How high do you go????

[Peter Scoma]

Curious to know what final stone (oil, water or sandpaper) most members finish off their sharpening repertoire with. I, like many others I imagine, am always in pursuit of taking my sharpening to the next level. Right now I finish with an 8k grit waterstone. John reed fox mentions in an old woodwrights segment that he finishes with a 30k grit stone which can be found on the bay of all places for a cool 350$. Just wondering if a 15k or 30k stone is worth it I suppose. I'm already getting nice thin gossamer shavings ending with 8k but as I mentioned, the holy grail of sharpening evades me.

PS

[Allan Froehlich]

Maybe you could try buffing compound on a leather wheel.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Peter

Do you actually need a sharper edge than you currently get? Or are you just curious?

I probably use my leather strop (with .5 micron/=30000 grit green rouge) more often than I use my Shaptons.

With a microbevel created on a hollow grind, I use the 1000 to straighten the bevel edge and then the 12000 to polish it. Honing a newly ground edge takes in the region of 2 minutes max.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[George Beck]

Peter

I too am always chasing the perfect edge. I progress from 8,000 to 15,000 to 30,000 on plane irons. Alex Gilmore on his interesting web site http://thejapanblade.com/ has natural water stones that can reach 48,000, although I cannot imagine using a $2,000 stone. My findings have been that I cannot achieve a sharper edge with the 15,000 or 30,000 grit stones but the edge does stay sharp longer and requires less honing to bring it back. I will attempt to explain. I performed a completely unscientific experiment. I sharpened one plane to 8,000 and could take very fine shavings. I then took another plane with the same blade (Hock high carbon rc65) and sharpened it though 15,000 and finished on 30,000. I planed some cherry posts scrap from 1 in thick to about 1/2 in thick (a lot of shavings, I was ankle deep in fine shavings!). The first blade was loosing its edge about half way through whereas the second held its edge much longer. I also find that the finer stones make more of a difference on high end Japanese blades. On my Lie Nielsen chisels (A2 steel)) I do not see any measurable difference. I lack the expertise to know why this is so but my theory is that the finer the scratches the stronger the edge which makes sense. The perfect unattainable goal I would suppose would be to achieve No Scratches or perfectly smooth. I have found the decision in sharpening is whether to sharpen as fine as possible or hone more often. Some wood carvers never sharpen beyond 5,000 or 6,000, however they hone and strop continuously.
My sharpening skills are evolving and changing. I used to worry about the entire back and edge being "shinny" whereas now I worry mostly about the formation of the "burr" at each grit level. I also sharpen tools differently depending on what I am doing. For instance; I do not have the luxury of owning a lot of chisels in the same size, so I was using a wide chisel to chop out the waste in a plane dai and latter needed to use the same chisel to pare tiny amounts away for final fitting. This required two different edge requirements. Anyway, these are some of my sharpening experiences. A journey I doubt will ever end.

George

[Julian Nicks]

I don't fuss with anything expensive. I just cut a 6" wheel out of 3/4 particle board, and mount it in my slow speed grinder, and put jewelers rouge on the side. It only takes a few seconds on each side of the chisel/plane on the wheel to touch up a dull or freshly ground edge and I'm back to work( the most imortant part). No fancy stones, or systems needed.

[Mike Henderson]

First, I'm not convinced that honing to that level makes much difference.

But if you want to do that, rouge or the green honing compound is a lot less expensive than a really high number stone (such as a 15K). If you're concerned about rounding the edge, put the honing compound on something like MDF and hone on there. And as Derek pointed out, you only have to hone the edge, not the whole bevel.

Mike

[David Keller NC]

"I also find that the finer stones make more of a difference on high end Japanese blades. On my Lie Nielsen chisels (A2 steel)) I do not see any measurable difference."

There is a discussion of why this is so in Toshio Odate's "Japanese Woodworking Tools: Their Tradition, Spirit and Use", complete with photomicrographs to prove the point. Well worth owning this book, and it's been reprinted and is very inexpensive, especially used, on Amazon.

[Matthew Dworman]

I've played with 15/16K stones, but I think after 8K you reach the point of diminishing returns. i.e. perhaps the edge you get with a 15k stone will last 5 or 10 strokes before it is reduced to the edge you get after 8k - this will last for 40 or 50 strokes before it is reduced to the edge received from a 4k stone etc...
I think the extra time put into anything past 8k is not worth it. Instead, use that time to re-hone a blade that needs a touch up.
my $0.02

[Jeff Dege]

I'm an absolute novice at woodworking, but I do know knife sharpening. Going to a finer grit than you need isn't just a waste of time, it can make for a less effective tool. For every task there is an appropriate level of roughness. For some tasks, you want razor smooth. For others, the small-scale roughness left by a medium grit stone makes for an easier cut.

You shouldn't be asking how fine an edge you should be trying to get, you should be asking what is the appropriate edge for the task at hand. Planing end grain with a block plane, leveling a benchtop with a smoothing plane, cutting a mortise with a chisel - these have very different cutting actions, so I would expect that they would work best with different edges.

[John Schreiber]

With plane blades, I haven't found any advantage to going beyond 2000 grit sand paper. I can strop to a finer edge and it cuts the hair off my arm better, but I don't find that it cuts wood better.

I haven't tested with carving knives or chisels, but I'm beginning to suspect that a tiny bit of tooth on knives can be a good thing, especially on softer woods.

[David DeCristoforo]

This is in the same category as the discussions about how accurate you need to be. If you can shave hair with the blade, it's plenty "sharp enough" for woodworking. Beyond that you are satisfying something other than "need".

[Jeff Dege]

With plane blades, I haven't found any advantage to going beyond 2000 grit sand paper. I can strop to a finer edge and it cuts the hair off my arm better, but I don't find that it cuts wood better.
I'd expect that it'd dull faster.

[David Keller NC]

You shouldn't be asking how fine an edge you should be trying to get, you should be asking what is the appropriate edge for the task at hand. Planing end grain with a block plane, leveling a benchtop with a smoothing plane, cutting a mortise with a chisel - these have very different cutting actions, so I would expect that they would work best with different edges.

Jeff - Don't doubt you on the knife sharpening - anyone that's ever tried to cut bread with an smooth, highly polished blade figures out quickly that a rougher (and better yet, serrated) knife cuts considerably more effectively.

That said, there is not, to my knowledge any WW handtool that doesn't cut more effectively and with less effort if it is sharper.

However, that's a different question to the need for sharpness and the effort required to get it to that point. A smoothing plane's blade needs to be way beyond razor sharp for the best surface left behind (in my book, "way beyond razor sharp" is correct honing on an 8000 grit waterstone or equivalent). But I find very little to no benefit by spending a lot of time on a fore plane blade beyond getting it to "feel sharp" - I don't sweat little nicks in the blade, and will use it without honing far past where I'd touch up a smoothing plane blade.

It's a good point - thanks for adding it to the discussion

[Jim Koepke]

Interesting subject that we will likely be debating beyond our days and into eternity.

My last visit to Hida Tools in Berkeley, CA was interesting. There was a collection of natural stones of different sizes that left me stunned at the prices. Someone must think they are worth it.

My finest stone is an 8000 water stone. Surely there is an advantage to having a finer stone. There is also an advantage to not angering SWMBO by trying to convince her another stone is needed.

Ron Hock said at a trade show, people are not buying his blades, they are buying the surface they make.

Fresh off the 8000 stone, even my #8 can take full width gossamer shavings leaving a glassy surface on a piece of pine. Never thought of a #8 being like a smoother. This can sometimes be done with finishing on a 4000 stone.

So why bother? finishing the blade at 8000 gives an advantage if there is a shift in the grain. This is a common occurrence with the less costly pine used in a lot of my projects. Finishing with a 4000 stone will often leave a little tear out.

IMO, the sharpening is not for the blade, it is for the surface the blade leaves behind.

jim

[Jim Koepke]

This is in the same category as the discussions about how accurate you need to be. If you can shave hair with the blade, it's plenty "sharp enough" for woodworking. Beyond that you are satisfying something other than "need".

This has me thinking. Because of the cold weather last winter, and my being from California now living in Washington, I grew a beard. Now it is getting time to cut it off. In the past I used a straight razor, for long hair, they tend to work best for me. Not sure where it was put for the move or even if it made the trip. Was thinking of using one of my plane blades.

As long as the edge is not rounded, I can cut hair with a blade off of a 1000 stone. It is not comfortable. The finer the stone, the less the hairs get snagged in the little crevices in the blade. For shaving hair, one does not want any roughness to the blade.

jim

[Hank Knight]

My last visit to Hida Tools in Berkeley, CA was interesting. There was a collection of natural stones of different sizes that left me stunned at the prices. Someone must think they are worth it.jim


Jim,

I generally agree with everything you said and my finish stone for most things is an 8K Norton. I strop with leather and .5 Micron diamonds. But a couple of years ago I had an epiphany about Japanese natural water stones.

Over the years I've purchased a number of Japanese chisels, including some high end ones made by Chutaro Imai. Several people I respect encouraged me to get a good natural "polish" stone for these chisels. I was put off by the price of the things, but I went ahead and asked Kayoko to keep her eyes open for a stone for me. I didn't hear from her about the stone for 6 or 7 months and I'd frankly forgotten I'd discussed it with her. She called me one day excited and told me she'd brought a natural Honyama polish stone back from Japan for me and it was "wonderful." She clearly recalled that I'd committed to buy a stone. When she told me how much it cost, I almost fainted. Nevertheless, it was apparent to me that she had acquired the stone for me and expected me to purchase it. I sucked it up and sent her a check. If you've ever done business with Kayoko, you would understand why I couldn't disappoint her. The stone arrived and I used it on my best Imai slicks. Up to that time I'd been sharpening them as I do everything else - up to 8K with the Norton and stropping with the leather strop and diamond paste.

I can tell you that I was amazed at the edge I got from the Honyama stone. It is an order of magnitude finer than any edge I'd been able to achieve on any tool up to that point, and the edge lasted a long time. I no longer strop these chisels, I keep the stone handy and touch up my edges while I'm working. It really is a different experience. But it only works on the very hard edge of my laminated Japanese blades. It makes no noticeable difference on any Western chisel in my kit. Like you, I was not a believer in the Japanese natural stone mystique. Had it not been for my big mouth and a misunderstanding, I probably would still be a nonbeliever. But, having used this stone, it is clear that it makes a noticeable difference in the edge quality and fineness on my Japanese chisles.

Hank

[Peter Scoma]

Hi Peter

Do you actually need a sharper edge than you currently get? Or are you just curious?



Good question Derek. As I mentioned I can get full width gossamer shavings with my current routine, however, with some planes I feel I need to apply more force than necessary (I think) to do so. My woodriver planes glide along effortlessly as do most of my bailey's however, a few record jacks require a little bit more force. This could of course be due to inferior irons but I'm not certain. The records were bought new from Garrett Wade mabye 12 yrs ago but havent seen much use until now. I'm not to familiar with the quality of record irons.

Thanks for the feedback everyone.
PS

[Wilbur Pan]

I think the extra time put into anything past 8k is not worth it.

Whether the extra time put into anything past an 8000 grit stone is worth it depends somewhat on how much extra time you're talking about. Given the typical methods for sharpening flat tools like chisels and plane blades, the time spent at the high end should really be pretty minimal.

For example, my usual sharpening routine consists of a 1000, 5000, 8000, and natural Japanese waterstone which doesn't have a grit number but is probably in the 12-15,000 range. During this sequence, I spend the majority of the time on the 1000 grit stone to get rid of any micro nicks and to raise that first wire edge. If I've done this step right, and if I've made sure that the 1000 grit stone was flat, then the bevel of the tool will have an even scratch pattern and will be flat. To replace the 1000 grit scratch pattern on a flat bevel with a 5000 grit scratch pattern is relatively quick in comparison, because a lot of the leg work has been done with the 1000 grit stone.

Similarly, the 8000 grit and natural Japanese waterstone steps are very quick. I probably average about 5 minutes working on a 1000 grit stone when I need to, and the amount of time spent on the 5000, 8000, and natural Japanese waterstone steps is on the order of 30-60 seconds each, when everything is going well. If it takes me longer than that, then it's always because I let the 1000 grit waterstone get too dished, leaving a non-flat bevel, which makes the following steps that much more longer to do.

So based on this experience, this is why it's better to sharpen often with your high grit sharpening method. Quick touchups maintain the edge much more easily than going back to the 1000 grit stone. It also means that it doesn't matter time-wise how high or low you go -- it takes just as much time to rehone your tool on, say, a 30,000 grit waterstone as it does on an 8000 grit waterstone.

It's only when you have to start from lower grits that there's extra time and steps added, and again, the extra steps really aren't a significant addition to the total time taken sharpening. If I cut out my last step above the 8000 grit stone, I save a whopping minute or so.

When you consider that I also see an increase in edge retention by going above 8000, like others have mentioned in this thread, you could argue that you are actually saving time by going above an 8000 grit waterstone.

[David DeCristoforo]

OK, then let me qualify my statement. If you can shave hair "easily and comfortably" with the blade, etc....

[David Gendron]

I read somthing on Joel blog at TWW about that(the time you need to passe on finer grits) and it actualy said that on finer grits people don't spend enough time...
I have to go back there and read it again!
But maybe go have a look!!

[Wilbur Pan]

Hi David,

I found Joel's blog entry. I don't think we are saying completely contradictory things. In my case, I think the operative phrase is "when things are going well". This assumes that I've done a good job keeping the bevel flat at lower grits. If I haven't, then what usually happens is that the lower grit stones dish, leaving a slightly convex surface on the bevel, and I have to spend more time working the tool on the finer stones to make sure that the corners are done -- or reflatten my lower grit stone and try again.

I think that Joel's point might be that many folks don't take the time on the higher grits to make sure that the entire edge is worked. I saw Joel give a sharpening demo once, and he pointed out that after the initial sharpening on a finer stone, the middle of the edge of the tool was done, and the corners were not, and to make sure you got the corners done. I know that for me, if I get into that convex bevel situation, I'm highly tempted to say, "That's good enough," and keep going.

In any case, my main point was that going up to higher grits while sharpening should not mean a huge amount of extra time compared to the entire sharpening process, if everything is going well.

[Sam Takeuchi]

I wonder how long woodworkers have concerned themselves with high grit sharpening. I mean I'm sure woodworkers throughout the history probably looked for finer stones, but them I don't think they really got too deep into thinking about it. One example is the Japanese. Traditionally they don't even have grit numbers, but rather ambiguous "coarse" "medium" "fine" "extra fine" sort of categories. I don't think they really cared about the small detail, and just eye balled how polished the surface is and rubbed finger over the edge and went "well, that's sharp, it's good to go".

The definition of sharp is rather subjective, but sometimes I think we all get caught up in grit numbers that maybe we habitually try to identify what sharp is by grit numbers, rather than to innately identify the sharpness of our own ideal by sense. If today's woodworkers were given various stones from different manufacturers and natural stones and of various grits (but keep them hidden) and tell them to sharpen to their ideal sharpness, perhaps 'some' people may feel lost for not being able to determine how high their blade have been sharpened. I personally think if the blade shaves the wood to my satisfaction and see the familiar fluff of shavings, that's good. When I glaze my finger pad over a blade and hear familiar glazing sound, blade is sharp for my use. It could be 8k, or 32k, it doesn't concern me much. I just know it's not 4k or 6k. They have different sound and don't bite the skin as much.

So what I mean is that don't get too caught up with grit numbers. If 8k seem fine to you, and you get the job done, that's good. If you were honing with #800 or #1000 stone, I'd say go higher (Heh, I used to hone with #1000 for the first year of my woodworking), but since that's not the case, the rest is I guess what satisfies you.

[Derek Cohen]

Excellent post Sam!

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Keller NC]

"The definition of sharp is rather subjective, but sometimes I think we all get caught up in grit numbers that maybe we habitually try to identify what sharp is by grit numbers, rather than to innately identify the sharpness of our own ideal by sense."

This is, by the way, part of Toshio Odate's lengthy discussion on Japanese (natural) waterstones. He makes the point that Japanese craftsmen would typically have multiple "fine" or "polishing stones", with as many as one for each of their finer blades. The reason is that some of the natural stones would have very hard (but fine) grit in a soft matrix that would be ideal for honing the finest edge on very hard blades, but these same stones will make a mess of Western blades (even very good ones) that are not as hard. Similarly, they would have a very fine polishing stone with softer individual grit particles but a harder matrix that were much more suited to slightly softer blades.

If you're a tool junkie, I'd consider this book a must have, particularly at the $10 that Amazon has it for used (and $16 as new).

[David DeCristoforo]

"I'd consider this (Toshio Odate's) book a must have..."

+100. This is, without a doubt, the best book on Japanese tools ever and one of the best on "hand tool woodworking" in general.

[Jim Koepke]

But a couple of years ago I had an epiphany about Japanese natural water stones...


I can tell you that I was amazed at the edge I got from the Honyama stone. It is an order of magnitude finer than any edge I'd been able to achieve on any tool up to that point, and the edge lasted a long time...

Had it not been for my big mouth and a misunderstanding, I probably would still be a nonbeliever. But, having used this stone, it is clear that it makes a noticeable difference in the edge quality and fineness on my Japanese chisles.

Hank

After all the talk, theory and speculation, nothing beats actual hands on experience. To my way of thinking, I could surely get my blades a little sharper. After all, in just the past year my idea of sharp has changed. Before an investment is made in finer grits, my skills need a little more honing than my blades.

jim

[John Schreiber]

. . . The definition of sharp is rather subjective, . . .
Even highly trained experts have a hard time isolating the information from their senses from what they think they already know in their minds. Many of these questions could be addressed by double blinded testing. It wouldn't be too hard to do something like that at a hand tool get together.

Personally, it would take such proof for me to believe that finer grits make a difference when edge flaws get smaller than the size of a cell in wood or when grits get smaller than the grain of the steel. I don't mean to say that the effectiveness of fine grits is all in the imagination, but I think it is possible.

If anyone would like help setting up a protocol for such testing, I would be happy to help.

[Jim Koepke]

Personally, it would take such proof for me to believe that finer grits make a difference when edge flaws get smaller than the size of a cell in wood or when grits get smaller than the grain of the steel. I don't mean to say that the effectiveness of fine grits is all in the imagination, but I think it is possible.

Some of the wood in my shop, when the blades are freshly sharpened, will produce shavings looking like lace or a lattice. My wife commented that the cells were being split. She actually has saved some of my thinner shavings just because she is perplexed by their qualities.

For me, seeing her, and my grandchildren, play with my shavings is worth a little extra effort.

jim

[Wilbur Pan]

The definition of sharp is rather subjective, but sometimes I think we all get caught up in grit numbers that maybe we habitually try to identify what sharp is by grit numbers, rather than to innately identify the sharpness of our own ideal by sense.

This is a very good point. What also complicates things is the way that we try to use numbers to quantify sharpness. Most conversations of this type revolve around talking about grits, which are a fairly abstract measurement, when we could be talking about abrasive particle size instead.

As mentioned above by Derek and Mike and others, 15-30,000 grit waterstones, which many folks would say are overkill, have abrasive particles on the order of 0.5 microns or so, which is the same size of the particles in green rouge used on a leather strop. Yet I have never heard anyone object to using a strop after using oilstones because it was overkill.

Similarly, using 0.5 micron diamond paste on a strop or steel plate seems pretty reasonable to most based on comments that I read here on SMC and elsewhere, but again, those are the same size abrasive particles used in the 15-30,000 waterstones.

My bet is that if instead of referring to 1000, 4000, 8000, and 30,000 grit waterstones, they were called 10, 40, 80, and 300 gauge (or some other unit name) waterstones, the idea that 30,000 grit was overkill wouldn't even come up.

[Derek Cohen]

My bet is that if instead of referring to 1000, 4000, 8000, and 30,000 grit waterstones, they were called 10, 40, 80, and 300 gauge (or some other unit name) waterstones, the idea that 30,000 grit was overkill wouldn't even come up.

Hi Wilbur

I'm afraid that probably would not do it. All that will occur is that "300" takes on the same mystique as 30000.

The point I applauded made by Sam is that we are obsessed with numbers rather than the edge, as if we need to accept the edge is honed to a certain number just to believe it is sharp.

The way around this is essentially what occurs when oilstones are used - who knows what the grit rating is of an oilstone? No one, that's who. What we do is just say, first this stone, then that stone. Done.

If we did the same with waterstones, called them coarse, medium, fine, or #1, #2, #3, just so that we have an order to follow, then we can avoid the obsessional trap of sharpening to grit numbers.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Wilbur Pan]

Hi Derek,

Why don't people have similar comments about Scary Sharp, then? You rarely see a discussion along the lines of, "I don't see the need to go all the way to 2000 grit wet and dry paper with Scary Sharp. Going beyond 1000 grit is a waste of time." With waterstones, however, there almost always seems to be some consternation about going "too high" with the grits.

I do agree that we are more obsessed with numbers in woodworking than we used to be. This is probably due in part to the fact that a lot of woodworking teaching and training is done long distance, like this forum, and we are stuck with trying to quantitate things that used to be described in a more qualitative manner.

I've also noticed that as I've gotten more experience with woodworking, I'm moving more towards a qualitative way of looking at things. The same thing happened to me in my day job. Earlier on in my career, I used to rely a lot on diagnostic and lab testing for my patients. As I got more real world experience, I've found that labs become less helpful (read: less of a crutch), and I started to rely more on the clinical picture as a whole.

[Derek Cohen]

Why don't people have similar comments about Scary Sharp, then?

Hi Wilbur

There is an answer ... well, an opinion at any rate :)

Firstly, one could argue that this is the case anyway. Who says that SS users do not think of numbers. I would suspect that many simply do not know that sandpaper is available in higher grits.

Also, I think that you are comparing apples and oranges. That is, someone who prefers to sharpen on sandpaper is likely to be a beginner, while those who use waterstones may have stepped up to them (that was the case with me). OK, there are likely to be plenty exceptions to the rule, but I anticipate that the "expert SS user" would likely do more than just rely on sandpaper to 1000 grit. May also strop, for example. And there are beginner waterstone users who only know to go as far as a medium stone, such as 2000-4000.

I still say that our fascination for numbers is just a way of attempting to quantify "sharp".

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Sam Takeuchi]

I think the grit number dependence (I made it up) has something to do with upbringing, though. Here in Japan, trained woodworkers and wood craft makers (actually all shokunin - trained specialists of all trades) go through apprenticeship and they aren't really taught to do thing, rather "steal" from their mentors. For the first year or so, if you were an apprentice, your mentor would just tell you to fetch this tool, that material and sharpen blades before they allow you to plane or cut anything except for allowing you to rough cut and prepare the material for the mentor to do the fine cutting. Imagine when you begin your apprenticeship, your mentor tells you to go sharpen blades. You go over to the sharpening station and see bunch of dirty unmarked stones. If you were a Japanese, you just know you can't ask questions, because if you do, he'd say "you fool! shut up and sharpen them!" So you sharpen these blades, without knowing what works and what doesn't. You finish it and take them over to your mentor, he just says "these are crap. Do it over again" without any elaborations. I guess if you do that for the first year or two, you'd exhaust all possible combinations of blades and stones, figure out what stone works for what blades and which one brings out the optimum sharpness for this blade or that blade. All these without grit numbers, just sheer trial and error, plus fear and respect for your mentor. That is why there is a phrase in Japanese that goes "10 years too soon", referring to people who try to do things before they acquire enough skills, because it takes 10 (just an abstract number) years to steal skills from your mentor and become a mature shokunin.

Nowadays, especially in the West, everything is organized in numbers. Woodworking magazines talks about sharpening in numbers, so do people. Basically from the very beginning of woodworking, instruction tells people to use #xxx for grinding, #xxx for setting up bevel, #xxxx to #xxxxxx for micro-bevel/polishing, etc, because that is what's standard in woodworking sharpening. While I see nothing wrong with it, I believe sharpening and polishing should be done according to need. Their blades and stones/abrasive is different from yours. If they say 8k is enough, but your 8k setup isn't producing satisfactory result, should you stick to 8k?

One of the things I've noticed about sharpening discussion is that no one really talks about the most important thing. Blades. Do all blades behave the same way? How about M2? A2? O1? D2? Laminated Japanese blades? If someone with O1 blades says "I think 8k is sufficient", should that be a concern to you when your blades are mostly A2 (or even harder M2)? Theoretically yes if all stones/abrasives cut in the same way and steels behave the same way, but we all know that is not so. In the end, I think rather than to take someone else's sharpening setup and standard, it is rather important to be able to judge your own sharpness standard according to your blades, stones and need. To do that, perhaps it is necessary to re-think about depending on grit numbers to sharpen.

From my point of view, grit number should only be taken as a medium of communication to give people abstract idea. Obviously you can't allow people to see and feel the texture of your stones over magazines and internet. Before the age of mass media and internet, people learned from people face to face, stones were in front of you to see and feel the texture of each stone, they didn't need numbers as much. Simply one would say "yeah, use this for grinding, and maybe this is good for polishing" without mentioning grit numbers, simply because it wasn't necessary to get all specific to describe the fine points then.

My 8k stone doesn't cut the same way as your 8k stone. My A2 and M2 don't behave the same way as your O1. I think something like 30k to 100k stones are in the range of luxury, but between 8K and 15K (just guessing the range), maybe it's not so much an overkill, but people are compensating for their blades and different sharpening techniques, and if someone else's 15k sharpening sounds like a good idea while your 8k polished blades provides satisfactory result, I think that is beyond your need, but that is for the 'sake' of sharpening. I'm not saying people who sharpens their blades beyond their needs are wasting their time, absolutely no. I'm simply saying don't lose focus and sense of your sharpness because of someone else's grit number.

P.S. I'm sorry some points are repetitive and redundant. I tend to do that a lot.
P.S.S. I just looked for Toshio Odate's book from Amazon Japan. 26 bucks! I have to pass for now...

[Hank Knight]

Sam,

Yours is an excellent post. Well thought and well expressed. I agree with virtually all of it, but I would elaborate on one point you made:

One advantage (perhaps) of modern sharpening technology is that it standardizes, to some extent, abrasive mesh sizes. I'm aware that there are differences between manufacturers and various abrasive types, but the standardization is sufficient for general discussion. When people talk about an 8K waterstone or a .5 micron diamond mesh, the terms describe specific size abrasive particles that we understand without having to touch the stone to get a tactile feedback. This isn't the case when you're dealing with natural stones. You talk about coarse, medium, fine or "polish" stones when you discuss natural stones, but the terms are not as precise as the terms used to describe man made abrasives. So, "back in the day," and even in modern times where natural stones are used, one chose a stone based on the actual edge it produced; and one evaluated the edge by actually using the tool.

In the age of the Internet where we communicate electronically over long distances, we have to rely on the written word to describe not only the abrasive used but the quality of the edge it produces. The standardized language of the abrasives industry makes possible endless discussions about what grit stone is optimum for producing "the best" working edge. My guess is that if you got everybody on this forum in a room with a bunch of natural stones and had the same discussion, you would get the same varied opinions, except we would all be testing the edges and talking about the "tan" stone, the "gray" one or the "beige one with the red streaks" and touching them to get a feel for the abrasives. The good thing about the internet is that we can share information, experiences and opinions; and while we don't always agree, we can learn from each other. I don't mean to dishonor the Japanese tradition, but this has got to be a more efficient way of teaching/learning this stuff than learning from your solitary, individual experiences while fearing the wrath of your mentor. In the end, though, we still have to make our choices based on what works best for us individually.

Hank

[David Keller NC]

"P.S.S. I just looked for Toshio Odate's book from Amazon Japan. 26 bucks! I have to pass for now..."

Sam - Amazon isn't the only source for used books. I'm not sure if there's an analog in Japan for the following sites, but you can try them:

www.alibris.com (http://www.alibris.com)

www.bookfinder.com (http://www.bookfinder.com)

www.abebooks.com (http://www.abebooks.com)

[Danny Thompson]

Almost exclusively A2 steel, here.

I go up to an 8000 waterstone or .5 micron microabrashive sheet. If using a microbevel, I do not go this high on the primary bevel.

Great points, Sam. Your post reminds me of a Kafka novel, though, where our hero is given no insight into why he is on trial or why he can't get to the castle.

Personally, as a hobbyist, the problem with that approach is I can't afford to wait until myr 20,800th hour of woodworking (40 hours x 52 weeks x 10 years or 4 hours x 52 weeks x 100 years) to learn sharp.

The only thing I would add for the OP is, let the wood have the final say. Then, if the surface on the wood isn't what you want, first consider your technique--are you maintaining a consistent bevel angle throught your sharpening stroke--and second, consider a higher grit.

[Sam Takeuchi]

I'll have to look around for the Odate book. I think it'll be in the same range as Amazon, though. They probably don't print them here and stock they have are probably shipped from the States, so the retail is price plus shipping. Even paper back novels cost minimum of 12 bucks here. So I will have to look around for a while. Used English books are scarce here, especially when it comes to specialized book such as that.

And Hank, yes, that's a point I failed to mention in earlier post. I thought about it before I posted, and I couldn't formulate my thought articulately enough to mention that. My idea of different blade steel was a part of that standardized grit size topic, but it got short since I couldn't get it out of my head to type the rest. Basically the idea was that even if everyone had the same stones, I would think, each and everyone probably end with different polishing stones that some may have to go higher while the others may be ok with 8k due to their needs, techniques and blade steel. While grit number is a significant part of the sharpening, it is still only a part of the whole scheme. Hence, I question the idea of aiming for certain grit number beyond need to assure certain sharpness. It was mainly for the discussion appearing in this thread about whether 8k is enough or 12k/15 is overkill and 'I' don't think they translate well between different people for those reasons.

I don't agree with the traditional Japanese way of doing things when it comes to apprenticeship or many aspects in general. I think it's inefficient and does not nurture individual's skill or talent. It is a collective society here and the idea of "there is no I, only we" is in every part of the society. Japanese way of apprenticeship doesn't accommodate even the most exceptionally talented, and he must follow the same path as everyone else. I recognize the strength in it, however. It maintains very high standard of skills even among the ordinary carpenters (if it is carpentry) and craftmen, and they certainly know their tools and how to maintain in order to get optimum performance out of them. That was the part I didn't like. I like tools that require as little maintenance and care as possible. I don't want to be doing uradashi on Japanese plane irons everytime it reaches the hollow. It is said that the Japanese tools are sold incomplete, so the user can modify it to complete the manufacturing process according to his needs. I have used Japanese planes for a while and I like the surface it produces, but overall, I want to be working on wood, not on tools. I want tools to help me do things, and not to be concerned whether I am worthy of this tool. There are many specialized tool shops here. If you look like you are too young or unfamiliar with tools, some snobby shop owners refuse to sell to you if he deems you are unfit for such a tool. They may not even let you touch the thing. Instead, I have Record, Veritas and Stanley that will produce satisfactory result and require very little maintenance aside from sharpening and wax the sole every now and then. I don't feel spiritual about tools. I like them a lot, but I see them only as a part of the whole building process. Sharpening is the same. Grit size is simply a small part of the whole building process. There are many aspects to explore about, but I don't want to spend two years learning about it, either. I'm really analog about that. I don't care for finer details like grit number, nor do I care for the art of sharpening. I only care for this vague area called "sharpness that produce satisfactory result". After all, I just glaze my finger over the edge, how precise and masterful can it get? It sounds the same as the last time I sharpened it sharp, so it must be sharp, and the wood says so :)

[John Schreiber]

Sam makes excellent points about a natural and reliable way of learning to sharpen using his example of apprenticeship. I think European guilds worked about the same way not too long ago.

I think the post also shows the advantages of the exact opposite. With quantified products and written communication, we can learn a huge amount very quickly and truly become proficient.

I live in an area with few woodworkers and I don't have time or inclination to seek out the few that there are. I personally know only one other person who knows how to properly use a plane. I don't know anyone (in person) who is as good at sharpening as I am. I learned it all through books, on-line and through my own experience. I can Scary Sharp up to 2000 grit, which I find sufficient for planes and chisels, and strop on an uncharged surface to get shaving sharp for carving or for my own entertainment.

Based on the descriptions above, I'll try some kind of honing grit, probably on MDF to see if I can perceive any longevity benefit to going to a sharper edge.