How high do you go????

[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