featured in
30 days free trial
Become a MemberSeptember 30, 2013
In my last video, The Funeral Chair Part Two, I began by sharpening my plane iron.
I have since told you about the inexpensive, vise-type honing guide I prefer using.
And then, I shared some thoughts on water stones.
This time around, it’s all about the ruler trick.
Incidentally, I was never fond of the name ‘the ruler trick’.
It just doesn’t have enough oomph.
I say we give credit where credit is due and start calling it, “The Charlesworth“.
Sounds like an exotic dance or something.
Here’s a bit of history.
In the not so distant past, wood workers would spend hours, dressing the entire back of their plane irons.
Sweat and blood, poured out over polish.
Finger-crick-convulsion, while wrist and elbow cramped.
The back of the tool brought-up to a mirror-like finish.
Hours spent slaving over whetstone, and why?
Does anything more than the leading tip need to be polished?
The answer, quite frankly, is no.
ENTER DAVID CHARLESWORTH
Since 1973, David Charlesworth has been a maker of fine furniture in the United Kingdom.
In 1977, he began teaching the craft at his Devon workshops. Sometime thereafter, he had a most brilliant idea.
He took an inexpensive, 6-in. metal rule, about 0.5mm thick, and placed it in the slurry, down the edge of his polishing stone.
The ruler acts as a wedge and elevates the iron across the width of the stone.
Working the backside of the blade onto the stone by no more than 5/8-in., the polish occurs only at the tip.
A dozen short strokes,( NOTE: SEE DAVID’S COMMENT ON THIS BELOW ) up and down the stone, leaves a mirror like strip across the tip, no wider than 1/16-in.
Fast and sufficient.
A simple stroke of genius.
This of course, is a simplified explanation and I would encourage you to watch David’s DVD,
Hand Tool Techniques Part 1: Plane Sharpening available on David’s website.
DOESN’T EVERYONE?
My sub-title of course, was written in jest.
But I do wonder if anyone out there is still polishing the entire back of their plane iron.
And if they are, what is the reason behind it?
Perhaps a place, to steal a glimpse, and see if your salad is caught between your teeth?
If this is the first time you’re hearing about the ruler trick the Charlesworth, then rejoice.
From this day forth you’ll save hours, polishing the backs of your plane irons.
And a note to the wise-
THE RULER TRICK IS ONLY MEANT FOR PLANE IRONS.
NEVER USE THIS TECHNIQUE ON CHISELS!
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Do you use the ruler trick or any other time saving technique while sharpening?
I’d love to hear about them.
Join the conversation and leave a comment below!
Cheers!
SEE BELOW…
the Newsletter
Reserve your class spot before it's sold outSecured with 256-bit SSL Encryption
© 2008 - 2023 made by hand.
Tom,
Thank you very much.
Delighted that you enjoy the benefits of the technique! I have noticed one small change since writing about this in the past.
Because the wear bevel forms on the back of the plane blade as well as the bevel, I now tend to use more strokes, with the ruler, on the polishing stone. Say 20 to 25, depending on how blunt the blade was.
Best wishes,
David Charlesworth
David,
thanks for the comments and the advice.
all the best,
Tom
Lesser known, but just as brilliant, is David’s other sharpening trick. Double-sided-sticky-taping a small block of wood to the top side of the plane iron or chisel to use as a handle to bear down on when flattening. That one’s another godsend.
Thanks for the comment Jason-
I couldn’t agree more.
I actually took that second trick a step further a few years ago and inlaid a couple of rare earth magnet into a shaped wood block for the same results. The idea came from seeing David use the ‘double-sided-tape trick.’
; )
all the best,
Tom
I use the “Charlesworth” for the second sharpening. When I get a new plane blade, I flatten what needs flattening (I get my blades from Lie Nielsen or Ron Hock — so they’re pretty flat — actually, perfectly flat — to start with). Then for the second and subsequent sharpening, I “Charlesworth.”
There’s a certain feeling of satisfaction of getting a nice reflection on the backs of planes (and chisels of course).
Gotta try the rare earth magnets. Just got a bunch from LV last week.
Great music, great videos.
–Steve.
LOL- ; )
Steve,
it’s hilarious to see you writing ‘the Charlesworth‘
I’m surprised David didn’t comment on that this morning.
Thankfully, he has a good sense of humor!
Remember- no ruler trick on the backs of chisels!
thanks for the comments.
Tom
Just following your advice.
No, not on the backs of chisels.
I noticed in the video you used The Charlesworth and I’m assuming this is not first time you’ve honed that plan iron, right? This makes me ask if you always pull out the ruler when removing the burr from the back of the iron after your final grit. I used the ruler to flatten the back the first time but haven’t used it since. Any thoughts? Maybe it’ll just add to the confusion. Sorry in advance.
For the record, my results have been great without the ruler on subsequent sharpenings of my plane irons.
-Shawn
I am in complete agreement with Tom and David: the ruler trick (aka The Charlesworth) is an incredibly simple time saver. I can’t understand why anyone would flatten the back of a plane iron when it’s so much quicker to simply flatten and polish a small stripe along the edge. The half-degree back-bevel makes no discernible difference in performance and removal of the wear-bevel on subsequent honings is also easier.
Keep up the good work, Tom!
The Charlesworth… ha! I love it.
Shawn,
thanks for the comments and questions.
You’re right, this isn’t the first time I’ve honed that plane iron and, yes- I use the ruler trick every time I sharpen.
I’ll post a video that shows more of my process but can tell you that it’s pretty much the same as the techniques David describes in his video. It’s really worth picking up.
cheers!
Hey Ron,
thanks for posting those comments.
It’s always great to hear from ‘the pro’s’ and re-affirms we’re all on the right track!
all the best,
Tom
Been using the ” Charlesworth” for a few years now. Any time Tom or Ron indorse something it’s pretty much the way I go. Charlesworth lol…. I like it.
Not to change the subject here Tom. But I miss seeing Dodies with her tool chest build. Hopefully she reads this and will continue sending you her progress.
Morning Tom,
I flatten the back of every plane iron. It requires a little more time initially, but after that it is done and I don’t need to worry about it. I only work the bevel side and remove the burr on the last stone in a few swipes back and forth.
I work this way because I am looking to eliminate as many variables as possible. A flat back and a single bevel is as simple as it can get – from a geometry standpoint, and I like simple. Simple is very repeatable and easy to keep track of.
cheers,
konrad
Hey Konrad,
I’m happy to see you commenting here- thank you!
It’s funny, through all of these comments as well as a huge discussion over on Face Book, I was thinking of you!
In fact, I often tell students about your planes and always mention you putting a single bevel on the iron.
I’m not at all surprised to hear you work the entire back as well-; D
Flat back- full bevel.
Two surfaces and like you say, repeatable and easy to keep track of.
Do you find that it takes any longer to sharpen?
Having to remove metal over the entire bevel every-time?
I suppose that what ever system you get used to using eh?
Many thanks for sharing- it’s good to hear both sides of the story!
cheers~
Tom
Hi Tom,
No question, it does take more time to flatten the entire back of the blade – especially a 2-5/8″ wide jointing plane blade. But I don’t mind doing it – it is part of a much larger process and one that benefits from time spent repeating. My post this morning was a short version – here is the rest of it:)
What concerns me about this technique is that it is often taught to people who are newer to woodworking as a way to speed things up. And not because fast is not a good goal, but because it is to avoid work. There is value in work. As a learning process. You can look at sharpening as a chore, or you can view it as an opportunity to learn how better to use your hands – how to train them. We all use our hands using hand tools – I look at sharpening as part of that training process. You learn things through the repetition of doing something – and there are positive implications for many other aspects of woodworking. I think the common name for this technique is interesting – the addition of the word trick has implications of getting away with something. I don’t want to get away with something – I want to learn something completely.
I have seen lots of people use this technique very successfully – many of my friends use it. They are experienced sharpeners and are aware of the trade offs they make when using this technique. They are also aware of the implications it has for various plane styles and they make their choices accordingly. They are very successful at it and get great results. They could adapt to any sharpening process and have good results – they have logged enough time sharpening that the specific technique no longer matters.
I worry about new woodworkers who tell me stories of the first time they used this technique;
“It was magic, worked wonderfully for months. But then something changes and I just can’t seem to get the same edge that I used to be able to get”
When they hand me the blade, there is usually a visible back bevel. Sometimes to the point where there the clearance angle is gone. Or the wear bevel is massive – or a combination of all 3. Sometimes there are so many micro bevels to the bevel side, you cannot even count them. These are cases where people were not aware of all the implications and are very frustrated.
I realize that getting started in woodworking has a very steep learning curve, so anything to get people to using tools and achieving good results is important in order to maintain interest. But I worry about the big picture lesson here – the willingness to log the time required. Sure, sharpening is not my favourite aspect of woodworking, but I accept that it is vital and I sure as heck-fire better learn it if I want to work efficiently with the stuff I enjoy – the woodworking part. So in the end, the person who was not aware of the implications of micro bevels, ruler tricks and clearance angles ends up frustrated and discouraged anyway. Would it have been better to teach flat back and single bevel instead? I don’t know – but I am always aware of the fact that the word ‘work’ is present in the word ‘woodworking’.
exit soapbox:)
cheers,
konrad
Konrad,
Well said and thanks again for the comments and insight.
Wow- who could argue with that?
You touched on many great points and there are a lot of lessons to be learned.
One that jumped out is the ‘various plane styles’ and I think that’s a big one.
I should have mentioned that in my post but maybe these are nuances you pick up through experience?
I don’t use the ruler trick on my specialty planes- that’s just one example.
It’s hard to cover every aspect of sharpening in a blog post and I hope I didn’t come across as saying, ‘this is the only way’.
That isn’t my intention and would be a foolish comment to make.
Like every wood worker, we’re always learning as we go-; )
I just followed a link Larry Williams from Old Street Tools left on my FB page- it shows his routine using oil stones and I couldn’t believe how fast they seemed to cut.
I’d love to get my hands on some that worked as well.
Everyone has a style and technique all their own, I know it’s hard for beginners to find one that’s right for them. The last thing I want to do is confuse beginners or fuel the fire of choices when getting started.
The ruler trick is one method- but only one of many.
Here are the links Larry posted- they’re worth checking out and considering.
http://youtu.be/Z0ClNp_Eknw
http://www.planemaker.com/photos/wear-formation.jpg
http://bladetest.infillplane.com/html/wear_profiles.html
Cheers!
Dear Konrad (ascending soapbox),
I well remember work, one and a half days to flatten a 2 3/8” 1970 Stanley plane blade back! This was on an India combination stone. There is plenty of work to be done on the backs of large chisels, and still a fair bit on some plane blades.
The ruler technique is not about avoiding work per se, it is just a superior technique, which yields sharp blades more consistently. We are not “getting away with anything”, but we are benefiting from the application of a little logic, thought and problem solving. Things that I would have thought might appeal to you?
It is good to hear that you have friends who benefit from my method and get great results. However I am mystified by the reference to “trade offs”. I use the technique for all straight edged tools including cabinet scrapers, (but obviously excluding chisels), and I find no disadvantages whatsoever.
The unfortunate fact that some people, carry out the process incorrectly, cannot be blamed on the process. It is thoroughly described in my books, DVDs and articles, as well as by Chris Schwarz, Rob Cosman & Deneb Puchalski. I have seen many plane blades and chisel backs ruined by conventional techniques, hollow water stones, or lifting on the side of a Tormek wheel etc. Huge back bevels are not created on an 8,000 grit waterstone. I do not think that “flat back and single bevel” has much going for it.
What is the probability that the stone and the back of the blade are both perfectly flat so that the wire edge can be correctly honed away?
Even if they were both perfectly flat, more metal would have to be removed from the flat back to remove the wear bevel.
What about the stiction on fine water stones?
With a flat bevel, more metal must be removed at each sharpening.
I firmly believe that “the ruler technique” (note change of nomenclature) is demonstrably a quicker and better method.
Best wishes,
David Charlesworth
Hi David,
Tell me more about your blade in 1970. What type of steel was it? I am assuming it was for a bevel down plane. Do you look back on that experience and wish you could remove it from your long list of accomplishments?
Trade offs – we all make them. From the particular planes we use out of personal preference, to the types of steel in the blades we prefer, to the methods we use to keep them sharp. In this instance, trade offs refer to the fact that they know the implications of this technique when they are using a bevel up plane for example. They know they have to be aware of the clearance angle and the wear bevel. And as you pointed out – taking a few more strokes – 20 to 25. Maybe trade offs was a poor choice of expressions – I meant being aware of all the implications of a given technique.
I have seen my fair share of spoiled blades where the back is anything but flat – certainly more than were spoiled from the ruler technique (nomenclature noted). And yes – these are painful lessons – but they are ‘lessons’ and I feel are worth experiencing because when you do get it right – you will know how and why and hopefully have a deeper understanding. I suspect you did not get to where you are without any struggles or tough lessons – 2-3/8″ Stanley blade…
I have an inherent knee-jerk reaction to anyone who says their way is superior. My experience is this can lead to alienation of anyone who, for whatever reason, does not agree with you. You are coming at this from an elevated vantage point – you are an accomplished furniture maker and instructor and for that reason (I think) you also have an elevated responsibility. If one of your students came to you and asked if you would teach them the process of flattening the back of a plane blade, hollow grinding it and honing without the aid of a jig or fixture, would you teach them? I surely hope so – even though you think it is inferior. Some people learn differently – they learn more completely by falling down and picking themselves up afterwards. Then they ‘know’ why things are the way they are. Or heaven forbid they like the process, the results and the technique. If they get sharp blades consistently then does it really matter how they get there?
Your last 5 comments/questions.
1. On my stones, extremely high. I take about 5 passes each time to remove the wire. But it is unfair for 2 people who are experienced sharpeners to be acting as though we are beginners. For people new to sharpening, it is likely low and up to the instructor (by way of DVD or magazine article or classroom environment) to instill the sense of importance of maintaining ones stones. This is true regardless of sharpening technique. The thinking behind keeping ones stones flat is no different than the thinking (level of awareness) that is required to hold a chisel at a 90 degree angle to chop mortises. A sensitivity and awareness of one will surely help with sensitivity and awareness of the other, so why not teach sensitivity and awareness across the board?
2. My experience with wear bevels is that they are increased as the bed angle goes down (in bevel up planes). I tend to use higher bed angle planes – 47.5 degrees up to 52.5 degrees in a bevel down configuration. Most of the wear happens to the bevel side on these blades. There is of course some on the ‘back’ of the blade, but it is minimal and re-honing the bevel side usually gets past this wear. I am assuming from your comment that you are talking about bevel up planes in which case the wear bevel is often larger and if the bed angle is 20 degrees or lower, there is often a greater wear bevel. In this case you are correct – more metal does need to be removed. This is a good example of trade-offs. I would suggest that one way is not inherently superior to the other – you just need to know what all the implications are of a given technique.
3. Stiction on a fine waterstone is indeed an issue. So is finding silica in Teak – you deal with it. Experiment with more or less water, or ask friends or instructors if they experience this and what they do about it. Maybe try another stone. Maybe try using a different type of steel to see if there is a difference. You deal with it.
4. I hollow grind to avoid having to remove as much metal on the bevel.
5. I am glad you found a technique that works for you that gives you consistent results that are quicker and better.
Best wishes,
konrad
Konrad,
In your first post, I thought I detected a whole string of subtle criticisms of the ruler technique, and responded apropriately.
Para. 1. ” Avoidance of work, trick and getting away with it”.
Para. 3. “trade offs”.
Para. 4 & 5 The new woodworkers are not getting an edge because they are not doing it correctly.
Para.6 The backbevel comment is misleading.
Para. 7. Flat back and single bevel are clearly not better, just different.
The woodworking world divides into two camps, those who use it and those who don’t. Frequently the dont’s raise spurious objections. Those are the objections I object to.
David
Konrad,
The students who come to me usually have no concept of what a sharp edge is. There are very rare exceptions who are getting close.
I teach a method that works, and they have blades as sharp as mine by day 2. Subsequent practice will improve speed.
Some of the woodworkers who have been butchering wood and making lots of stuff have been practically dancing for joy, at learning how accurate a sharp and well tuned plane can be.
Many of these students have stayed in touch for years, some for 35 years. The method does not fail with repetition. Other students have stayed for 40 weeks, 24 weeks or 12 weeks in the workshop.
I find your condescending question about hollow grinding and freehand sharpening extremely offensive. I teach most methods. An early student wanted to reproduce the Krenov method complete with hand grinder, so we did it.
David Charlesworth
I’ve read this thread with some interest –
First, I think it’s actually pertinent that I am a professional planemaker as well. I say this because I’m 100% in agreement with both Konrad and Larry Williams on this. The fact that the woodworking instructor/demonstrator/educators seem to line up on ‘one side’ and the plane makers on ‘the other’ is not coincidence. I think It reflects the sort of priorities and personalities that end up in those positions.
I’m not trying to be ‘condescending’ or any such thing, though given his prior responses I suspect Mr Charlesworth may see it that way. It’s just a different set of guiding principles.
For me, I’m always a bit suspicious of appeals to speed and efficiency. Those are the same arguments I hear consistently for using a powered router instead of moulding planes, or pneumatic rotary sanders instead of planes. For me, the ruler ‘technique’ is a valuable asset that solves a problem I frankly almost never have. It is almost certainly at least as fast, or faster, than cleaning up the entire back (or lower 1″) of a blade – but in my case that’s a time savings of perhaps a few seconds at the tradeoff of a more complex blade geometry that I simply don’t wish to accomodate.
I do use the ruler trick – as furnituremakers and apprentices have for – well, forever – at times. This is not even remotely ‘new’ – anyone who can flatten a blade back well will intuitively learn this technique the first time they have to sharpen something heavily pitted, or have some sort of extreme damage and have a harsh time constraint. In those times, efficiency takes on a new importance.
Most of the time, thouh, to do the sort of work I do, ‘speed’ is about five steps lower on the ladder of priorities than absolute quality and predictable tools is part of that. That’s not an insult or dig – I’ve seen the extraordinary work Charlesworth is capable of. He’s obviously capable of woodworking at a level on par with anyone. However, his priorities as a teacher are different, as he expressed: he needs to get students to a level of function quickly, and the ruler technique/trick/crutch/blasphemy/godsend is definitely an asset there.
So I come back, after all that, to supporting above all else Konrad’s assertion that there are no absolutes. There are techniques, and there are tradeoffs. Personally, I rarely find the ruler technique useful in my work habits – I prefer keeping things dead flat and of a singular geometry. It takes me perhaps 20 minutes to an hour to get any modern blade to that state, and I guarantee that I can sharpen my blades within a few heartbeats of the same speed as Mr Charlesworth sharpens his. So why is this an issue?
People ‘learning’ to sharpen should be aware that there are lots of techniques. Then they should pick one and learn it
Sorry – my overly wordy post was cut off. I was going to say:
People ‘learning’ to sharpen should be aware that there are lots of techniques. Then they should pick one and learn it. Once one gets good at ANY sharpening system, every sharpening system suddenly becomes simple to pick up.
I suppose new people should do what they’ve always done instinctively: find people good at the sort of work you aspire to, and emulate them.
In person, at a show or event, this sort of disagreement doesn’t happen. After ten seconds, Messr.s Charlesworth and Sauer would have spent five seconds on it and moved on to the much more satisfying areas of furniture design, rumor mongering, and beer.
The internet, however, is no such place. Here, it seems, we are all offended so easily – and it always seems to me that we’re also much more eager to offend. So I’m going back to my shop now.
Thanks for a lively lunch break!
Raney
Raney,
Great post. The new thing, is proposing ruler, for all day to day sharpening. (except chisels).
The most important feature is the increased probability of honing away the wire edge. Speed is not the issue, total reliability is.
It is also interesting to consider that the wear bevel on the flat side, is more likely to be removed.
Larry Williams technique is pretty radical. Flattening his oilstones between or during honing, with a diamond stone, is not remotely traditional. I find it most impressive.
Best wishes,
David
Thanks for all the good info guys. Here is the question that I have regarding the Charlesworth: it is completely sensible to me that the minute back-bevel formed would not affect the cutting geometry much, however, does it affect the mating surface between chipbreaker and the iron? Some chipbreakers seem to be designed so they will mate along a small surface, but a larger surface than just the very front edge of the breaker. Should the chipbreaker only make contact with the iron at the very front edge of the chipbreaker? Has anyone had problems in that area? I’m assuming that the chipbreaker is very close to the cutting edge of the iron.
Jon,
Thanks for the comments and question. If you decide to use the ruler trick, make sure the chip breaker is set back a small bit from the tiny back bevel created. If the chip breaker was placed too close to the leading edge, then this could indeed create a trap for shavings to catch.
I think you’ll find there really isn’t any reason not to set the chip breaker back a small bit from the end of the iron.
That’s my two cents, hope it helps and perhaps others will share their opinions on the matter of chip breakers. Maybe this should be a blog post in itself?
I’ll put it on the list !
; )
Cheers-
Tom
Tom,
I tune all my new chipbreakers, with an undercut or relief angle of approximately one and a half degrees.
This ensures that the front edge only, mates with the back of the blade. The ruler technique imposes a back bevel, of approximately two thirds of one degree, on the blade.
Thus you will see that the chipbreaker edge can be positioned as close as you wish.
There has been a great deal of discussion about some Japanese research into chipbreaker position and front edge angle.
It transpires that tearout can be virtually eliminated, if you have a minute 70 degree bevel on the front of the c/b. The edge is then set about 4 to 6 thousandths of an inch from the edge of the blade.!!
I have tried this and it works.
Best wishes,
David Charlesworth
Thanks for the input David-
I always appreciate hearing your comments.
all the best to you in the coming Holiday Season.
Cheers!
Tom
The issue for me is one of quality, the quality of polish that can be a achieved on a surface for a given effort is inversely proportional to is area. Since it is only the leading few thou of the surface make any contribution to the performance of the plane, why dilute your efforts by working the entire surface?
There is no reason for the back of a plane iron to be truly flat, or polished. Indeed, ones that have a fractional concavity in the flat face are ‘self Charlesworthing’. A good bladesmith will select the face of the steel that naturally forms minutely concave on hardening and then apply the bevel to the other face. The principle is no different from a hollow ground bevel.
In use, an edge develops minute convexity adjacent to the edge – the wear bevels. In order to maintain two perfectly planar surfaces you would therefore need to remove the depth of the wear bevel over the entire surfaces and then re-polish those entire surfaces again, by hand, every time. I would venture that even attempting to do this is anything but wholesome hard work, it is a fools errand.
To misquote Lincoln, if I had 80 minutes to sharpen a plane iron, I would spend the first 77 watching David’s first DVD.
Cheers,
Matthew