Sharpening frustration - I need a one-size-fits-all method

[Patrick Chase]

Everyone probably agrees that "level of sharpness" attainability is higher now than ever before in history right?

But, for centuries beautiful furniture was hand crafted... Why do we feel the need to chase the technology? Why do my chisels need to be sharper than my grandfathers? His work would kick my works tail in overall quality.

We (woodworkers) are not at the leading edge or "chasing the technology". Not even close. If you want to see what that looks like then go read a straight-razor forum and learn all about 0.025 micron diamond and CBN sprays. 0.025 um is somewhere in the neighborhood of half a million grit (seriously).

Japanese natural polishing stones range up to the equivalent of #30000 or so, and well-broken-in fine Arkansas stones are well up into the thousands, so what we're doing these days isn't even exceptional by historical woodworking standards. Anything much above O(#10000) has marginal benefit for woodworking, which is why the level of target sharpness hasn't moved much in literally centuries.

The main things that have changed are speed/productivity and the fact that we can now achieve good edges on more difficult steels. Silicon Dioxide (the abrasive in natural stones) has a Knoop hardness of about 820 (~Rc 64) so anything much harder than that was a lost cause until the advent of synthetic abrasives. For comparison, the Chromium carbides in D2 come in at a Knoop hardness of ~1700.

[Nick Stokes]

We (woodworkers) are not at the leading edge or "chasing the technology". Not even close. If you want to see what that looks like then go read a straight-razor forum and learn all about 0.025 micron diamond and CBN sprays. 0.025 um is somewhere in the neighborhood of half a million grit (seriously).

Japanese natural polishing stones range up to the equivalent of #30000 or so, and well-broken-in fine Arkansas stones are well up into the thousands, so what we're doing these days isn't even exceptional by historical woodworking standards. Anything much above O(#10000) has marginal benefit for woodworking, which is why the level of target sharpness hasn't moved much in literally centuries.

The main things that have changed are speed/productivity and the fact that we can now achieve good edges on more difficult steels. Silicon Dioxide (the abrasive in natural stones) has a Knoop hardness of about 820 (~Rc 64) so anything much harder than that was a lost cause until the advent of synthetic abrasives. For comparison, the Chromium carbides in D2 come in at a Knoop hardness of ~1700.

Gotcha. This makes sense to me.

Also David, great points that also make a lot of sense. Thanks.

[Jim Koepke]

Everyone probably agrees that "level of sharpness" attainability is higher now than ever before in history right?

If you ever tried shaving with a dull straight razor you would know they had to have a way of getting those sharp for our forefathers to go without facial hair.

The "secrets" of sharpening were likely held close to home among the tradesmen of old. It was a tactical advantage in a competitive world to have an edge on your competition.

Dave Weaver mention a jasper hone at one time. I bummed a piece of jasper from my wife's rock hoard. It is very hard and can put a mirror on steel.

It is imaginable in the past young craftsmen tried every rock they could find to see what it could do to steel.

jtk