three-step approach, and once you've found one that works for you, stick with it. It can take a bit of practice to develop a consistent technique that gives you good working edges without much thinking about it, but that applies to almost anything in life!

 

[Bluekingfisher]

David - it sounds to me like you're getting pretty close to cracking sharpening. If you can get an arm-hair shaving edge without much bother, you really don't need to go any further. For some applications - rough planing, heavy chopping with chisels - that's arguably sharper than you need; you could stop one stage further back in the sharpening regime; as long as you remove the wire edge, it'll do.

Primary bevel at 25 degrees and secondary (or micro, or whatever anybody else calls it) at 30 degrees is good for about 95% of applications. Some blades (those of A2 steel sometimes, but not always) like a slightly higher 'secondary' angle, as do tools for heavy chopping, such as mortice chisels used in hardwoods. A few tools, such as carving chisels for use on softer woods and very fine paring chisels, can go to lower angles (grind at 20 degrees, hone at 22 or so degrees, for example), but these are exceptions, not the general rule. Experience will tell you what a particular plane iron or chisel will like for a particular duty, but 25/30 degrees is almost always a good starting point.

There's no reason at all why people shouldn't experiment a bit with sharpening to see what works for them, especially in the 'improver' stages of woodworking. Most experienced workers, though, gravitate to a fairly simple and quick system, with three stages being quite common - 1) grind for bulk removal of metal to repair damaged or 'honed out' edges, 2) honing on something like a fine India, or medium to fine diamond or water stone for workaday edges, and 3) a fine polishing stone or other fine media for when the ultimate edge is needed. The strop can be used after honing to remove the wire edge, though the edge from some polishing stones (Welsh slate, translucent Arkansas, fine waterstones) is good enough to need no stropping.

There are, of course, umpteen variations on this three-step approach, and once you've found one that works for you, stick with it. It can take a bit of practice to develop a consistent technique that gives you good working edges without much thinking about it, but that applies to almost anything in life!

Thanks CC for the reassurance, it appears I am at least heading in the right direction - I have always tried to keep my cutting tools as sharp as possible, although from what i have picked up from the forum members over the past few days, only to a level you describe as "workaday" sharpness, which has generally been fine The obstruction in my sharpening advancement was probably my exposure to the many variables involved in sharpening. Being an individual of simple needs I was looking for a way to glean sharp edges by the simplest method, nothing worse than faffing around in the middle of a job with various equipment needing to be dragged out.

Anyway, i think I have a preferred method now, thanks again to all those who contributed. It has been much appreciated.

David

 

[Trafalgar]

I mean, why not? If we should move from a Black Arky to a waterstone then why stop at a waterstone? And I'm sure there are other industrial and aerospace polishes even finer than those above. It becomes arbitrary, almost, one's stopping point.

Indeed. Especially when using a jig, it's really easy to proceed though a sequence of ever finer grits, 5-10 strokes each. One may or may not detect much difference much of the time, but "why not" (since it's easy) is indeed a driving motivation. Since the wear
on the fine abrasives is very low, even expensive and/or delicate ones have a long life (and hence low cost-per-use)

BugBear

The "why not" was sort of tongue in cheek. There are finer abrasives out there and nobody *appears* to be using them. Everybody has picked a stopping point somewhere short of the state of the art in polishing.

 

[woodbrains]

In the main I agree Mike. "Japanese" has become a generic term for waterstones. Yes, I have made very skinny dovetails. But London Pattern does communicate the concept in only a few words.

As for the woodworkers of yore, whatever they may have found lacking in their overall toolkit they found a way to overcome it:

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/D ... oryID=1336

If this is the kind of work that can be accomplished with lousy honing media, bad steel, and the resulting dull edge tools then I need some of each. Don't you?

Hello,
This work is, of course, fabulous, you'll get no argument from me there. We do not have to imagine disadvantages for the craftsmen who made them, though, the pieces are remarkable enough, to have been made by men. We all know wood and it could not be cut cleanly and precicely with dull tools then as now. It is unnecessary to pretend that all this fabulous craftsmanship was done with poor tools, and bad sharpening practice. Do we really think that the people who were skilful enough to produce these things lacked the basic skill of sharpening? Modern workshops, that make bespoke things, are not a lot different than we would see back in those days. Ok, there will be electric things like routers, that could have only been imagined then, but the hand tool kits and benches would have been very similar. Less moulding planes, sure, but economics dictates that some things cannot be done that way now. Less people have to be employed to do the work, so electricity makes up for bodies, though not skill. The one thing that would be worse in those days and which little could have been done to rectify, was LIGHT. I'm sure their tools were great, their skill, the steel, but how did they work in the dim workshop interiors and produce this amazing stuff? =D> =D> =D>

Mike.

 

[Trafalgar]

It actually almost looks implausible and impossible the longer one looks at it. Yet there it is in its unequaled glory. Whatever impediments existed had to be rather minor if the output has the ultimate say in the matter.

The ability to hone to dermatone status was pretty far down the list of required skills I would imagine. Sharp, yes. Way out I'm a honing wonk sort of sharpness, no.

Regarding light: Surely, the better shops had lots of windows.

 

[Alder]

Reading this thread and in particular mention of a much earlier generation of woodworkers reminded me of a common sight at farm sales in Pembrokeshire in the 60s which was that of large grindstone (20 to30 inches diameter) mounted on a stand and rotated by muscle power. In the agricultural context these would have been used to sharpen scythes or hooks and other large cutting tools.
The question therefore is would similar grindstones have been used to sharpen hand tools?
My late father had a bicycle wheel brazed on the shaft of the grindstone. and an old vacuum cleaner motor mounted on the same frame, the pulley on the motor was so small that the belt driven rotation speed matched that of hand turning.
If the answer to the question on hand tools in the affirmative then had I kept my fathers grindstone then it would not have been necessary for me to attend at Peter Sefton's two day sharpening course which I am booked to do next month.
Russell

 

[AndyT]

Yes, big wet grindstones were used to sharpen hand tools.
Our school woodwork shop had one, though it did have an electric motor. A constant trickle of water kept everything cool.

Similar grindstones would have been used in Sheffield of course, where all the tools came from!

I suppose there aren't so many Yorkshire masons cutting natural grindstones these days, and they take so much space, so a Tormek becomes a more practical choice.