david weaver
.. it would only be due to the effective angle at the cut being steeper than it would be for a flat or hollow ground bevel.

That's not really a compromise I want to make. I saw Paul's blog mention that the angle at the cut is the same for his method as it is for someone else's and that's why the argument against it makes no sense. I agree with that.

But implicit in that statement is that the remainder of the primary is less steep than a flat or hollow grind, because intead of the angle being constant or increasing after the edge, it becomes less steep.

I suspect a lot of people who use his method will make bevels that are steeper than they think they're making, but folks can figure that out on their own as they go along - if they get steep enough, they'll notice.

I haven't follwed his blog much since then, I can't get on with the promotion of class work mixed 50/50 with the railing against industrialized society and productivity. It is only the industrialized society he rails against that provides his students with enough money to go to classes and entertain themselves. In a craft economy, there would be no such thing, he'd be many times poorer and he'd have to work harder. That rubs me the wrong way, as even in a craft economy, it is the money from the wealthy searching for the best that drives innovation and the need for retention of fine skills in the craft.