an email from my mentor

[Ken S]

I just received this email from Steve Bottorff and wanted to share it. As well as being a valued friend, Steve has been an invaluable sharpening mentor for me.

Printing Steve's email verbatim, I want to dispel any notion that he is being critical of Vadim. It seems natural to me that two accomplished sharpening masters might have respectful differing opinions on some issues. I interpret any differences of opinion as friendly and between gentlemen of good character.

Here is the email:

Dear Curmudgeon,

The brief answer is I sharpen even high end knives freehand. Admittedly this requires a bit of skill and practice, but IMHO a few degrees of angle variation does not affect sharpness nearly as much as the polishing. As far as the symmetry only a sushi chef will detect the difference. A few degrees is not like Asian bevel vs double bevel.

If one were to really obsess about angle they should look into guides at least twice as long as the Tormek guides. I think it is KMT who makes longer guides, as do a couple of guys in TX. Also it would have to have some as yet undiscovered magic to rotate around the belly to the tip at a constant angle. A possibility might be a jig just as wide as the wheel (2") that the blade rests flat on, ala Viel belt sander knife guide. It has to lie down to 10 - 12 degrees and you have to grind into the edge. I recall someone making such a jig from a Tormek jig and an aluminum extension. Now you are going to start to have complaints of the abrasive particles on the guide scratching the blade. Freehand!

Polishing or burr removal is the real trick. The Tormek is SLOW, and Vadim uses 3 Tormek with 3 wheels to speed the process, then turns to paper wheels, as do I. PW are firmer than leather and preserve better edge geometry. No rounding over. That is why I was selling a 10" paper wheel to use on the other end of the Tormek shaft using the leather honing adapter.

Using an 8" paper wheel after a <=10" Tormek while still keeping the same approx 1 1/2 in distance from the top (blade level) will automatically make a secondary micro bevel, the secret of razor blades. Also goes faster than polishing the full bevel ala Vadim.

Please feel free to quote me. Hell, you can even misquote me. If you want to publish verbatim, please edit so I do not sound down on Vadim, I am not. My hat is off to him.

Stay well,
Steve

[John_B]

Towards the end he writes about a secondary micro bevel in lieu of polishing the entire bevel. With the exception of the exotic steels isn't this Vadim's recommendation as well?

I have noticed a perceptible increase in sharpness when I do the final honing at 1.5°-2° greater than the sharpening angle on the non-exotic steel blades. I think they agree on this point.

[Jan]

John, when you read carefully the following para from Steve's letter:

"Using an 8" paper wheel after a <=10" Tormek while still keeping the same approx 1 1/2 in distance from the top (blade level) will automatically make a secondary micro bevel, the secret of razor blades. Also goes faster than polishing the full bevel ala Vadim."

and make some simple calculations, you will see, that Steve's increase in bevel angle may be more than 4⁰ per side.

Jan

[Roger M.]

The thing about Vadim's technique is that he backs everything he says or demonstrates up with a BESS sharpness test.
What isn't backed up with a BESS test is demonstrated photographically in his book (which every sharpener should own, read, and clearly understand).
Vadim's comments are never "off the cuff", and IMO, sharpeners who want consistency and ultimate sharpness will do well to adopt Vadim's techniques.

Faint praise is no praise at all ... so I'd be extremely wary of "older" sharpening techniques being promoted as the equal of modern highly technical sharpening techniques, especially when those "modern" techniques are repeatedly backed up by hard data.

[John_B]

The thing about Vadim's technique is that he backs everything he says or demonstrates up with a BESS sharpness test.
What isn't backed up with a BESS test is demonstrated photographically in his book (which every sharpener should own, read, and clearly understand).
Vadim's comments are never "off the cuff", and IMO, sharpeners who want consistency and ultimate sharpness will do well to adopt Vadim's techniques.

Faint praise is no praise at all ... so I'd be extremely wary of "older" sharpening techniques being promoted as the equal of modern highly technical sharpening techniques, especially when those "modern" techniques are repeatedly backed up by hard data.

I think the most significant difference is experience. Steve has honed (no pun intended) his sharpening expertise over many years. I know sharpeners that hand sharpen with stones and the knives are like razors. This skill took time to develop as well. I think Vadim's methods are superior for most sharpeners in that once you have become proficient with the Tormek anyone can sharpen a knife that is equal to the Japanese master sharpeners who have spent their life at the craft. For me sharpening is like Google Maps; there are several routes to your destination some just take longer than others.

[Roger M.]

I don't disagree with anything you've posted John, but would only note that there is inherantly a comparison being made when a person mentions somebody else's technique (or the person themselves) by name, and then compares it to their own technique, thoughts, or process.
Muscle memory is a wonderful thing, but it is, by its very nature, a random and non-repeatable process - even for masters of the craft.
Trigonometry on the other hand, is hard data, repeatable thousands of times over with no variation in the results.

The two are so fundamentally different that comparisons are impossible, and attempting to compare one to the other (which I didn't do, rather I simply responded to the comparison being initially offered) is like comparing chalk and cheese.

I'll take the Trig, consistency, and ultimate sharpness over what is ultimately a guessing game as a way to get what I'm looking for.
This statement is the very foundation of the Tormek system and process, as the Tormek is the polar opposite of freehand sharpening ... and Vadim has taken the Tormek and quantified it even further in order to maximize the consistency and outcome of using the Tormek system.

Sharpening freehand, or on a abrasive belt (which is still ultimately freehand) is fine ... but the Tormek is what this forum is all about, and the Tormek (along with Vadim's procedures) is where I hang my sharpening hat.

[Ken S]

I think the intention of Steve's email has been misinterpreted. I accept responsibility for this misunderstanding. If you will reread his last paragraph, it includes, "I do not sound down on Vadim, I am not. My hat is off to him." I did not interpret any criticism, only a respectful minor difference of opinion.

I think that stating that other methods are based on trigonometry and that Steve's technique is only muscle memory is an oversimplification. Obviously, Steve's well honed technique has developed extensive muscle memory from many years' experience. However, a careful examination of Steve's book and DVD will demonstrate the solid math behind his freehand technique. Just because one does not see a computer device in use should not imply a lack of trig.
Steve was a career engineer. He is no stranger to the the discipline of mathematics.

Steve polished his technique over many years of farmers market sharpening. He had to understand sharpening well enough to sharpen over a hundred knives in a Saturday morning. Just as important, he had to understand sharpening well enough to teach students over the years.

I do not think of Steve's technique as "older" or unsupported by hard facts. Incidentally, Steve introduced me to BESS testing. I do agree that Wootz' methods are very solid and more quickly learned. Like Steve, my hat is off to Wootz.

Steve has stated that his Tormek is his workhorse. I think the Tormek is versatile enough to accept the techniques of more than one master.

Ken