|Microbevels front and back.|
|Use a jig.|
|Copyright (c) 2002-15, Brent Beach|
|Pro:||With measured durability similar to other high carbon steel blades, the extra thickness provides a better than average subjective planing experience.|
During this test I was attempting to achieve one other goal - find a way to deduce the shape of the front and back wear bevels. [See an extended version of this test an extended version of this test here.] I changed the sharpening procedure, omitting the 0.5 micron microbevels on front and back. This means the iron had slightly smaller final bevel angles on the front and back.
The thickness of the iron meant that the blade had to be tested in a Record plane with a suitably wide mouth. This plane was used in testing other thick blades and performs very well. (The plane is a fairly recent model, with blond hardwood knob and tote.)
|The back of the iron, 200 X magnification, as delivered. Would you plane with this blade?|
The front bevel, 200 X magnification, after the 5 micron paper.
The scratches from the 5u abrasive go right to the edge. The second goal of this test was to more clearly see the wear bevels. Having the scratches clearly visible helped with this.
The original grind is just visible at the right. The dark area is the first microbevel using 15u abrasive.
The front bevel, 200 X magnification, after 100 passes along 4 foot douglas-fir board.
Very narrow wear bevel, about 4 pixels wide, with good edge quality.
The front bevel, 200 X magnification, after 200 passes.
The wear bevel is about 10 pixels wide, the edge is still smooth.
While the wear bevel is not particularly small at this point in the test, the blade is still performing very well. I attribute this to the thickness of the blade and its resulting resistance to flex during use.