Uneven bevel using Veritas Mk2 jig

[ian maybury]

Whatever is happening Mike it's got to be down to a fairly simple alignment issue. Best to stop and think it through.

Could the blade be moving a little in the clamp? (see the other thread on the mk 2)

Presuming that it's not a lot depends on which roller set you are using. Is it the cylindrical or the camber/barreled one? (the latter is sold as an accessory)

The cylindrical roller (on mine anyway) produces nice square bevels on wide blade chisels provided they are accurately aligned in the clamp. (but it's not been tested on wider/more demanding plane blades yet) It's hard to get it wrong as the alignments are in this case entirely controlled by the guide. The benefit is that it (on the few tests made so far anyway) aligns them consistently enough so that re-sharpening doesn't require too much work on the bevel because its presented in (pretty much but not precisely - the sides of Japanese chisels are not necessarily perfectly straight anyway) the same alignment as when it was originally done. The side of the blade must always be set tightly against the fence and the edge to the stop on the angle setting accessory though...

The downside to this (cylindrical roller) set up is that it demands a lot of the accuracy of the guide parts - which in the end while very nice quality die castings might not necessarily be 'precision engineering' accurate. i.e. the line of the fence must be precisely at right angles in plan view (viewed from above) to the rotational axis of the support roller. The blade supporting surface in the body half of the clamp must also be precisely parallel to the rotational axis of the support roller when viewed horizontally/in the line of the surface of the stone - with the guide resting on the stone.

The other variable in this mix is the existing bevel on the plane blade - if it's not exactly square then it may not exactly match the alignment delivered by the guide.

The guide parts are good quality castings, but it's perhaps possible that using the cylindrical roller with a wide plane blade might as a result of one or both of the above bring to light some slight misalignment requiring a bit of ad hoc compensation/fine tuning of the alignment of the blade in the clamp - before any serious metal removal is done.

Not sure which roller most are using for plane blades, but the accessory camber/barrel roller while bringing the freedom to do cambered blades can produce square bevels too. In that case (as with traditional narrow roller guides) it's down to the user to check regularly for squareness, and to ensure that equal pressure is applied across the blade when honing. i.e. apply more pressure to one side and it will as intended cut more at that side.

The advantage is that it's got to be more accommodating of any minor misalignments in the blade or the guide - it's as a result very likely the better choice for doing plane blades.

Uneven clamping pressure/tightening of the knobs if moderate should not be a problem, but if it's marked enough that the blade is tipped/not resting flat against the body half of the guide then it might mess things up.

Don't forget too that the side of the blade that rests against the fence needs to be square to the edge/parallel. Some e.g. block plane blades are tapered, and even nominally parallel blades might not be exactly so....

[Sam Stephens]

my other thought would be technique. I sharpen free hand, but the same thought applies -pay attention to your finger pressure and direction you're pushing/pulling b/c it's very easy to skew the blade if you consistently apply slightly more pressure to one side.

[Scott Rud]

Hi Mike - Are you using the micro bevel feature in that jig? I have the same jig and have found that when ever I use that feature, I'm out of square when I starting honing. I went to great lengths to make sure the clamping pressure was even, and basically doing everything that all of the previous posters have suggested with no luck. Now to get a square micro bevel using that jig, I change the setting on the mounting jig/device.

[glenn bradley]

Glenn - So basically I could be setting a non square blade up in a jig that assumes you are using a square blade? If that is the case, should I go spend the time to ensure the sides are parallel to each other and square to the cutting end? Or should I just adjust the blade in the jig accordingly?

If you have some chisels (as I do) that have side that are not parallel, I would not spend the time to make them so but, if you want to use the guide to align the tool, the side and front edge will have to be perpendicular. I might be more prone to use some other method to assure a tool with non-parallel sides was presenting the edge as desired. Maybe a known stop to butt the jig against with a known parallel line or stop block to adjust against as shown at about 12 minutes, 10 seconds into this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aDPZzMvVTA Deneb is using this more for depth (to set the angle) but, you get the idea ;-)

[Mike Brady]

What I'm not understanding here is why your primary and secondary bevels are not co-planar. You should not be changing the position or clamping pressure of the iron in between honing of the two bevels. That change is made simply by turning the indexed brass knob from the twelve o'clock (primary bevel) position to the six o'clock (secondary bevel)position. Even if the iron is not exactly ninety degrees to the jig, those two bevels should be parallel across the width of the iron. You do know that there is a rail on the angle gauge that helps you keep the blade perfectly perpendicular, right?

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

What I'm not understanding here is why your primary and secondary bevels are not co-planar.

That's part of why I asked the OP if he made the original bevel or not - if the original bevel is the factory grind, there's always the possibility that the original grind is out of square, or the angle inconsistent across it's width. Certainly, if the original bevel was made either earlier (even in the same jig) you're going to be tough pressed to get a "perfect" consistent bevel width, even with the most repeatable jig.

That's also why I suggested that he check the actual edge with a square (which it's still unclear if he's done) rather than rely on the even-ness of the honing pattern on the blade as an indicator of squareness. All that tells you is if the two bevels are both the same in comparison to the edge - that is, you could have a blade with what looks like a perfect secondary bevel in relation to the first, and still be out of square.

If you haven't measured the bevel in regards to the edge, you don't actually know anything about the squareness. Perhaps the OP has done this, but his posts seem to continue to rely on the width of the secondary to judge the perpendicular nature of the bevel. You could also get an idea of the perpendicular nature of the primary bevel by using a square along the top edge of the blade.

I also stand by that depending on how out of square things are, it may very well not matter. My experience has shown me that out-of-squareness that looks pretty dramatic judging the evenness of the bevels compared to each other (assuming a square initial bevel and a out-of-square secondary, for instance) are relatively minor and taken out by adjustment in the plane. Again, I find that there are lot more places to introduce out-of-squareness, particularly in a Stanley-style plane, that striving for perfect squareness in the blade isn't always necessary, as I'm still often going to need to make a slight lateral adjustment.

[Augusto Orosco]

First thanks to the OP and everyone else who contributed. This thread has been very helpful for me so far. When using the MK-II, I have gotten the exact pattern that the OP showed in the photo. I had checked and my blades are square to their edges. I also made sure the blade ended up tight against the side edge of the reference jig and to tighten the knobs carefully a little each time on both sides to avoid last minute skewing of the blade. Still got the same pronounced uneven edge (the OP's picture looks identical to my results). Glen et.al. have provided additional tips that I must try before I give up hope with the guide; hopefully those will help.

I also stand by that depending on how out of square things are, it may very well not matter. My experience has shown me that out-of-squareness that looks pretty dramatic judging the evenness of the bevels compared to each other (assuming a square initial bevel and a out-of-square secondary, for instance) are relatively minor and taken out by adjustment in the plane.

I totally agree with the fact that you could correct for the out-of-squareness with the blade adjustment, but in my opinion there is a huge downside to the unevenness that it is unrelated to this and make it a deal killer for the guide if I can't fix it: When honing the microbevel, you quickly achieve a polish on one side of the edge, but sloooooowly creep sideways trying to reach the other side of the edge. By the time you have finally reached and polished the other side of the edge with a tiny microbevel, your other side already has a rather wide bevel (forming the uneven pattern that the OP showed). In other words, it takes way too long to get the microbevel all the way from one side to the other. Instead of simply honing a tiny microbevel all through the edge, it takes just as long as establishing a new and relatively wide bevel (just imagine how long it should take to get a microbevel that wide on one side, as in the OP's picture).

[Jim Matthews]

Might I suggest that you run a Sharpie marker over the bevel before honing?

After a pass or two, you could see where your taking off steel
before you get too far along.

I would agree that a light "rap" with a little hammer will get you tracking straight again.

[Caleb Richardson]

My MkII does not produce co-planar primary bevels and micro bevels either (i.e. the micro bevel is skewed from the primary bevel). This is not an issue of me misadjusting or over tightening or out of square chisels. This is easy to verify by simply polishing the primary bevel until the entire surface has new scratch marks, and then toggling the micro bevel adjustment, and then observing a skewed micro bevel.

Based on my reading around this net this seems to be a fairly common flaw. I never bothered to return mine because I don't use the micro bevel feature. If I want a 30 degree micro bevel I just set the jig to 30 degrees. All my primary bevels are 25 degrees, so if I need to re-create one on sandpaper/granite then I simply set the jig to 25 degrees. This means I can't create a 27 degree micro bevel (assuming the micro bevel feature is +2 degrees), but I don't really care.

I have considered contacting Lee Valley to replace it though, in case I ever want to resell the jig.

[ian maybury]

If the cylindrical roller is used it's not really possible for the guide to deliver precisely the same bevel as a previous sharpenings by other means. i.e. even if the guide is spot on accurate in itself (which may or may not be the case given that it's comprised of mostly unmachined die castings) the blade must previously have been ground 100% accurately if the microbevel it applies is to line up perfectly with a pre-existing primary bevel cut using a different set up.

It's reasonable to expect that once a bevel has been established that subsequent sharpenings on the same guide using the same set up will repeat to quite a high level of accuracy. Probably not perfectly though judging by my example - if nothing else there's a few subtle ways that small errors can creep in. (e.g. if when forming the primary bevel the blade ends up being slightly shortened - this is unavoidable if the new primary bevel is a shade steeper than the one being ground out)

There's been a few of posts as Caleb's about misalignment being introduced when the micro bevel adjustment is used. I've not used the feature on mine (i've been single bevel sharpening Japanese chisels) - but if as described it comes in solely as a result of using the micro bevel feature after forming the primary bevel, and in absence of movement of the blade in the clamp then it might suggest a machining inaccuracy. (that the eccentrically placed bore for the spindle/axle is not accurately aligned with the outer rolling surface of the cylinder)

As before using the cambered roller makes the whole deal much less demanding of perfect accuracy in the guide itself - but at the expense of the user needing to cotrol where pressure is applied across the width of the blade to deliver a square edge and a truly flat bevel. Which isn't so easy on narrower chisels….

[Prashun Patel]

Perhaps this jig isn't as good as I've experienced it to be, but I can't help but feel that there's a lot of overthinking the jig going on here.

Since I learned how to tighten it sharpens everything very well - from short spokeshave blades that provide little registration with the fence to narrow chisels honed at shallow bevels that are extended way over the edge and can easily get torqued improperly if not properly tightened (because the fulcrum of each screw is larger with the narrow chisels).

The real trick - even beyond alternate tightening - is going LOOSE on the knobs. Don't think of it as 'tightening', but rather barely snugging it to the blade. If you do this, not only will the blade stay flat, it will force you to not exert much downward force when sharpening. This was another Hallelujah for me; letting the stone or disc to the work, not pressing my blade into the medium.

[Phil Gaudio]

The phenomenon you are seeing is by design. The micro-bevel adjustment is on the left side of the jig, and adjusts only one side of the roller: the roller spindle on the right side is fixed. When you change only one side of the roller spindle, you will of course get a skewed micro-bevel. No doubt LV designed it this way due to cost considerations. I suspect if would have been more costly to design an adjuster that changed the position of the roller spindle on both sides of the jig.

[Mike Brady]

The phenomenon you are seeing is by design. The micro-bevel adjustment is on the left side of the jig, and adjusts only one side of the roller: the roller spindle on the right side is fixed. When you change only one side of the roller spindle, you will of course get a skewed micro-bevel. No doubt LV designed it this way due to cost considerations. I suspect if would have been more costly to design an adjuster that changed the position of the roller spindle on both sides of the jig.

Paul, your explanation of the eccentric spindle design is correct in theory but not in practice. Both spindles have eccentric holes for the axle. It is possible to assemble the roller with the holes indexed incorrectly, but that is unlikely to have happened at the factory. It could happen if the user tried to disassemble the roller and incorrectly reassembled it. DAMHIKT. You would be surprised to see how much abrasive swarf material builds up in that roller. This should be flushed with WD-40 or something similar.

[Augusto Orosco]

Perhaps this jig isn't as good as I've experienced it to be, but I can't help but feel that there's a lot of overthinking the jig going on here.

Since I learned how to tighten it sharpens everything very well - from short spokeshave blades that provide little registration with the fence to narrow chisels honed at shallow bevels that are extended way over the edge and can easily get torqued improperly if not properly tightened (because the fulcrum of each screw is larger with the narrow chisels).

The real trick - even beyond alternate tightening - is going LOOSE on the knobs. Don't think of it as 'tightening', but rather barely snugging it to the blade. If you do this, not only will the blade stay flat, it will force you to not exert much downward force when sharpening. This was another Hallelujah for me; letting the stone or disc to the work, not pressing my blade into the medium.

So, time to report back after a little experimentation. Prashun's advice proved very helpful. I went very easy on the knobs and things were better aligned; although at first I think I went too far, because the blade would move even with light pressure. And it's true that forcing oneself to apply very light pressure on the blade is better (unless you have a ton of steel to remove, I guess... but in that case, probably best to move to sandpaper instead of water stones... but I digress).

Having said so, I was able to get less of an uneven bevel, but still easily noticeable. So, I moved to the next piece of advice from some of you: light taps with a plane hammer. That did the trick wonderfully. I would do a couple of passes, look at the scratch pattern, and tap accordingly. Soon enough, I was producing a parallel edge! From then, I was raising the elusive (to me) wire edge very easily. It was a thing of beauty .

Since I was experimenting and learning, I decided that I should give that cheap unopened eclipse clone a try (I had bought it as an add-in afterthought to a larger purchase one year ago and never bother to open it ... probably the downside of it being so cheap!). I didn't even bother to measure anything with a protractor, or build a stop block, or whatever. The guide has edged on the side the projections in millimeters for 30 and 25 angles, so I simply measured with a ruler and went to town on an original Stanley Sweetheart blade (#5 plane). Immediate success, with no fuss! This plane was bought used from a fellow creeker a while ago and it was in good shape, also hollow grinded, so it wasn't completely fair to the MK-II, where I was trying A2 steel on much thicker blades (Both Veritas low angle block and a BU Jack) and no hollow grind. So next, I took my honking LN #8 jointer's blade and put the beast on the eclipse clone and honed a 30 degree bevel angle. Same results. I raised the wire edge in just a couple of strokes on the 3K stone and then polished with a 10K (my set up is 1K/3K/10K Sigma Power -II).

I also added an extra twist, from looking at one of Tom Fidgen's videos and reading one of his blog entries:

"Every person I’ve ever watched use one, uses it with their fingers placed on the front of the cutting tool, facing away from them. I don’t. I load the cutting tool into the honing guide as per normal and then turn the guide around so the cutting edge is facing me. I use my thumbs instead of my fingers"

I tried that with both the eclipse clone and the MK-II and worked better for me when it came to exerting equal pressure on both sides of the blade. I am probably a weakling, so using my thumbs and pushing (like when using a scraper on the push) gave me better control and consistency. Wonder how many of you who use a guide prefer this stance as well?

To summarize:

1) I was able to create a uniform bevel with the MK-II: Light tightening of the knobs, light pressure on the blade (let the stone do the work) and taps with a hammer to correct misalignment did the trick for me (great tips and advice from all or you!)

2) I was able to achieve the same even bevel using an eclipse clone, without having to worry about overtightening, or tapping. Much, much faster and without having to stress about messing things up. I am sure I can get much faster with the MK-II once I get the feeling of it, but the eclipse had a nonexistent learning curve (for me). Also note that this was a brand new out of the box eclipse. I haven't even attempted the modifications LN recommends (the "Puchalski fix")

3) Holding either guide turned around, with the blade facing me and using the thumbs to press on it, works way better for me. YMMV.

There will be times when, if a guide is needed (I am purposely ignoring the free hand/guide debate for the sake of this particular discussion) the MK-II might be preferred (e.g. with skewed blades, or all the other variations where the eclipse has trouble holding the blade). But for the basic plane blades (haven't tried chisels yet, but I would imagine they should behave similarly... perhaps even more of an advantage to the eclipse for narrow chisels?), I think the eclipse clone is much easier to use and produces consistent results with less fuss.

For me, there will be value on keeping both guides. The eclipse for most of the plain-vanilla sharpenings and the MK-II for skews. Free hand sharpening? One day I'll get to it. In the meantime, I am a happy with the results.

Hope that is helpful. I certainly benefited a lot from all the advice in this thread!

[Mike Henderson]

I used to use a honing guide but now mostly just freehand. However, when I was using the LV guide, I would take a few swipes and then look at the microbevel. If it was too much on one side, I'd tap the top of the chisel in the direction that would straighten out the microbevel. Then take a couple more swipes to see if it was tracking properly. Most of the time it was. Then finish the microbevel.

Sharpening is not science. If your microbevel is off a few degrees it's not going to matter. If you find that your edge is failing too quickly, raise the top of the chisel to increase the bevel angle. Give freehanding a try. You'll find you can work faster.

If your microbevel if not square when freehanding, just press more on the opposite side.

Mike

[Here's the technique I use.]