Brian Greene
Pam, you raise a good point. However, would not skipping two bits of work on the primary be more efficient than addressing it every time?

My edges are sharp and the process is fast because I do a lot of sharpening. However, I frequently wonder if I am getting the best edge possible for the effort I put in. I hollow grind and lift just slightly so that I'm not riding on the back and front of the hollow, doing a small (1/32 - 1/64) micro bevel in the process. The problem with this is that you must be very aware of the angle or you won't get the edge. I often have to re-do. (There I've said it!) It's still wickedly fast which is very important to me.

Recently, I'm wondering whether, as a result of this method, I'm also creating a steeper than desireable micro, because it must be steeper than the traditional way. If so, it's solveable by starting with a shallower primary.

Having said that I'm reverting back to the traditional way (riding the back and front of the hollow) hoping to a) reduce the angle of the micro and b) make the effort more consistent. I want to see if, subjectively, I'm getting better edges, more consistently, with no loss of efficiency.

Still not sure about Sellers. If his method is valid, and I don't doubt he gets good edges, what does that say about the underlying principles of the methods we are used to? How come we are only hearing about this method now? One specific concern that the convex shape raises is that it's inappropriate for mortising, the wedging action causing splitting.

Cheers,