Replies

1. 
   lwilliams | Dec 11, 2009 04:28am | #1

   One question and one statement loaded with controversy. Sorry Chewey but I don't believe this forum has the life expectancy really start to discuss this. I've already got one foot out the door and don't plan on watching the sad end.

2. 
   roc | Dec 11, 2009 05:58am | #2

   Here is a start

   http://forums.taunton.com/fw-knots/messages?msg=43550.1

   Just search for A2 or O1

   I am late to dinner so good luck

   PS: the Veritas/Lee-Valley catalog has a page about the differences. No real difference in finish it is just that the A2 lasts longer in abrasive wood and the other is easier to sharpen/may get a little sharper but A2 can get sharp enough to shave curls off a single hair so how much sharper do yah need than that?

   roc

   Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )

   
   

   ---

   Edited 12/10/2009 11:24 pm by roc

3. 
   derekcohen | Dec 11, 2009 07:10am | #3

   of the two types of blade steel available ,which gives a better finish ?

   Hi Chewey

   The answer is simple - the blade that is sharpened the best (i.e. sharpest) will provide the better finish.

   Now the next question is which type of steel sharpens best, and the answer is that they sharpen the same. However A2 is a little more abrasive resistant than O1, which is both an advantage (to some - those working with more abrasive woods) and a disadvantage (so some). A2 sharpens up very easily is you use waterstones. It appears to struggle (from reports - I have no personal experience here) on oilstones.

   Regards from Perth

   Derek

1. 
   Lataxe | Dec 14, 2009 07:42pm | #7

   Derek,

   I sometimes feel I must be missing something when lads talk of the different sharpening speeds and so forth.  Can it really take that long to sharpen a plane blade, of carbon steel, A2, O2, D2 or even that tough Chinese HSS found in Mujingfangs?  (Assuming one has got to the stage of "competant sharpener" and isn't just cack-handed, as I was for a month or two until practicee made purfek).

   Well, I suppose some metals take a little longer than others; but it's only a minute or two, unless one is grinding off pounds of an unwanted main bevel using only a fine grade stone.  (Reshaping a bevel with a Tormek takes far too long, for instance).  But that kind of work is surely unusual and anyway requires a grinder.....?

   I seem to be able to sharpen blades of all kinds from the condition "a little blunt from long use" to "scary sharp" in 5 minutes, using maybe a Tormek but usually just diamond plates and a guide.  Starting with blades from the likes of LN and LV, it takes hardly any time, as they really only need a quick hone.

   Rehoning freehand on leather with a bit of oil+polishing compound also keeps plane blades (of A2, O2, D2, HSS at least) working for hundreds of swooshes, even with abrasive stuff such as iroko or teak.  Use of kinder woods seems not to significantly blunt these metals without thousands of swooshes.  I seem to resharpen only if I get a nick, really, as rehoning on that leather soon puts the sharp back from, say, a teak-tired blade.

   *******

   Surely the advantage of most modern metals over that older stuff lies in this happy combination of easy sharpening/honing (with modern sharpening surfaces at least) along with very long working-edge retension?

   Perhaps the diamonds are making it easy compared to those water stones and oilstones?

   Lataxe

1. 
   derekcohen | Dec 14, 2009 08:17pm | #8

   Hi L

   As you know, this topic comes up all the time. There appears to be some belief that blades made of A2 are difficult to sharpen, and one should stick with O1 or HCS ... after all this was the way it was done in the 18th century and there have not been any real improvements since.

   I get the impression of hands beavering away, sweat pouring down arms and torso as the effort is made to smooth the face of a bevel on an oilstone. Mention A2 or D2 steel and the hands raise high to the heavens in protestation.

   Have so few not heard of microbevels? Those that do use these cannot understand the fuss made. Create a microbevel (either via a hollow grind on on a flat grind) and sharpening a blade really should take under 3 minutes. Even less, and regardless of the steel type if you are using appropriate media.

   I happen to like A2 steel. It lasts longer than O1 on the abrassive woods I work, gets as sharp, and I do not find it any more effort to sharpen. I use Shapton ceramic waterstones, but I know many others who are just as successful using Nortons, diamond stones and even sandpaper. I have no direct experience of oilstones, but I hear that they are not suited to A2, D2 and the like. What does it say when someone perseveres with ill-suited methods?

   Regards from Perth

   Derek

1. 
   Lataxe | Dec 15, 2009 01:39am | #9

   Derek,

   "What does it say when someone perseveres with ill-suited methods"?

   Well, the korrect word is "reactionary"  (add "ole phart", as appropriate).

   This is not to say that one should eschew a good conservative attitude concerning those long-engendered and dynamic traditions that have given us so many fine tools, techniques and designs.  But I do agree concerning those fellows who detest the very notion of change, let alone its occurence.

   Also, one may admire those who in some sense reconstruct the world of yesteryear, if it is a chosen approach rather than an ideological stance.  I can certainly admire the perserverance as well as the product of those who make true reproductions of olde worlde pieces, especially those from the historical high-points involving great skill and ingenuity.  If olde worlde tools and tool-steels are a significant contribution to that, who can object?

   But one does not wish to become a slave to the past.  A zillion LN and LV users know that A2 et al provide excellent cutting performance.  Therefore it makes sense to adopt the sharpening technologies and practices that are appropriate to that metal (and its cousins) rather than those methods evolved to sharpen softer or otherwise less adamantine tool steels of the past.

   Lataxe

2. 
   lwilliams | Dec 15, 2009 04:59am | #10

   "...What does it say when someone perseveres with ill-suited methods?"

   Brilliant statement, Derek! I have no idea what Australian woods are like and I never will. Like most who frequent this forum, I live in the US. I'm fortunate to have a wide range of wonderful domestic woods to choose from. We have stunningly beautiful and versatile woods that are far more than just suitable for any project we may decide to build. Even the most difficult grained maple works just fine with good fine grained steel.

   Perhaps Australian and other woodworkers in distant lands get some boost to their masculinity by struggling with working rock-like woods. That's fine, but I don't have to face that. I see no benefit from switching to relatively coarse grained A-2 who's propensity for chipping has manufacturers suggesting obtuse bevel angles. The fine grained steel, by it's nature, yields a sharper edge. It's an additional benefit that the sharper edge is easier and quicker to achieve.

   Being able to get a sharp, durable and chip resistant edge at 25º or 30º bevel angles is a huge benefit of the oil and water hardening steels. Virtually all my tools are sharpened at these angles. For me a edge prone to chipping at these angles falls into the "ill-suited" category.

   US and International Laws require a pedigree on exotic imported woods these days. I think that's a good thing. We've avoided supporting the timber poaching trade for years by using only domestic woods. Yes, we do use an occasional very small (3/4" X 3/4" X 1/2") piece of rosewood on some of what we make. We were given the rosewood we use years ago and we still have a little left. It was cut-offs from a factory producing marimbas. When that supply is gone we'll replace it with a suitable domestic wood.

   There are a lot of ways to flaunt testosterone levels. I don't think struggling with ill-suited timbers or coarse grained and chippy steel are among those that appeal to me. People can have the googaboola and the support of exotic timber poaching if they want or even buy less than ideal tools. It's not my cup of tea.

   Perhaps those who can't tell the difference between relatively coarse grained steel and steel with fine grain could benefit from a little more refining of their sharpening techniques.

4. 
   JeffHeath | Dec 11, 2009 11:48pm | #4

   Want some practical advice without a lot of consternation? Make your choice, and live with it. Both are very good quality blades for woodworking tools. I have most planes (from LN) that are A1 (cryo), and a few blades from Hock that are oil dipped. Both work great, and I can't tell a discernible difference when working on wood.

   Get to planing, and don't worry about it. I guess my answer is, you won't be able to tell the difference, except when sharpening.

   Jeff

5. 
   gdblake | Dec 13, 2009 06:22am | #5

   Chewey:

   As Derek said, the sharpest iron shaves the best.  You have to factor in that the second you put the iron to wood you immediately lose some sharpness. So what you want is an iron that can be honed very sharp and also stands up to abrasion in wood.  A2 blades take a little longer to get as sharp as O1, but stay sharp longer.  Assuming you have good sharpening skills, my advice is if you typically work hardwoods order your plane with an A2 iron.  If your sharpening skills are wanting and/or you will mostly be working softwoods go with an O1 iron. 

    I have found that I need to use an 8,000 grit waterstone (Norton brand) to get my A2 irons as sharp as I can get my O1 irons on a 6,000 grit waterstone (King brand).  This could be because my sharping technique is flawed and I just don't know it or the 6,000 grit King stone doesn't do as good a job on A2 steel as it does on O1.  I put my irons to work  straight off of the waterstone.

   gdblake

6. 
   danmart | Dec 14, 2009 02:14am | #6

   Just to throw another suggestion in... I like the high carbon blades from Hock. I have the other steel blades and they are impressive. Over the years I have found that I can get the high carbon to an edge faster than the other blades. I work in walnut and figured maple most of the time and the HC holds up very well.

   Final Answer: If you are patient and you are willing to spend the time honing a bit longer, get the hardest thing you can find. If you're just planing wood like sugar maple, you will be very pleased with Ron Hock's HC blades.

   Note: Ron likes the HC too.