Cheapest way to flatten chisels?

[David Bassett]

As I understand it the original text was only 100 pages; by Anonymous.

the revised text is 370 pages.

never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

I don't understand your point.

As I said, the original text was edited and reprinted and the book was augmented. I believe Joel did the historic information in the introduction and footnotes that provide context to a modern reader unfamiliar with that earlier era. Then an entire section was added where Chris Schwarz builds the projects assigned to Thomas, the story's apprentice, and provides extra directions for those want to try them. Since the 1839 portions of the text talk about flattening stones, it is another, slightly more recent, mention than the one Warren gave.

[Kurt Cady]

As I understand it the original text was only 100 pages; by Anonymous.

the revised text is 370 pages.

never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

"The complete text of "The Joiner and Cabinet Maker," unabridged and unaltered. We present every word of the 1839 original (plus a chapter on so-called "modern tools" added in a later edition), with footnotes from Moskowitz that will help you understand the significance of the story." From LAP.

370 would include all of the other stuff in the book

[Patrick Chase]

The Jointer and Cabinet Maker, (by Anonymous, edited & augmented by Joel Moskowitz & Chris Schwarz, and republished by Lost Art Press), says an apprentice or journeyman could be fined for not flattening the shop's stones. In another section it talks of a sloppy apprentice leaving a bench stone dished and uses it as an example of someone unlikely to advance or succeed in the field. The original text is from 1839. Also in a footnote, they (Joel, I think) talk about how sharpening on grind stones and bench stones was so common in so many trades in that day it is omitted as obvious from most texts of that era. They list a few other mentions in old literature too, so the concept was known "back in the day".

I wonder how much the practical meaning of "flat" has changed, though.

There is no such thing as a perfectly planar surface, so for the most part when people say "flat" they really mean "sufficiently planar that I can't tell the difference with the tools at my disposal". In my case that usually means "I can't see light under my Starrett straight edge".

Does anybody have a sense for what an 18th or 19th century cabinet maker's definition would have been?

[David Bassett]

I wonder how much the practical meaning of "flat" has changed, though....

I'm sure it's changed and I'm also not sure we shouldn't have equal or more concern about "smooth". We shouldn't sell short the very refined skills of craftsmen past and I suspect they could achieve flatter with their tools than most of us could with those tools, but they also didn't have cheap granite surface plates, precision ground straight edges, etc. that come up in many of these "flat" discussions. (Which is why I was staying out of this discussion. I only jumped in when I knew a second historic reference supporting the point Warren was making.) BTW- I'm convinced, from the references, they did worry about flat and, I'd bet, they had a much better idea what "flat enough" is than most of us do. Given time is money, I'm sure they didn't go beyond flat enough (for their current job.)

[Jim Koepke]

Given time is money, I'm sure they didn't go beyond flat enough (for their current job.)

The world was different then. How many people bought a set of tools at the local hardware store. Most likely a person 'in the trade' bought tools as they went. The first part of all of it was being an apprentice in a shop. A lot of the time they had wasn't worth as much as the journeymen in the shop. They were likely learning about sharpening as one of their first steps after tending the glue pots and sweeping the floors. If they liked the trade they maybe bought a chisel when the money and need came together.

jtk

[Warren Mickley]

Today we have people who put pencil marks on a stone and consider it flat when their flattening tool obliterates the marks. This is completely divorced from the real concerns of how the flatness of the stone affects performance of the tool. The most important thing in sharpening is discernment: what can you notice about the performance of the tool. The stone is flat enough when the tool does what you want.

We have people putting a camber on the tool by counting strokes rather than by actually looking at how the plane is performing. This is what we call cookbook learning: follow this recipe to the letter; don't bother getting a feel for the process, don't follow your intuition or worry about the actual taste of the food.

The advent of the sharpening jig has caused a great increase in the need for flattening. Rather than using the stone in such a way as to minimize uneven wear, many today give no thought to wear and run the tool on a very small patch of the stone. They are content to spend time repairing the damage for the next tool.

[Brian Holcombe]

My backs are flat enough that my wear bevel disappears each time I sharpen. I assume that requires a very flat back and stone. I also cannot imagine that deviates very far from historic requirements

[Jim Koepke]

My backs are flat enough that my wear bevel disappears each time I sharpen. I assume that requires a very flat back and stone. I also cannot imagine that deviates very far from historic requirements

Well said, I tend to keep an eye toward removing the wear bevel when honing a blade, but it seems more profound reading it.

jtk

[Brian Holcombe]

Thanks Jim!

I didn't see Warren's post before submitting mine (we must have been typing at the same time), but basically driving at the same point. His example is a good one, I'm learning to make sushi currently and the rice is the most delicate part of the task. My last attempt was to follow a recipe exactly....which I did....the rice was beautiful and tasted horribly plain. Next time I will follow my gut and add what I thought it was missing.

Same for camber and flattening backs, ect. If you're getting a good pattern, and your stone is working nicely and the wear is disappearing then you're right on. If it's not and your getting multiple patterns and your not accomplishing anything then something is wrong. I haven't checked flatness on a stone or chisel or plane blade in my shop, but they're flat to be doing their job well, if they weren't or at least weren't flat enough then I would get a new wear pattern each time. Diagnostic equipment is great, when you need it, but otherwise it seems to get in the way of doing the job well and developing intuition.

[Stewie Simpson]

My own experience with using Early 1900s Nos taper irons suggests there is little to be gained by spending too much time trying to flatten the back of these irons. They are far from flat as seen on more modern manufactured irons.

Far better to limit this work just shy of the cutting edge, on a needs basis.



As such, if early craftsmen also saw a need to focus more of their attention on the bevel side of the iron, were they overly concerned if the honing stones they were using were out of flat.

Stewie;

[Patrick Chase]

Today we have people who put pencil marks on a stone and consider it flat when their flattening tool obliterates the marks. This is completely divorced from the real concerns of how the flatness of the stone affects performance of the tool. The most important thing in sharpening is discernment: what can you notice about the performance of the tool. The stone is flat enough when the tool does what you want.

Yeah, there's a critical distinction between "flat" and "flat enough", and I intentionally didn't ask about the latter :-).

Pencil marks on a stone are useful when it's badly out of flat and you want to be able to get a rough idea of when you've reduced the dishing to the point of working the entire surface. You're obviously right that it's neither a sufficient nor a reliable indicator of "flat enough".

[Patrick Chase]

My own experience with using Early 1900s Nos taper irons suggests there is little to be gained by spending too much time trying to flatten the back of these irons. They are far from flat as seen on more modern manufactured irons.

Far better to limit this work just shy of the cutting edge, on a needs basis.

Stewie;

Plane irons have different flattening requirements than chisels (the topic of this thread)...

[Mike Jaureguy]

As far as "flattening" the back goes, I start with a Worksharp @ 80 grit until the Sharpie test is passed. Remember now all I'm doing is trying to flatten it. Then another Sharpie test on flat granite tile with 3M "sticky" 80 grit( I think they call it "professional grade". The sticky-Post-It-note style works perfect for keeping it from shifting). After that, it is "flat"(certainly for W/W purposes), the entire back. Now then, since it is flat, I just start polishing; the next task(s) is to just make smaller scratches out of bigger ones, with successively finer grits; whether I do the whole back or just an inch or so, depends on the phase of the moon, and my patience.. At this point, I am also doing the bevel, alternating bevel to back. Each successive swap to a finer grit and back to bevel swap, cleans up the preceding wire curl. I do most of this on the Worksharp, much quicker and smoother. As I approach the final honing stages, with as fine a grit as I desire, I use my honing guide and fancy stones, as I desire, maybe a leather strop and/or rouge of various super fine grits. However, with older or 'beater' chisels, the Worksharp does a very commendable job, for most of this back-to-bevel swapping procedure, especially since the steel itself may not be of the finest quality, and therefore not hold a fine edge for any length of time. But, oh, those first few swipes on a nice wood piece !!!! The same technique for plane irons. I will try the drywall screen mentioned in earlier posts, nice and cheap, maybe even mount it on a Worksharp. If I didn't have the Worksharp for all the 'grunt' work, I'd just use successive grits of paper on the granite plate with the honing guide.

[Aaron Rappaport]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned carefully using the curved part - the face - of a bench grinder's wheel. Well, someone did describe using it to remove high spots, but the hardest challenge in back flattening is pitting. Pitting makes virtually the entire back a high spot. Nevertheless, if one carefully grinds 1/8" wide concave strips out of the back of the blade over its first inch or so, then the remaining high spots can be brought down much more quickly on a diamond stone or sandpaper than if those latter two mediums are used alone.

A cautionary note: This is to produce users, not necessarily good-looking blade backs. Unless one "feathers" the width (and thus the depth) of the concave strips to decrease gradually to zero as the grinder wheel moves away from the blades tip, this method can easily leave some grinder marks, but they will be well back from the business end of the blade, and they'll go away over time, or they can easily be removed when the blade is finally sharpened back to them by repeating the process. It's definitely a method to practice with a beater blade before using it on something more important to you.

Someone here or over at woodnet linked to a blog that described this in pictures, which work way better than words, but I seem to have not saved the link.

[Robert Engel]

I haven't run into a chisel needing more than 300 grit to flatten.

If you have a chisel that is THAT out of flat to start with 80 grit, most likely is it abused and/or poor quality so you maybe be ahead to just buy set of decent chisels.
You may still have to flatten the backs, but it will be a much easier process.