2nd sharpening system for reprofiling specifically...

[burns]

Hi folks,

I have a Sharpmaker and I am more than satisfied with the edge it puts on all my knives, at least the ones that don't need to be reprofiled. I want to reprofile a couple of my own knives that have old blunted edges, and also all my father's kitchen knives which he (unfortunately) destroyed the edges on with an electric sharpening machine (Chef's Choice). I've been looking for an option specifically for reprofiling knives that I will later touch up regularly on the Sharpmaker. There are a couple of options that are unattractive to me including:

1. I don't want to do the sandpaper on the Sharpmaker rods method, which was just messy and inexact in my experience. This option just isn't what I'm looking for.

2. Free hand methods - which are very cool and it is a skill I may wish to develop at some point, but right now I'm looking for repeatable, accurate reprofiling.

3. I have been considering the Edge Pro and Wicked Edge but I really dont think I want to shell out that kind of cash since I like the Sharpmaker so much and I am really JUST looking for a reprofile tool.

So, I've been thinking of options such as:

1. The Lansky system (fixed, vise)

2. DMT Aligner

These systems are considerably less expensive than the Edge Pro and Wicked Edge, but if they aren't suitable for my stated task, I will just pass on them.

So I'm here to ask what you guys think of the systems above for pure reprofiling, and what other ideas / options I should be considering. I'd greatly appreciate your informed input.

Regards,

Burns

[Talley1013]

The DMT aligner is great. I have the whole system but I tend to use the clamp with bench stones if I need to reprofile. I usually freehand sharpen but it is great to be able to create a perfect bevel when reprofiling. If you already have bench stones you can just buy the DMT clamp and use it to hold your blade at a consistent angle relative to the stone. If you are looking for an entire system I would recommend the DMT over the Lansky. The DMT offers more angle choices and the stones are far better than the Lansky. I got the extra course stone to go with my DMT and it makes removing a lot of steel quick and easy.

[Obsessed with Edges]

The DMT Aligner clamp + bench stone recommendation is a very good one. Especially if you'll be reprofiling larger kitchen knives. A good complement to the Aligner clamp would be something like DMT's C/F Duo-Sharp bench hone (8", with the interrupted 'polka dot' surface). Excellent bang-for-the-buck, with that combo. You could also use the clamp with any other bench hone you prefer.

The Aligner's biggest limitation is with smaller blades, such as found on traditional pocket knives. Small, narrow blades will set too deeply into the clamp (without some jury-rigging or other modification), which renders the lower angle settings unusable. In this respect, Lansky's clamp actually is more versatile with smaller blades, as they can be sharpened on at least 4 different angle settings (17/20/25/30). The smaller & narrower hones of the Lansky are also well-suited for smaller blades. If you'll be using somewhat larger blades at widths of ~3/4" or more, the Aligner clamp will be OK, and this clamp will work excellently with much larger blades, such as hunting & kitchen knives.

[burns]

Thanks for the input guys, this is exactly the kind of info I was looking for. Do you have any advice about the DMT Aligner vs. the DMT Magna-Guide?

[Obsessed with Edges]

Thanks for the input guys, this is exactly the kind of info I was looking for. Do you have any advice about the DMT Aligner vs. the DMT Magna-Guide?

I have the Magna-Guide, used with the Aligner clamp (clamp is exactly the same, for both systems). The Magna-Guide was designed for the Dia-Fold hones, which are also very handy as pocket/field hones by themselves. An added bonus, the Dia-Folds are double-sided (except for a single-sided XC version), so there's a little more versatility built into each one. The Dia-Fold's abrasive surface area is also slightly larger than the surface area of the Aligner's dedicated hones. Not a huge difference, but a little extra diamond surface area never hurts.

[burns]

The Dia-Fold's abrasive surface area is also slightly larger than the surface area of the Aligner's dedicated hones. Not a huge difference, but a little extra diamond surface area never hurts.

Hmm, I'm guessing this might make sharpening large blades (like chef's knives) a bit easier with the extra surface area?

[Nullity]

I've got a Lansky deluxe diamond kit, and I use it for reprofiling.
The Lansky (or almost any clamping system) has trouble with FFG.
The Lansky is also tricky to get repeatable results, but if you're only reprofiling, being able to accurately repeat the clamping position is not as important.

The Wicked Edge has a system for consistent clamping positions.

For the price ($25, in my case) I think the Lansky works well enough, but it's not the best.


For dedicated reprofiling, I'd rate freehand as the easiest, but it requires some cultivated skill.
Next, I'd say Edge Pro or Wicked Edge.
Then, DMT
Then, Lansky

Take this info for what it's worth.
I've only had first-hand experience with the Lansky.

[Obsessed with Edges]

I've never had trouble with FFG blades on the Lansky (or Gatco, or Aligner). In fact, those are easier to do than just about any other grind; I prefer them with the Lansky. The full flat of the blade grind makes getting a firm grip all the easier. I suspect too many people have bought into a misconception that the two clamp faces have to be parallel to each other to 'work'. On an FFG blade, that can't work, because of the continuous taper to the edge. Trying to 'force' the issue by attempting to keep them parallel will not maintain a good hold on the tapered grind, and will be self-defeating. But the blade still gets every bit as sharp with the clamp faces in full contact with the tapering grind, even if that means the clamp's faces aren't parallel to each other. Probably sharper, in fact, as the wider contact area of a full flat grind helps ensure the blade won't move in the clamp.

[Obsessed with Edges]

Hmm, I'm guessing this might make sharpening large blades (like chef's knives) a bit easier with the extra surface area?

Yes. Every extra bit of surface area will help speed things up. Between the Aligner's hones and the Magna-Guide (w/Dia-Folds), that's not a huge difference, as I mentioned. But given the choice, I'll almost always go for the larger one.

[G. Scott H.]

I've never had trouble with FFG blades on the Lansky (or Gatco, or Aligner). In fact, those are easier to do than just about any other grind; I prefer them with the Lansky. The full flat of the blade grind makes getting a firm grip all the easier. I suspect too many people have bought into a misconception that the two clamp faces have to be parallel to each other to 'work'. On an FFG blade, that can't work, because of the continuous taper to the edge. Trying to 'force' the issue by attempting to keep them parallel will not maintain a good hold on the tapered grind, and will be self-defeating. But the blade still gets every bit as sharp with the clamp faces in full contact with the tapering grind, even if that means the clamp's faces aren't parallel to each other. Probably sharper, in fact, as the wider contact area of a full flat grind helps ensure the blade won't move in the clamp.

Doesn't adjusting the clamp faces in this manner raise the sharpening angles by x degrees, since the angle markings denote the angle with the clamp faces parallel? In other words, maybe the 20* slots would become 23, 25, 30 etc. degrees, depending upon the thickness of the FFG blade. So you might have to move down a slot in order to get closer to the intended angle? Of course, on these setups even the width of the blade raises or lowers the angles slightly, so it's not a big deal, I'm just curious.

[Obsessed with Edges]

Doesn't adjusting the clamp faces in this manner raise the sharpening angles by x degrees, since the angle markings denote the angle with the clamp faces parallel? In other words, maybe the 20* slots would become 23, 25, 30 etc. degrees, depending upon the thickness of the FFG blade. So you might have to move down a slot in order to get closer to the intended angle? Of course, on these setups even the width of the blade raises or lowers the angles slightly, so it's not a big deal, I'm just curious.

Yes, it does. The point is essentially moot, though. The 'intended' angle settings on the Lansky clamp are accurate only if the blade edge is essentially flush to the front of the clamp. At that position, the edge is unreachable anyway. After using the clamp for a long time, I finally got around to taking some measurements and using trig functions to calculate the 'real' angle. At the '17' setting, for example, a blade about the width of a SAK's main spear blade, when clamped into the 'notch' at the forward end of the clamp's jaws, will have an edge angle closer to 15° (maybe slightly less). The other angle settings on the Lansky clamp are correspondingly inaccurate, for the same reason.

The point I was getting at earlier though is, the measured angle isn't nearly as important as making sure the blade doesn't move in the clamp. If the blade moves, the angle of the stroke won't be consistent from one stroke to the next, which means the apex of the edge will get rounded or blunted. That's by far the more important factor in whether the clamp will work, or not. The angle measurement of the edge is nowhere near as important as making sure the bevels are perfectly flat, and the apex is pure. That is what makes an edge 'sharp'. Whether the edge angle is 15° or 17° per side is a minor point, by comparison. 99.9% of users will never notice, and not give it any thought, so long as it's truly 'sharp'.

[Nullity]

Doesn't adjusting the clamp faces in this manner raise the sharpening angles by x degrees, since the angle markings denote the angle with the clamp faces parallel? In other words, maybe the 20* slots would become 23, 25, 30 etc. degrees, depending upon the thickness of the FFG blade. So you might have to move down a slot in order to get closer to the intended angle? Of course, on these setups even the width of the blade raises or lowers the angles slightly, so it's not a big deal, I'm just curious.

That is exactly what I was going to say.


Clay Allison (Wicked Edge creator) advises putting some foam tape on the ends of the Wicked Edge's clamps.

I am only pointing out some of the drawbacks of the clamping system I've had experience with.
The Lansky system works, but it is far from the best.

Being that clamped systems are all about perfect angles, the Lansky has no easy way of matching the exact position of your last sharpening session.
The Lansky has no depth keys, alignment guides, or anything to make consistently repeatable angles easy.
Getting the clamp to repeatedly clamp to the exact angle of the primary bevel of a FFG is another variable you'll have to accurately repeat to achieve consistent angles when sharpening.

If you're only using a Lansky for reprofiling, repeatable clamping positions (for sharpening) may not be a concern.

Good luck, OP.

[Obsessed with Edges]

...If you're only using a Lansky for reprofiling, repeatable clamping positions (for sharpening) may not be a concern.
...

This is exactly how I've always used mine, for re-bevelling only. Usually only needs to be done once, per blade. I've used my guided systems (Lansky, Gatco, DMT) for years now, never giving any thought to 'matching' previous edge angles anyway. I always grind a completely new set of bevels on all blades sharpened with it, to a new, clean apex. That's what these systems are best-suited for. All of my 'maintenance' or 'touch-up' sharpening gets done by other means (stropping, freehand on hones or sandpaper, or occasionally a Sharpmaker touch-up). The biggest benefit I've seen, to putting new and symmetrical bevels on a blade edge the first time, is how much simpler the remaining maintenance sharpening becomes, afterward. Becomes almost unnecessary to re-bevel again, if the 'first' good bevels are done right.

If a guided system were to be used for micro-bevelling, matching pre-existing edge angles also isn't a big deal. A micro bevel can be completely ground away and re-shaped in just a handful of passes, so the blade's position in the clamp doesn't have to be as repeatable from one sharpening to the next. Micro-bevelling is essentially what DMT illustrates in their videos for the Aligner system. They make about 6 passes per side, and they are 'done'. In that capacity, assuming the existing edge bevels are not too far-gone, touch-up sharpening actually works pretty well on a guided (clamped) system.

[G. Scott H.]

That is exactly what I was going to say.

Demented minds think alike, eh?

OwE, thanks for the insights and info.

[Nullity]

This is exactly how I've always used mine, for re-bevelling only. Usually only needs to be done once, per blade. I've used my guided systems (Lansky, Gatco, DMT) for years now, never giving any thought to 'matching' previous edge angles anyway. I always grind a completely new set of bevels on all blades sharpened with it, to a new, clean apex. That's what these systems are best-suited for. All of my 'maintenance' or 'touch-up' sharpening gets done by other means (stropping, freehand on hones or sandpaper, or occasionally a Sharpmaker touch-up). The biggest benefit I've seen, to putting new and symmetrical bevels on a blade edge the first time, is how much simpler the remaining maintenance sharpening becomes, afterward. Becomes almost unnecessary to re-bevel again, if the 'first' good bevels are done right.

If a guided system were to be used for micro-bevelling, matching pre-existing edge angles also isn't a big deal. A micro bevel can be completely ground away and re-shaped in just a handful of passes, so the blade's position in the clamp doesn't have to be as repeatable from one sharpening to the next. Micro-bevelling is essentially what DMT illustrates in their videos for the Aligner system. They make about 6 passes per side, and they are 'done'. In that capacity, assuming the existing edge bevels are not too far-gone, touch-up sharpening actually works pretty well on a guided (clamped) system.

Good post. I wish that I could easily use my Lansky to sharpen/touch-up, but it gets used nearly exactly the same way you explain.

[tomsch]

I use my Edge Pro for reprofiling only unless the blade is very dull. After that I always micro bevel using my Sharpmaker. Have been thinking about a Wicked Edge that stays set up all the time for more general use though.

[Dieselashi]

A cheap and effective option, albiet one that may not work as well on larger blades, is to pick up some loose polishing stones from Congress Tools. the 1/8"x1"x6" flats are easy to clamp to the SharpMaker rods with a medium-sized binder clip and work very well for establishing or reshaping a bevel. I have had good results reprofiling 7 or 8 knives using the "Res-Cut" stones in 220/320/400 grits before moving on to the brown & white SharpMaker rods. The MoldMaster (SiC) stones are also a popular choice. These are a great accessory and a real bargain too at between ~ $2 and $5 a stone. Used with the SharpMaker I have gotten quick and consistent results without too much extra gadgetry and fuss.

[burns]

Lots of good advice here and I really do appreciate it - I've learned some things. I think Im going to try the DMT Magna-Guide and see how that works out for me. It's a minimal investment and if I don't like it, I can put it up on ebay. I'll post back and let you guys know how it works out.

I should add that this also gives me the option of experimenting freehand with the double-sided DMT stones, starting with the extra course, which could be a learning experience.

Thanks again.

Burns