Freehand sharpening pros: Is Wicked Edge Go worth it?

[Obsessed with Edges]

You guys are right on that point, it was weird, I got a more consistent and cosmetically nicer looking edge on the side that I used my non-dominant hand for. What the heck is up with that?

I've come to realize that the literal 'weakness' of my left, non-dominant hand is an attribute, in that it inherently lightens my touch from that side. In that, and in doing other things with that weaker hand, I've also noticed it's intuitively (without conscious thought) more responsive and accurate in quick movements. In doing something as simply rote as reaching for a light switch on the wall, without looking, I'm noticing my left hand finds the target more consistently. At times, in doing the same with my right, dominant hand, sometimes I've been a little off the mark, stubbing a finger against the wall or whatever. It's kind of funny and strange at the same time. Really makes me consider more seriously all the things we hear about the neurology of left- versus right-brain functionality. Each side performs different functions, while independently controlling opposite sides of our bodies, and it's interesting to see how it manifests itself in our everyday activities.


David

 

[maximus83]

OK, got results tonight that were a significant improvement again.

Used the DMT stones: C/F/EF
Used water for the first time. This did make a difference, smoother slicing process on the stones.
Changed the following on my sharpening movements:

• Kept fingers/wrists locked, rotated at elbow
• Sharpened and scrubbed always in the same direction--away from me--by flipping the blade over and using my non-dominant hand.
• Used MUCH lighter pressure. So light, that it didn't bother my neuropathy, no numbness, which was encouraging.

Results:

• Much better than the factory edge, easily shaved arm hair.
• Actually a pretty cosmetically good edge for freehand too, noticeably better than I've gotten before. I attribute that to the sharpening everything in the same direction.

Interesting thing to note: the progression of grits, at least on DMT stones, really does get it sharper as you work your way to higher grits. I wasn't able to get it as sharp on the coarse stone as I was on the EF stone. Any theories on that, or is it nothing to worry about?

 

[Obsessed with Edges]

OK, got results tonight that were a significant improvement again.

Used the DMT stones: C/F/EF
Used water for the first time. This did make a difference, smoother slicing process on the stones.
Changed the following on my sharpening movements:

• Kept fingers/wrists locked, rotated at elbow
• Sharpened and scrubbed always in the same direction--away from me--by flipping the blade over and using my non-dominant hand.
• Used MUCH lighter pressure. So light, that it didn't bother my neuropathy, no numbness, which was encouraging.

Results:

• Much better than the factory edge, easily shaved arm hair.
• Actually a pretty cosmetically good edge for freehand too, noticeably better than I've gotten before. I attribute that to the sharpening everything in the same direction.

Interesting thing to note: the progression of grits, at least on DMT stones, really does get it sharper as you work your way to higher grits. I wasn't able to get it as sharp on the coarse stone as I was on the EF stone. Any theories on that, or is it nothing to worry about?

DMT's grit progression is nice and very repeatably consistent, as it really does refine the edge as it goes finer, while still retaining a biting sharpness (albeit of increased refinement) along the way.

Getting 'as sharp' on the Coarse, as compared to the EF, is more about getting as fully and cleanly apexed as the Coarse can manage, which can be wickedly, viciously sharp. That includes cleaning up the more ragged remnants of burrs, as left by the Coarse, which won't be as easily noticed in finer form from the EF hone, and may even be negligible at that stage. It's a different character of sharpness. Both will cut effortlessly in materials we often test with, like paper, cardboard, etc. But, the most obvious distinction I've seen between them is, the character of a clean, fully apexed Coarse-sharp edge will be a lot more painful, if you cut yourself with it, than at a finer grit. Both can pop hairs, but the EF & finer will do it much more gently on your skin, more closely approaching a true shaving edge.


David

 

[maximus83]

DMT's grit progression is nice and very repeatably consistent, as it really does refine the edge as it goes finer, while still retaining a biting sharpness (albeit of increased refinement) along the way.

Getting 'as sharp' on the Coarse, as compared to the EF, is more about getting as fully and cleanly apexed as the Coarse can manage, which can be wickedly, viciously sharp. That includes cleaning up the more ragged remnants of burrs, as left by the Coarse, which won't be as easily noticed in finer form from the EF hone, and may even be negligible at that stage. It's a different character of sharpness. Both will cut effortlessly in materials we often test with, like paper, cardboard, etc. But, the most obvious distinction I've seen between them is, the character of a clean, fully apexed Coarse-sharp edge will be a lot more painful, if you cut yourself with it, than at a finer grit. Both can pop hairs, but the EF & finer will do it much more gently on your skin, more closely approaching a true shaving edge.


David

OK, that all makes sense.

As I was sharpening last night, a couple additional questions about my overall process when using the DMT occurred to me.

1. Need to clarify my terminology. The "primary grind or bevel" of the knife is the main body of the blade, true? This is where we talk about things like full flat, sabre, hollow grind, etc. The "secondary grind or bevel" is where you sharpen, to create the edge. This is what you create with the shaping/scrubbing motions, true? And the "tertiary" or micro-bevel, is that last stage shown in one of the linked videos, where you raise the blade a bit to increase the angle.
2. Do I absolutely need to create the tertiary or micro-bevel? Fine with that if I do, just not clear. So far I've been following the process shown in one of the linked videos in the thread, creating the micro-bevel, and getting results I'm pretty happy with. But just as an alternative example, some knives I buy (such as Spyderco folders) seem to have just a secondary bevel from the factory, and no micro-bevel that I can tell. And when I used to sharpen on Sharpmaker, I assume I was just working those 20 degree angles, and sharpening the secondary bevel. Without going into reams of detail, what are the concise trade-offs of just sticking with a secondary bevel, versus adding the micro-bevel.

 

[Obsessed with Edges]

OK, that all makes sense.

As I was sharpening last night, a couple additional questions about my overall process when using the DMT occurred to me.

1. Need to clarify my terminology. The "primary grind or bevel" of the knife is the main body of the blade, true? This is where we talk about things like full flat, sabre, hollow grind, etc. The "secondary grind or bevel" is where you sharpen, to create the edge. This is what you create with the shaping/scrubbing motions, true? And the "tertiary" or micro-bevel, is that last stage shown in one of the linked videos, where you raise the blade a bit to increase the angle.
2. Do I absolutely need to create the tertiary or micro-bevel? Fine with that if I do, just not clear. So far I've been following the process shown in one of the linked videos in the thread, creating the micro-bevel, and getting results I'm pretty happy with. But just as an alternative example, some knives I buy (such as Spyderco folders) seem to have just a secondary bevel from the factory, and no micro-bevel that I can tell. And when I used to sharpen on Sharpmaker, I assume I was just working those 20 degree angles, and sharpening the secondary bevel. Without going into reams of detail, what are the concise trade-offs of just sticking with a secondary bevel, versus adding the micro-bevel.

You're correct. The primary grind is what exists before the maker/mfr puts the edge grind on (secondary grind or bevel). And the micro-bevel, if used at all, would be applied to the finished edge of the secondary bevel. SOME EXPERTS will reverse the definition of 'primary' and 'secondary', meaning they'll refer to the final edge grind (minus the micro-bevel) as the 'primary' edge. Murray Carter is famous for using the terminology that way, for example. Otherwise, I think the terminology is intended to imply the order in which all the separate grinds were created in the first place by the maker ('primary' is ground first into the blank, then the 'secondary' edge is applied to that, and so on...).

On the 2nd point, you don't have to use a micro-bevel at all, if you don't want to. If you have a good feel for keeping the secondary bevels flush to the hones, and you're not noticing any weakness of the resulting edge, you likely don't need a micro-bevel anyway. The micro-bevel can be handy for quick touch-ups if one has trouble feeling flush contact on the hones on the secondary (I used to have trouble with that), and some use it for that reason. Others will add a micro-bevel to strengthen the edge just a bit, if they use the blade in tasks prone to damaging the secondary edge (rolling, chipping). Still others add it (intentionally or not) as a means to scrub away a tenacious burr, by raising the angle a bit on the final handful of passes.


David