Another Sharpening Thread...

[Jim Foster]

I use King, 800, 1200 and 6000 grit stones to hone, and the larger Tormek to produce a hollow grind. My honing results are OK, and I can get a chisel or plane blade sharp enough to shave or push into a paper edge. I'm not sure these two tests are really the best test for sharpness, and am wondering if I would get much benefit going to an 8000 stone? And maybe a stone in between the 1200 and 6000, like a 4000, which would have me at 1200, 4000, and 8000. Any thoughts on this will be appreciated.

[bridger berdel]

6000 is high enough for most woodworking. in between stones might save you some time on some blades, but balance that with maintaining the stones...

all it will cost you to find out is money. and since we're talking about your money, I say go for it. send Stu a check today. he'll send you some GREAT toys....

[Ron Kellison]

My first question would be what kind of steel you are sharpening? If you're using O1, then the two additions I would recommend would be either an 8000 or 10000 waterstone. I've used King but MUCH prefer the Sigma line of stones. Sticking with O1 steel, you can then put a wonderful edge on it with green compound on a piece of leather or MDF (.5 micron, roughly 15000 grit). You will end up with an incredibly sharp edge (assuming your technique is good) but it will only stay that sharp for a few swipes if you're working anything other than pine or poplar. If you're using A2 steel, I personally don't find the need to go beyond 10000. I use Sigma Power II stones and an A2 blade taken to this level will work oak, maple, etc. for quite some time before I need to resharpen. I use a micro-bevel on all my plane irons so I'll resharpen a couple of time on the 10000 stone (just a few quick passes on the stone) before I drop back to my 6000. I continue this cycle until I'm looking at a micro-bevel about 1/3 the size of the primary bevel. At this point I usually go back to the beginning and start the whole process again. I usually don't bother with the green compound unless I doing a blade for one of my smoother planes where I'm taking of tissue shavings (.001 or perhaps less) and the quality of the surface is critical.

Ron

[Jim Foster]

A while back I made a chart showing the different waterstone grits and relative sizes, but have not looked at it in a while. The diameters shown are microns. It seems like a big jump going from 1200-6000, 8000 is almost half the size of 6000. I suspect I should work the 6000 a little more than I am, and see if I get a sense of "better" results, and also add a stone to expand my experience with honing

Ron, I have a number of different blades, only one or two are O1, I've heard Sigma is a nicer stone to use. Maybe, I'll look at adding a 10000. I use primarily Oak right now and I'd like to see if a higher grit stone will help me keep an edge longer.

waterstone grit sizes.jpg

[Mark Dorman]

I really like the chart thanks for sharing it.

[Jim Koepke]

The chart is a nice way to compare sizes visually.

For me, water stones at 1000, 4000 and 8000 works fine. Usually after the 8000 a blade may be swiped a few times on a strop.

There is a noticeable difference in an edge produced between a 4000 compared to an 8000 stone.

In your case my choice might be to forgo the 8000 and look for a 10,000 or 13,000 stone.

Is it there a lot of work going from the 1200 to the 6000?

If so, you may want a 4000.

Of course these answers come easy when one is spending other people's money.

IMO, having too much sharpening equipment is better than having to little.

jtk

[Archie England]

Based on some history, along with experiences shared with Chris Griggs..., a Chosera 800 followed by a 8000 stone should be plenty enough for normal sharpening. Now, for preference...., I much prefer intermediate steps from 1200 to 3000 or 4000 then 6000, finished by either 10k or 13k. For handplane work, I'll stop at 6k; for gnarly grain or end grain paring, I go to 10k or 13k. I use Sigma Power Ceramics (not Select IIs) primarily; but really like some other stones (Choseras are REALLY good but pricey), as well. For the budget conscience, a Bestor 1200 is very good (but far less so than the Sigma 1200 or Chosera 1000). The Chosera 3000 is superb; near as good, is the Gesshin 4000.

[David Weaver]

There are a lot of things you could do. If you're desirous and looking to spend money, you could replace all of your stones either with a shapton pro setup or a sigma power setup (stu's three stones and an atoma deal is probably the best dollar for dollar deal).

Personally, I wouldn't put more stones between what you have if you like your kings, I'd just add on a fine stone or some other fine medium. 1/2 micron diamonds or chromium oxide (stick from LV that's mostly actually al-ox), etc, will all step right up from the stones you have. As will the 13k sigma power stone (pick your source for that, by the time you pay shipping, stu is probably the cheapest and as a one-man operation and the original source for them, the sales mean more to stu than they do LV). The 13k is the finest inexpensive stone you'll find (by that, I mean not up in the stratospheric prices of the cho 10k or gokumyos (the first of which I know from experience is a very nice finisher, and the latter is by reputation on the razor boards also one).

Shapton pro cream isn't a bad option, either.

Speaking of, what are you using to flatten your stones right now? I wouldn't want to flatten the really fine stones with sandpaper, and if you need a diamond hone and a stone at the same time and you're looking to get out of this cheap, compound/diamonds on MDF or hardwood (or a piece of cast iron for the diamonds) may still be the best route.

All of that said, there is nothing you need to do in woodworking that you can't do with a 6k king, and that includes parers, smoothing planes, etc. There are ways to squeak a little more out of the stone, and you can strop afterward if needed.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Jim

If you like the Kings, and they do what you need, then you do not need a 8000. In any event, an 8000 is too close to the 6000. Usually one has either the 6000 or the 8000, but not both.

You can improve the edge without any extra stones - just allow the 6000 to dry out and then finish on this surface. This will act like a 10000.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Foster]

Derek,

Thanks for the tip, I'll try it.

[Prashun Patel]

I go from a 1000 to an 8000 shapton, and it seems to work fine for me. One can always get sharper. However, the test of sharpness is if you are able to work with it. Forget your arm or hair or paper. Take it to your wood.

[Daniel Rode]

Rob Cosman - 1k + 16k shapton stones (primary, secondary, tertiary bevels)
Chris Schwarz - 1k + 8k shapton stones (primary + secondary bevel) I suspect he uses 16k in place of the 8k at times.
Paul Sellers - coarse/fine/x-fine Diamond stones (250/800/1200) + stropping (15k-ish) (Single convex bevel)
I haven't watched David Charlesworth's DVDs yet

Despite the apparent differences, Cosman and Schwarz are actually quite similar. Both use shapton stones, both use a micro bevel and neither appear to use a strop or stropping compound.

Sellers is entirely different. His honing stops at the 1200 grit diamond stone but he strops aggressively. From what I can see, his stropping motion is identical to his honing sans the push stroke. So, it appears that he's honing and polishing to 15k using the strop. Different tools, different bevel, different process.

In addition to these three popular woodworking figures, I read posts and articles that describe many other techniques. Ignoring the freehand vs guide issue, I see a wide variety of stones and papers recommended, different methods caring (water soak, water on surface, oil on surface, glass cleaner on surface) for them and honing differences. Single bevel, micro bevel, hollow primary bevel, etc, etc, etc. Add on to that the various grinding and/or sharpening machines and it's a confusing mess. Some are trying to sell stuff that may or may not be needed. Others are pure of motive but one of many "good" solutions and much depends on one's needs and skill.

Sharpening is critical to good hand work but finding the right system is difficult and potentially expensive. It's not like I can just "give the shaptons a try". A couple stones, holder and a flattening plate is over $500.

I don't have an answer or even a question really, just a explanation of why sharpening threads are so common and never seem to point to a clear solution for me.

[Don Dorn]

I seem to have run the gammit. I started with the system Deneb Pulchalski does with the guide. Then I switched to the method Cosman uses and had good luck with that too, and didn't see myself changing as it produced an edge very sharp and I jettisoned the guide. Then, along comes Sellers who was successful at convincing me that the a convex bevel has good edge retention. I tried it, found that I really liked it and for the past two years, I'm using that method with diamond stones. My feeling is that it doesn't produce any sharper of an edge that I got before, but in my experience, it has strenghend the edge, especially with chisels. While I won't rule out switching again, I've gotten very used to this system - it's fast, no stones to soak and gives me the edge I need.

Lastly, I agree with Prashun - for awhile, my forearm had no hair and I was saving receipts to prove sharpness to myself. Now, I just sharpen those items I use on a project at the end, and put them back.

[Leon Jester]

My Arkansas black produces an edge that will shave; it's good enough for me. I'll point out that in the 18th Century it was good enough for the likes of Chippendale, Sheraton et al. and I'm not even close to their class.

The few times I've gone past that I've used WoD SC paper at 600, 800 and 1,000 and a bit of 10W-30. If I want a polished edge I'll buff it with rouge and then white. I'd rather be making shavings and sawdust than metal filings.

[Stuart Tierney]

My Arkansas black produces an edge that will shave; it's good enough for me. I'll point out that in the 18th Century it was good enough for the likes of Chippendale, Sheraton et al. and I'm not even close to their class.

Leon,

Can I point out that they also used the best tools for the job that were available at their time.

Whenever someone brings up the idea that "it was good enough for >insert highly regarded, long dead fellow<" it ignores several years/decades/centuries of advancement, refinement and improvement, and cheapens the memory of >insert highly regarded, long dead fellow< as though they would have shunned any new technology that came along that made their work faster/easier/better.

Having actually worked 'on the tools' myself, you never disregard anything that makes your job faster or easier. You may not adopt something new, but you never ever disregard it without a thought and you never ever think "my widget is good enough for me" if the new thing is obviously better and easily available to you.

That also extends to wondering/testing whether your existing widget is actually good enough. Peer pressure means that anything cheap/old/marginally effective attracts scrutiny by others who will not hesitate to tell you how silly you might be. You'd better have a better excuse than "it was good enough for >long dead guy<" or you'll get light ribbing at best, asked to find alternative employment at worst. No, you won't lose your job for owning an marginal tool, but sticking to something that's not up to the job usually means your performance is lacking in other areas too.


Stu.