Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge
Good Grief!
Bill Tindall, E. TN
>It is no wonder it took days to flatten a back of some chisels if 1000 grit water stone was the starting place. I expect for the price that the LN's are surface ground and hence dead flat to begin with.
For the typical chisel I typically start with 80 grit alumina zirconium if by hand (but a power driven wheel is much faster yet).
Re: LV, LN, (Long and Pointy)
Larry Marshall
>- Critical review of a particular vendor's product
I agree with your summary completely. In reading through the thread, I don't think most took issue with one man's opinion. But
- Develop �review speak� skills before offering anything resembling reviews.
this is where the problem lies. First, it wasn't a review of LN chisels, it was a put down or other chisels. More importantly, it comes from a guy who went to a class to learn how to sharpen chisels. My bet is that the folks sharpening those LN chisels have, on average, more experience sharpening than do those sharpening $10 chisels.
As an aside, the review contradicts itself. On th e one hand we were told that LV chisels are so soft that they won't hold their edge past a single hit against hardwood and yet we're to believe that it's hard to flatten their backs. This smacks of someone whose skills are the problem, not the chisel.
In the way of disclaimers, I know nothing of LV chisels.
Cheers --- Larry
A fine point. One more to add:
Christopher Schwarz
>Another common phenomenon in woodworking is this: skill overcomes all limitations. Very highly skilled woodworkers can do incredible work regardless of the tools. James Krenov's favorite tool? A knife.
Skill, I have found, can overcome virtually any tool that is set up less than perfectly.
But put that same tool in the hands of the beginner and it will simply not work. Beginners generally have better results with tools that have a shallower learning curve, such as chisels with flat backs. There's no need to learn to compensate for the secondary bevel.
Chris
Re: A fine point. One more to add:
joel
>That's a fair point but how does the beginner learn to go up the learning curve?
Here you have a case of one student who wasn't taught a useful and quick method of flattening a back of a chisel and another who won't have the need to learn. (and will one day stumble just like the first student - only in private)
Re: Good Grief!
DaveH
>I was referring to the Marples Blue Chip chisel. I guess that's why it took me 3 hours. As I stated in a previous message it only took 15 minutes for the guy to flatten the back of the LN using the same stones.
ps I didn't have anything more course than a 1000 stone
Excellent observation, IMO
Lyn J. Mangiameli
>
Agree!
Jonathan Ronnow, Sweden
>
Re: Good Grief!
Lyn J. Mangiameli
>This was my suspicion. Joel's comment earlier captured the situation very cogently and concisely: the real failure here was in providing the students with an understanding of how best to flatten backs, in the full variety of conditions they may be found (because not always will one be able to buy their way of of dealing with a poorly manufactured blade).
Like you, I find it almost inconceiveable that students would be left to spend hours flattening a back. Even if one does not want to require students to come to the school with a full range of abrasives, it certainly seems to make sense to me to have some coarser ones available for the very situations that developed. Hopefully the instructor learned from this situation as well.
I too, regulary use very coarse abrasives when I flatten blades. I tend to begin with just a few passes on a 1000 or so to determine how flat the back is to begin with, but if I see that there are any significantly deviations, I immediately drop down to a 100 Shapton. IMO, it is just absurd to be trying to flatten most blade backs (and with respect to plane blades, this even includes some that come from very well respected manufacturers) with only stones of 1000 or higher.
Chisel Back Flattening
Don Thompson - South of Miami
>Hello Lyn,
Do you use the same technique for flattening and polishing a chisel back that you use for the backs of plane blades?
Don
My thought on that
Christopher Schwarz
>First thing to mention: I'm not trying to debate the merits of particular brands here.
How do you go up the learning curve? I think it's the same way we all do it, by starting small, practicing and improving.
The best analogy for me is with sharpening. If you know what a really sharp tool is like (what it looks like, what it feels like in use) then you will have an easier time of replicating that sharp edge because you know what the baseline is.
If you begin working with a chisel with a flat face (a $10 chisel or a $1,000 chisel � your choice) then you will know what that looks like and what it feels like to use. And then, when you go to setup your next chisel, you will know the baseline and have a much easier time of hitting the target -- regardless of the method you choose or the tool at hand.
Having a baseline tool in hand is a huge leg up for beginners. Too often we struggle with tools that are set up poorly. And we don't even know they are set up poorly.
Chris
Re: My thought on that
joel
>I don't think you are talking brands here.
It's the question on the learning curve.
You say: "starting small, practicing and improving".
which is perfectly valid, but where do you learn technique? The whole point of going to school is to not have to learn by trial and (mostly) error.
Now I happen to be a tool junkie just like the next person and gosh knows I have tons of tools of all sizes and shapes but the hardest thing for me to learn, but by far the most important has been efficent technique. some I learned from books and magazines, some I learned by asking people in the know but the most important source of information was a coherent series of classroom instruction which gave me a real solid foundation.
"Having a baseline tool in hand is a huge leg up for beginners. "
also very true - and I hope the teacher in this case gave the students a chance to use perfectly sharp and tuned tools so the students could see what they can do. Stuff like that is an important frame of reference. but a frame of reference without the information on how to get there is just an exercise in frustration.
Darn good writing Todd. I enjoyed it completely.
Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia
>
Re: My thought on that
Jonathan Ronnow, Sweden
>*snip* chance to use perfectly sharp and tuned tools so the students could see what they can do. Stuff like that is an important frame of reference. but a frame of reference without the information on how to get there is just an exercise in frustration. *snip*
Now thats good. I you get a plan for something, you can see what the parts should look like and how they should be assembled. But what if you had no idea how to get there?
So if you read that you should flatten the back but havent been taught how to do it, what abrasives to use, what to look for, where to hold - then it would be a goal that you cant reach.
I think the guide to honing(although thats not the way I do it) on www.antiquetools.com is a good example of how to teach. It shows the goal, the means, and how to do it. Then, getting sharp edges are no longer mystery but simple. It only takes pratice.
While we are talking flattening backs, I recall that in the sharpening book Lee suggests a belt sande if much metal needs removal. It can really speed things up if its done carefully.
Jr
Re: Darn good writing Todd. I enjoyed it completel
Jonathan Peck -N.Y.
>Hate to pile on with the me too's but.........Much appreciated clarity, thanks Todd. well said.
Re: Chisel Back Flattening
Lyn J. Mangiameli
>Yes, except that for narrower chisels I use microfine mylar backed abrasives on a flat surface (usually one of those cheap granite surface plates, or for touch ups, I just use a still platter on the LV QPSS). The reason why the "scary sharp" techiques on the narrower chisels is that I believe most waterstones "groove" too rapidly with narrow 3/16 and smaller chisels. Otherwise, everything is the same.
I suspect diamond slurries on a flat board or lapping plate would also work very well for chisel backs.
Scary sharp
Joe Piotrowski - Chicago - south burbs
>I used the scary sharp method to flatten the backs of some sears chisel. they were so coarse that there was no light reflection. very rough set. I don't think they were for woodworking :) i have seen concrete chisels sharper and flatter.
I set grits 80 to 2000 . I used WD 40 as lubricant on the wet/dry sand paper. I spent about 1 hour on a chisel to get a mirror like finish. I was going to go and get some finer micron paper the next weekend but wound up buying a set of Crown chisels from a discount table at woodcraft or rockler. and never touching the craftsman set again, until I used them as guinny pigs on my new tormek grinder. :)
Re: Some Wrong Lines Here....
Todd Stock
>I'm glad you go a chuckle out of my comments - ...obviously, poking a bit of fun was the intent of at least a portion of my note.
Who in their right mind would get crabby about this stuff anyway?
Well...good to know that ....
HC Sakman
>...you're still sane Todd! ;-) In the past, I can't remember who and when, but somebody had some serious issues with electrons. I bet he wasn't even Amish! ;-)
Chico...
Re: LV, LN, (Long and Pointy)
Todd Stock
>Larry:
Forgive me for having a bit of fun poking sticks into hornet's nests, but it feels so good after the 100 yard sprint to avoid getting stung! But seriously - I was not being serious...
Todd
Re: You should see his bike
kees
>And is Lance winning the "tour de France" or his bike?
kees
Larry, well said!
Alan Hamilton
>
Re: LV, LN, (Long and Pointy)
Todd Stock
>Larry:
Guess everyone doubled up on the bran muffins last week, eh?
Todd
Is this the end?
Jack Guzman from Maine
>Wow! I made it to the end of the thread(for now I'm guessing).Very contensious(sp.)subject.---Jack
Re: You should see his bike
DaveH
>I can't imagine that Lance would have won 5 Tours without his bike ;-)
Thanks
Howard Pollack
>