Throwing away the wheels

[Bruce Mack]

Eclipse guide, Veritas sharpening system, MK.II, Kell system...all acquired over 20 years. They helped, though imposing off-putting methodology (scales, measurements, notes affixed to the irons on blue tape, name it..)
Thank you Paul Sellers. I'm having fun making things.

[bridger berdel]

Welcome to the free world.

[Winton Applegate]

Until you get into some really hard and or tearout prone wood.

In any case I would STRONGLY recommend . . .
if you have to give up your sharpening jig (would you try to sharpen metal machining mill cutters by hand ? Same deal / better edges translating into longer cutting between sharpenings / deeper cuts/ faster cutting performance from precisely controled edge geometry) . . .
but . . .
if you must go primitive and let it all swing free
Use David's grinder, minimal micro bevel from stones and hard (high quality) strop method.
The Sellers thing is just playing.

[Kim Malmberg]

Winton
Are you implying Bruce needs to go from one perversion to another. :-)

I haven't touched my jigs for a long time and I do freewheel on the grinder as well. Whatever I do wrong I do again. I just like using my senses and training my eye.

[Bruce Mack]

Ah the grinders......devilish, sparks, eyeshields...Dark Satanic Mills to which my O1 will not be exposed.

[David Weaver]

Grinders are definitely no worse for O1 than coarse diamonds are. If I were going to go guide free, and grinder free, I'd prefer to use a method that works the entire bevel only with the coarse stone and focuses toward the cutting edge with the finer stones, and I'd prefer a norton crystolon stone to diamonds, though the diamond plates do have the benefit of being able to work the backs of new tools - crystolon stones aren't particularly appropriate for that.

I'd be curious to find out how many people use the "sellers" method (rounded bevel) and end up going to a different freehand method later - there have been a lot of mentions of the virtues of the methods, followed by "well, I don't use the sellers method any longer". Once someone gets into hollow grinding and manages it successfully, conversion is rare.

[Steve Voigt]

would you try to sharpen metal machining mill cutters by hand ?

Well, you would not try to re-grind the diameter by hand, but we used to sharpen the bottoms of end mills freehand all the time, including converting flat-bottomed end mills to ball nose. And most of us sharpened drills freehand, even though the shop had a Darex jig. As one older machinist memorably told me, "the jig sharpens the drill, but it doesn't sharpen my skills."

The Sellers thing is just playing.

Personally, I share your dislike of the Sellers method (or really anything to do with Sellers), but if it works for people, who am I to judge? Maybe people who use this method will move on to other freehand methods. Or maybe they won't, and that's fine too.

[Brian Holcombe]

The sellers method works until you have to start over and regrind the edge because all of the sharpening has been working toward slowly rolling the edge.

[Jim Matthews]

Welcome to the free world.

Okay.

That's funny, right there.

[Jim Matthews]

Those of us that work in more common species, or plain figured woods find it sufficient.

Mr. Sellers mentioned much finer grits used in tricky situations,
but stressed stropping to get things dressed for best results.

I use a knife grinding abrasive belt, when things are really bad.

I don't see well enough to trust my steel to a fast moving wheel.

While this method may take longer to reach the desired polish on the edge,
I don't overshoot, or have need to regrind past my mistakes.

[Daniel Rode]

I've been flip-flopping between a convex bevel and a typical primary / secondary for bench chisels. I can get a sharper, more consistent edge with the convex bevel than I can with the "normal" bevel. This appears to be the case whether I use a guide or free hand. I don't have a horse in the race, so the only thing I care about is the results.

On Sunday, I was paring shoulders in white pine. For me, this is a task where differences in sharpness are noticeable. I had 2 1/2" bench chisels. They both started with a 25 degree primary and the actual cutting edge would be somewhat higher. I don't know what the actual angle of the convex bevel because I set it by feel and it's convex.

The convex bevel was clearly sharper. It cut across the pine end grain and left a smooth surface. Despite my best attempts to get it as sharp as possible, the normal bevel required more effort to cut and left a less smooth surface. Both setups worked but the convex was easier and left a better surface.

The other thing I find is that it is really fast and easy for me to resharpen or just touch up the convex bevel and I never worry about re-grinding to erase a wide secondary.

I don't know why this works better for me. Being a hobbyist woodworker, the amount of time I have to build physical skills is limited. If I did this every day, I might make different choices or see different results. All I can do is look at the results and go from there.

I do not do this for plane irons. I use an eclipse style guide or sometimes freehand and set a primary/secondary. I might try it some day, though.

[Daniel Rode]

By "rolling the edge" you mean that with each resharpening the cutting edge becomes steeper and steeper? The entire bevel should be worked each time, so the edge angle should remain constant.

However, assuming you are correct, how is that any different than regrinding to remove a secondary bevel that has become too wide? Seems like the same work to me.

The sellers method works until you have to start over and regrind the edge because all of the sharpening has been working toward slowly rolling the edge.

[David Weaver]

There's a deficiency in your flat ground edge, or it's at a steeper angle if convex feels better. A 25 degree grind honed right on the hollow would and should outcut a secondary rounded bevel.

But you've got to do whatever works best for you.

[Kim Malmberg]

I know this thread might turn into a battle so I'll stop very soon.
I work predominantly with soft wood, even green wood so I'm sure I would have to pay greater attention to my sharpening if I was using exotic wood.
Still - as much as I agree about the risk of creating round bevels when sharpening freehand I have been able to improve the results very much by switching from a forward-back motion to a sideway action. Maybe that's a no-no but I have found it very useful.
I agree with David W that there is a advantage in starting off with a hollow grind - which I do freehand.
But maybe we should all remember that there is a difference between a quick sharpening of a already well set up tool and a total resharpening of a poorly sharpened ditto. I wouldn't dream of regrinding a bad edge by hand anymore but I'll gladly do it freehand on the grinder. And I don't think a fee passes on several stones to hone a already sharp edge would create a round bevel.
The one thing I believe Paul Sellers is very right about is that training your eye and hands is beneficial for every aspect of woodworking. So that's become my motto. I took up woodworking because I like working with my hands and senses and in that context it has been liberating for me not to worry about being able to shave hair with my sharp edge tools. But again - that's just how woodworking works for me.

[Daniel Rode]

That is what I assumed at the beginning but both chisels started with the same, guide set, 25 degree primary. The convex bevel *should* be as steep or steeper than the micro bevel. FWIW, the primary bevels are flat ground, not hollow.

In my mind, the flat bevel chisels *should* cut at least as well if not better. But they don't and I don't know why...

There's a deficiency in your flat ground edge, or it's at a steeper angle if convex feels better. A 25 degree grind honed right on the hollow would and should outcut a secondary rounded bevel.

But you've got to do whatever works best for you.