Woodworker, 1950

[bugbear]

Always something new...

I'll add my own observations later.

BugBear (lighting blue touchpaper)

 

[Spindle]

[-X [-X [-X

 

[Phil Pascoe]

That, of course, is the wrong way to do it. :shock: :lol:

 

[Harbo]

Nice to see some written evidence of actual traditional sharpening methods?

Rod

 

[Cheshirechappie]

The 'anonymous author' is possibly Charles Hayward. The magazine was operated on a shoestring, and Hayward often contributed the bulk of the content. He served his time as a cabinetmaker just before and after WW1, so the tone of the article fits with a tradesman of his 'vintage'.

Edit to add - ....or perhaps not. After posting the comment, I checked the sharpening technique outlined in my late father's copy of Hayward's 'Teach Yourself Woodwork', and it's a bit different. In the book, Hayward has a ring on one finger, uses a different motion of iron on stone, and suggests a different grip on a plane iron. The author of the article does seem to be of about the same age as Hayward, though. They must have been apprenticed at about the same time. Possibly a collegue of Hayward's?

 

[G S Haydon]

Love it! Thanks for posting

 

[Trafalgar]

Certainly a rational way to hold and move the cutter when it is wider than the stone. Not the only way, but a rational one nevertheless and it would tend to keep the stones flat. Everything seemed more precious back then, as well it should be and have been, especially right after the war.

The only quibble I have is the 30* plus angle for 'all tools.' I think it's too high for chisels, but it's a matter than comes down to personal preference and the percentage of time one tends to power a chisel with the mallet. The fellows back then didn't seem to have a bench chisel for every degree of the compass rose as a lot do now.

It's good that the writer points out the use of the grinder to manage the size of the secondary. It's a must with this kind of sharpening, especially on chisels which will be needed for paring. As the secondary grows, even if the angle is maintained, chisels seem harder to push. "Chips curl away at the sharpening bevel and find immediate clearance at the ground portion."

Intriguing for the author to mention that plane irons would "...hold up for 2 1/2 hours of hard work..." or words to the effect.

 

[MIGNAL]

Circular or figure 8 movements are unnecessary complex. Not that it doesn't work, just that it makes things a little more difficult.
Which is why I use short forward/back strokes, gradually creeping up and down the stone. Makes perfect sense to me. In actual practice it really is so easy.

 

[Trafalgar]

Agree about the figure 8/circles, etc. "stuff" but it's odd how often this method shows up in old and not so relatively old manuals and articles, like the one in this thread from 1950.

I wonder if we're missing something?

 

[bugbear]

It's a nice clear exposition of the basic method and motivation of double bevel,
and how it allows slow cutting fine natural stones to be used effectively.
He's clearly after a very good edge, since his
"modern" solution is 3 stones; india-washita-arkansas.

The other point is that he's talking about a plane blade
having a planing-life of 2 1/2 hours, and having 4 blades, so
he can do a full working day without stopping to sharpen at all.

The small movements instead of full length strokes
is a solution to keeping the honing angle pretty near constant
which is important in double bevel; his two bevels are obviously
quite distinct, since he actually talks of measuring the cutting
bevel (more comonly called a honing bevel) at 1/64"

BugBear

 

[MIGNAL]

Agree about the figure 8/circles, etc. "stuff" but it's odd how often this method shows up in old and not so relatively old manuals and articles, like the one in this thread from 1950.

I wonder if we're missing something?

Nothing, dependent on what you are trying to achieve. Using long strokes allows you to go 'at it' with more vigour, so removing metal faster. However if you use a two bevel, coarse/fine stone you only really need to maintain what you have. Never let the secondary bevel become too wide. So the system that I use relies on a coarse stone, followed by a very fine stone. Very short strokes are perfect for this. As in Golf, Playing a Violin etc. the larger and more extravagant the movement, the more that can go wrong. Just think economy of movement. It's just not very effective when trying to remove a slight nick or for a major change in primary angle.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Nice to see a description of how simple and basic chisel and plane sharpening can be, although the circular thing does seem a bit prissy and fussy to me. I am forever mystified by the complexity of sharpening that seems to be the current fashion amongst sharpening gurus. I reckon I can teach a beginner to sharpen effectively in less than ten minutes if they pay attention and are willing to put in between half an hour and an hour of practice. I can only surmise there's good money to be made out there for those that make sharpening so difficult and gadget needy. In reality all those complexities, props and guides are generally superfluous distractions that take sharpening from being a quickly executed task to a time consuming and tedious ritual. Slainte.

 

[Lons]

#-o (hammer)

 

[Trafalgar]

It's a nice clear exposition of the basic method and motivation of double bevel,
and how it allows slow cutting fine natural stones to be used effectively.
He's clearly after a very good edge, since his
"modern" solution is 3 stones; india-washita-arkansas.

The other point is that he's talking about a plane blade
having a planing-life of 2 1/2 hours, and having 4 blades, so
he can do a full working day without stopping to sharpen at all.

The small movements instead of full length strokes
is a solution to keeping the honing angle pretty near constant
which is important in double bevel; his two bevels are obviously
quite distinct, since he actually talks of measuring the cutting
bevel (more comonly called a honing bevel) at 1/64"

BugBear

Here's my setup, whattya know, India, Washita, Black Ark in that order from left to right:

 

[bugbear]

It's a nice clear exposition of the basic method and motivation of double bevel,
and how it allows slow cutting fine natural stones to be used effectively.
He's clearly after a very good edge, since his
"modern" solution is 3 stones; india-washita-arkansas.

The other point is that he's talking about a plane blade
having a planing-life of 2 1/2 hours, and having 4 blades, so
he can do a full working day without stopping to sharpen at all.

The small movements instead of full length strokes
is a solution to keeping the honing angle pretty near constant
which is important in double bevel; his two bevels are obviously
quite distinct, since he actually talks of measuring the cutting
bevel (more comonly called a honing bevel) at 1/64"

BugBear

Here's my setup, whattya know, India, Washita, Black Ark in that order from left to right:

So have you measured your secondary/cutting/honing bevel for us? Break out the ruler!

BugBear

 

[David C]

I suppose this hand held, oil stone, cant, explains why I never see truly sharp edges on clients tools.

There was one notable exception. He was professor of orthapaedic medicine at the royal vetinary college.

There is a general tendency not to pay enough attention to the flat side. And fine grit Japanese waterstones are significantly superior to Arkansas stones.

David Charlesworth

 

[Trafalgar]

I suppose this hand held, oil stone, cant, explains why I never see truly sharp edges on clients tools.

There was one notable exception. He was professor of orthapaedic medicine at the royal vetinary college.

There is a general tendency not to pay enough attention to the flat side. And fine grit Japanese waterstones are significantly superior to Arkansas stones.

David Charlesworth

Flawed logic, David. People who can sharpen aren't taking your classes (your lone veterinarian excepted). They never cross the threshold of your shop.

If Japanese stones are so good then why all the bevels and tricks? Your sharpening regimen frankly is the best argument there is that something must be lacking in the stones and other gear you use. If Japanese stones are so fine and so fast then why all the frou-frou technique? There seems to exist the barely rebuttable presumption that one would simply sharpen as the Japanese do. Seems to work for them. I assume that their entire methodology of honing grew around the stones that were available to them and not the other way around. It is difficult to impose one's will on geologic processes; the Earth gives one what it will. Do they advocate putting four bevels on plane irons? I honestly don't know for sure, but am under the impression that they do not. If not, should we conclude that they are simply unenlightened and not using their own gear to its best effect?

This sort of work, it sometimes can seem, only exists as a figment of somebody's Western woodworking imagination. Yet here it is from the 18th and early 19th centuries and from English makers. I think it is safe to say the tools would have been sharpened with only Western-quarried stones.

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/G ... oryid=1336

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/G ... oryid=1336

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/P ... oryid=1365

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/G ... oryid=1362

 

[Trafalgar]

It's a nice clear exposition of the basic method and motivation of double bevel,
and how it allows slow cutting fine natural stones to be used effectively.
He's clearly after a very good edge, since his
"modern" solution is 3 stones; india-washita-arkansas.

The other point is that he's talking about a plane blade
having a planing-life of 2 1/2 hours, and having 4 blades, so
he can do a full working day without stopping to sharpen at all.

The small movements instead of full length strokes
is a solution to keeping the honing angle pretty near constant
which is important in double bevel; his two bevels are obviously
quite distinct, since he actually talks of measuring the cutting
bevel (more comonly called a honing bevel) at 1/64"

BugBear

Here's my setup, whattya know, India, Washita, Black Ark in that order from left to right:

So have you measured your secondary/cutting/honing bevel for us? Break out the ruler!

BugBear

Heavens no. And thank God.

 

[JimB]

As Lons says, it's a can of worms but here's my scrabble through the wrigglers.
Bloke like Charles Hayward (may his books always be in print) went through a long apprenticeship and learned to sharpen in the method they were taught by their master, who in turn ... Of course once they were competent at producing a sharp edge they had the skills to adjust to the needs of the tool in use and to the wood being used. The process becomes almost automatic using one type of stone and one basic method. To explain all this in a book would be awkward and probably extremely difficult to understand without the practical experience - no dialling angles on a guide and no swapping stones, abrasive paper, diamond hones etc, etc.
Half the trouble these days comes from the promises of advertising which claim to be streets ahead of anything that came before. Unlike coffee most things in woodwork can't be had in instant form.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

We are, of course, presuming that the time served craftsman was taught by another old time served craftsman who actually knew what he was doing. Practise doesn't make perfect - perfect practise makes perfect. I've seen some awful things done by people who insisted what they did was right, because that was the way they were taught.