Veritas Mk II jig

[lowell holmes]

I have both LV jigs. The original one will twist during use, but you should be able to deal with it without much distress.

The Mark II is repeatable and I don't have much problems with it. The micro-bevel is incredibly simple to achieve. Having said all of this, I seldom use it, I free hand it.

I only use it if a chisel or plane iron needs radical resharpening. I will use the mark II on a (upside down) belt sander if I need to regrind an edge.

[Paul McGaha]

Ian, are you saying that I should:
1) find a way to take off the powder coat of the MkII? How do you do it? How can a guy like my with just a big file do it? Very carefully is good enough?
2) You are correct in my original ongoing frustration in duplicating the original bevel, whatever the degree is.
3) I love your point: you are saying that using the cambered roller allows the bevel to find its own state of flushness with the stone surface? If this is the case, I will indeed go over to the cambered roller. And, if that is the case, that would also mean for me to apply more finesse in sharpening, less downward pressure-to not force the blade down so much.
4) if I start using, say, the microbevel setting on the MkII guide, then my issue with exactly reproducing the sharpening angle is not that big a deal, right? Because I re-establish the microbevel each time?

And, I love the link to the LN angle setting jig that Paul posted above. Cool

But, is it accurate enough?

And, after so many times of fitting a super sharp blade edge in there, don't you in fact cut a groove in the block, effectively lengthening the guide, thus decreasing the subsequent sharpening angle?

David,

That angle setting guide from LN is really big on secondary bevels. I like secondary bevels. Really quick to make or touch up. The PM-V11 Bench Chisels from Lee Valley come new with secondary bevels on them. The last bench chisel I bought from Blue Spruce came new with a secondary bevel on it.

Please see the following video on the use of that jig, starting at about 12:00:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aDPZzMvVTA

I tend to do the primary bevels with a Worksharp 3000 (about 1000 grit only). I've set up my angle setting jig to match the angles right off of the Worksharp 3000. Then I just use an 1/8" shim to account for the secondary bevel.

The angle setting jig is very good at being repeatable. It will put you right back on either the primary bevel (or the secondary bevel when using the 1/8" shim). I think it's a great idea that LN had.

PHM

Edit - To answer your question as to if it's a problem for the blocks to wear from use, I actually use a 1/8" set up bar from Woodpeckers as a shim. The chisel or plane iron is really only contacting the set up bar (shim) rather than the block of wood. I'm pretty gentle about it so, no, wear isn't an issue.

[David B. Morris]

I maintain secondary bevels free-hand, but for establishing these and primary bevels on plane irons the MK II is a useful tool. (For chisels less than 1" wide I think it's pretty useless due to poor purchase of the clamps on narrow blades.) The main problem I've found is that the angle attachment does not reliably register plane irons perpendicular to the roller, which is critical to getting bevels truly parallel to the edge of the blade. I check this with a tiny Woodpecker's square; a few taps of a plane hammer on the blade after its clamped in the MK II usually puts it right.
I agree that repeatability of angles seems to be an issue, but knowing where the weak points of this tool lie helps overcome it.

[David B. Morris]

Oh, and for what it's worth, Lie-Nielsen told me in December that they would have their long-awaited honing guide out "after the holidays." But that's for another thread...

[Bob Jones]

I don't see it mentioned here yet. I really like my mk 2 for honing, but I always use the cambered roller. Throw the standard roller back in the box in case you want to sell it later. The cambered roller gives more control and forgiveness.

[Mike Rother]

I don't see it mentioned here yet. I really like my mk 2 for honing, but I always use the cambered roller. Throw the standard roller back in the box in case you want to sell it later. The cambered roller gives more control and forgiveness.

for chisels as well?

[Bob Jones]

Yep, for chisels too.

[Tom M King]

I also keep the cambered roller on mine all the time. For narrow chisels, the Eclipse works better for me.

One other jig that's not mentioned here is handy to have too-the old Record jig. It has a ball for a roller, and really works great for large radius cambers like a no. 5 and a scrub.

[ian maybury]

As posted on the previous page, and as the guys above - the cambered roller is definitely the best for blades wide enough to be self aligning on the stone. As well as avoiding issues it permits the squaring up of the cutter edge by using more pressure on the stone on one side or the other, and/or the adding of camber too.

Issues can arise with the cylindrical roller. It's probably not intended for use on a wide blade - if the alignments of the existing edge and that dictated by the roller are not exactly the same then the guide is likely when used to rock between the two positions. This will likely result in a curved cutting edge. (it is possible to avoid this rocking, but it takes a lot of care)

The above scenario can compounded by the fact that in the case of at least some examples of the Mk 2 the cylindrical roller dictates a slightly different plane to that of the mounting face on the body/the blade clamp - this due to a stack up of tolerances in machining, poweder coating, casting etc. It's possible as posted some months ago to resolve this problem by carefully filing the face of the body of the guide where the roller assembly is clamped/mounted to re-align it as required.

The big benefit of sorting out this issue is that the cylindrical roller can then be used to achieve a perfectly square cutting edge when sharpening narrow chisels and the like which are not properly self aligning/stable on a stone.

The micro bevel adjustment feature on some of the early examples of the guide had a machining problem. The long hole drilled in the bronze roller for the 'axle' was not in some cases properly parallel to its centre axis, with the result that activating the micro bevel feature resulted in the blade being tipped out of the previous side to side alignment. (the result if the problem is present is a micro bevel not quite perfectly parallel to the just completed primary bevel) Lee Valley in their usual highly professional manner seem to be changing these rollers by return - although by now it seems that most have been taken care of. (i got one from early stock sent to Germany, it was immediately and without question exchanged)

Avoiding problems with the Mk 2 is mostly down to thinking through how it works and sorting out correct procedures. I have to say that I've become a huge fan of it's comfort and ease of use...

[David Ragan]

Ian, thanks for that clarification
All- thanks for clarification; i think now i may be able to use the jig w little better insight
If i want to find the discussion from several months ago that adresses tuning the jig-what is easiest way to do that please?

[ian maybury]

Hi David. I've posted quite a lot on on my own experience of tuning the Mk 2, but some of it ended up spread out in various threads. It's pretty basic stuff in principle, it just takes a while to set it out in writing.

The complication is that what actually matters for a given user depends to a very large degree on exactly what grinding and honing methods they use, on the tool type, and on your preferences - you will need to think it through step by step to decide if any of this is relevant to you. If as many you are e.g. hollow grinding primary bevels dry on a grindstone, and only using the Mk 2 with the camber roller in to put on a final micro bevel and/or camber then you will probably experience no issue at all.

Paul has mentioned that using the micro bevel feature ups the ante. Getting tight control of angles was critical for me too because i have Japanese chisels which are sharpened single bevel - exacty the same angle has to be hit time and again when you go back to re-sharpen. (presuming of course that you want to use the Mk 2 for this and don't hand sharpen) I also wanted my guide set up so that i could rely on it delivering square cutting edges on stuff like narrow chisels (say 15mm and below where the blade isn't all that stable on the stone) where i prefer to use the cylindrical roller. Lots would argue that doesn't matter much though (narrow chisels can with care be done using the camber roller - controlling the side to side alignment by hand) so again think it through. It's pretty clear that there is little if any reason to use the cylindrical roller when honing wide blades that rest in a stable way on the stone.

I initially ran into an issue where the sloping top of these chisels meant that they were not being securely held by the clamp in the guide. It seems it's much less of a problem with flat topped blades. This thread sets out how i trued up the clamping faces, and then fitted DIY diamond facing plates to create a hard/replaceable/high grip surface: http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthre...Fix&highlight=

You may not need to get into any of this, but at least check that your Mk 2 and the angle setting accessory are securely and repeatably locating whatever blades you want to sharpen. The mod gives excellent grip for moderate tightening of the clamping knobs, but may be overkill for many.

If you look at the second photo in the opening post in the above thread you will see the corrugated surface where the roller assembly (cylinder and mounting bracket) is mounted and clamped. This is where some re-work may be required to correct any slight misalignment between the cylindrical roller and the blade clamp. (see below) Don't attempt this unless you are very confident in your hand skills - if nothing else it will likely kill your warranty.

Once you are happy that the blade clamp and angle setting accessory is holding stuff properly/hitting the same angle setting on each use you can test the alignment of the cylindrical roller assembly. Having fitted the latter to the Mk 2 take a wide and accurately flat backed blade (plane blade?) the edge of which you have checked and know is accurately square to its straight and tested as being parallel sides. Install the blade in the Mk 2 - making sure that it's clamped down evenly, that the side of the blade is tight against the fence on the angle setting accessory and that the cutting edge is touching the adjustable stop that determines the bevel angle setting.

Remove the angle setting accessory, and ensuring that the cylindrical roller is at all times held down to the surface of the stone (that the guide doesn't rock) try a few honing strokes with the Mk 2 on an accurately flat e.g. 1000 grit or similar water or other stone/plate - with the micro bevel adjustment in the low position. Look carefully at the edge. If the newly cut micro bevel/bright honed strip is accurately parallel to the existing edge, then you know the blade clamp and and the cylindrical roller assembly are in correct alignment with each other. If as is possible it's cutting a bit more on one or the other side then the likelihood is that the cylindrical roller and the blade clamp are a bit out of alignment.

This alignment can be adjusted by careful hand filing of the corrugated roller mounting surface on the body of the Mk 2. Make sure that this surface stays accurately flat, and that the roller assembly is stable/can't rock (as a result of having accidentally filed in some curvature) when the clamping knob is done up. Again don't attempt this if you are not confident in your skills.

Check if it's now correct by repeating the test with the plane blade, and keep on adjusting the seat until you are happy.

Once this is sorted (and not before) dial in the micro bevel adjustment (via the brass knob at the end of the roller) and check the alignment with a few honing strokes at that setting. If both honed strips/micro bevels are parallel, then all is OK. If not then suspect the issue described in post 24 above where in a few early instances the machining of the bore for the roller axle has not been quite right….