Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)
Hi Ron

Taking the strop to be just another sharpening media ...

The convex method has been around a long time. In terms of discussion, it has been the source of debate on the UK forum for some years, long before I read of Paul Sellers using it.

Like every sharpening method, there are pros and cons.

I use this method when honing my mortice chisels. They need to be around 35 degrees, and you do not want to hollow grind and a honing guide is difficult (I have the small Kell, which works so-so). The primary bevel remains 20 degrees, and it is not too difficult to determine where 35 degrees should be. This is the primary value of convex sharpening for me.

In Paul Seller's latest blog article, he commented (on plane blades): "Another thing we cannot simply dismiss is that we want to use hand methods, thick irons have longer bevels and a large amount of steel must be removed constantly".

I have found several inaccuracies in his writings recently. This is one. I discussed another with Paul on his website, but stopped when it became apparent that we were not on the same page. He has his preferences, and I really do not know if he has explored the options. The quote above indicates that he dismisses, or does not consider, secondary bevels, microbevels, etc.

The question I would pose here is there any difference (in honing) between a thin Stanley blade and a thick infill blade if they are either hollow ground or given a secondary bevel on a flat face? If the secondary micro bevel is the same for both, then one does the same amount of honing regardless of the thickness you started with. Indeed, to hone with a rounded bevel means that one has more steel to remove as you need to lower the back of the face to avoid increasing the bevel angle.

At the end of the day one does what is comfortable.

Regards from Perth

Derek