The Big Book of the Scythe

Part One – Practical User Guidelines

“If we had written this book a year ago, it would have ended up very different than it is
unfolding now – and so it would be a year from now, the next year, and so on. That is the
nature of the subject. Even as we work on this text, we’re continually adding or changing
things. These modifications could probably go on indefinitely, until we eventually print, what
will ultimately be, the notes of an unfinished learning process.”
– Steven Edholm and Tamara Wilder, Buckskin

Table of Contents

Foreword – by Marshall Roberts

Introduction

Chapter 1. Clarification of Terms – as used in these guidelines

Chapter 2. Blade Selection

Chapter 3. Brief Notes on Snaths

Chapter 4. Preparing the Blade’s Edge

Chapter 5. The Elements of Scythe Fitting

Chapter 6. Honing in the Field

Chapter 7. Mowing Techniques

Chapter 8. Identifying and Correcting the Causes of Common Mowing Problems

Chapter 9. Repairing Minor Edge Damage

Chapter 10. Care of the Scythe, with a few Notes on “Safety”

Chapter 11. The Homemade ‘Eastern’ Snath

  
 

Chapter 6. Honing in the field

The basics

As the diversity of techniques among old agrarian cultures attests, scythes can be honed in a
multitude of ways, and with a wide variety of whetstones. What matters is that after going
through the motions, the cutting edge is adequately restored, which is to say that the
improvement in sharpness after each whetting session in the field should be immediately felt
upon taking the very next stroke.

Our intent in the following discussion is not to identify whether the effect of honing is long
lasting or not, and why that may be so (as was already addressed in Chapter 4). Here the
objective is to help determine which honing techniques assure that there is a difference. If
not, it may be that the particular stone’s abrasiveness is inadequate for that particular edge
condition, or that (relative to its abrasiveness) the stone is not applied with enough pressure
against the edge, and/or that the stone is moved too slowly. All of these factors could be
responsible in any one case of unsatisfactory results, or it may be just one of them. We
encourage individuals to experiment under their specific circumstances (the combination of
available equipment and the particular mowing task), while keeping the following in mind:

1. The finest grit stones are, for the most part, only suitable for edges that were first
adequately shaped (by peening or otherwise) and are therefore often not the best as the
only whetstone for beginners.
2. Only relatively coarse whetstones can be applied with a very light touch and still
adequately restore the blade’s edge.
3. Applying firm, or even very firm, pressure with a fine to mid-grit stone can make a notable
difference in many situations of edge and field conditions.
4. The speed of the honing stroke does contribute to abrasion (though should not come at
the cost of compromised stone-to-edge angles).

What remains to be considered is at exactly what angle the stone should be held in relation
to the blade’s bevel. Our position on the matter can be summed up as follows:

The whetstone’s angle – from both sides of the blade – should be as low as possible, as
long as the stone still touches the edge at the outermost end of the bevel.

But is this enough of a guideline, without putting an actual number of degrees to that angle?
Possibly not, though speculating on the topic further does get complicated.
  
 
The challenge of keeping stone-to-edge angles within an acceptable range

It has often been said that “the scythe blade is a single-beveled tool” – an assertion generally
made in reference to all scythe blades. Without further qualification, we consider that
statement somewhat of an unhelpful popular myth. Why unhelpful? Because it doesn’t take
into account the fact that practically all scythe blades, once in use, feature along their edges
more than one bevel. Tempering that statement by adding that “beveled” refers to the
primary bevel, would take it out of deep water and leave room for the fact that there is more
to the issue of bevels than meets the casual eye. But for now let’s take a little detour into a
related subject.

Some tools, such as many chisels, plane blades, drawknives, side axes, scissors, etc., can
more accurately be referred to as single-beveled, because it is relatively easy to maintain
their one (primary) bevel at exactly the chosen angle, while the opposite side is maintained
completely flat. Even then, many individual specimens from among the tool groups
mentioned are – by some of their users – intentionally made double-beveled (with one
primary and one secondary bevel, both from one side). Additionally, yet another secondary
bevel of a very low angle is sometimes, intentionally or otherwise, created on the bottom
side. Of course, all of the resulting variations in edge geometry affect the functionality of the
tool. One difference between those characteristically single-beveled tools and scythe blades
is that the former are typically honed (or can be) in a more accuracy-friendly set-up and, if
desired, with the aid of various jigs. Provided the owner understands the related concepts
and is careful enough in implementing them, some of those tools can readily be maintained
with three bevels (even four would be possible!), and each with whatever angle degree
desired. This is not so with scythe blades, especially once they are attached to their snaths
and taken to the field where they require frequent re-honing.

For a relatively short period of time, a newly re-shaped (whether by hammer or grinder) blade
can perhaps be described as “single beveled” and begin the workday as such. As the day
and the whetting sessions progress, the whetstone begins to create tiny secondary bevels
along the edge. Although typically unacknowledged they nevertheless affect the blade’s
cutting action, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. Ignoring them does not reduce their
effects.

The “American” blades deserve special mention here because they are usually referred to as
“flat” (and sometimes with the degrading surname “stamped”). Well, most of them are not
stamped, nor are any of them flat in the sense that a whetstone can be moved against their
underside fully contacting the cross-section of the body. The reinforcing rib, seen as a sort of
‘trough’ from the top but protruding downwards, will effectively prevent any such attempt,
unless only about 3 cm of the blade’s body’s width is considered an adequate angle guide
and surface to slide the stone against. That, of course, is not how the men of previous
generations whetted their American blades. Instead, as the result of the angle they held their
  
 
whetstones (and suppose it was the lowest possible) they began to slowly create two
secondary bevels on their blade’s edges starting from the time of the first re-honing in the
field, and those secondary bevels were inevitably steeper than whatever primary bevel the
mower initially ground onto his blade.

A partial exception to both of the above cases are the Scandinavian blade models because
they are truly flat on the underside, and it is possible to maintain that side without a bevel, at
least for a much longer time. Theoretically, that time can be extended into infinity, especially
if they are field-honed in the manner often used in the Nordic countries with the round
“Scandinavian” stone – one side at a time. So if it was indeed necessary to bevel-categorize,
these blades could rightly be referred to as “single-beveled”. However, if a switch is made
from the (usually circular) honing of one side at a time to the back-and-forth strokes of an
elongated stone, even the flat underside eventually acquires a shallow secondary bevel; in
the case of the “single-beveled” tool group, it is referred to as a “back bevel”.

These guidelines, however, focus on the “Continental” blades, of which very few are truly flat
in their body’s cross-section, and shaping their bevels – be it with the hammer or later with
the stone in the field – evades any neat, defining terminology. That may be one reason why
across the European landscape it is uncommon to hear someone calling a scythe blade
“single-beveled”. In fact, the bevel concept is rarely mentioned. Rather, the scythe blade has
an edge, the outermost portion of which is regularly peened to various widths and
thicknesses by different individuals and for different purposes, using a variety of techniques.
In some languages the peened zone itself has a name of its own, but implies nothing
concerning bevels. Beyond that, there is a multitude of ways to keep the cutting edge
satisfactorily sharp without discussing bevels per se.

In addition, we hope to spare someone the headache of trying to figure out how to whet their
“Austrian” blade from the bottom side so that 6 mm of its body will be “brightened up with the
whetting” (as advised by Tresemer) – while still keeping their stone contacting the outermost
portion of the bevel while honing…

To reiterate: during use and whetting, most scythe blades eventually end up with two
additional secondary bevels – one from each side. Depending on the applied angle of the
whetstone that created them, they can be variously wide (i.e. shallow) or pronounced (steep).
In a way, they are temporary and each new peening or grinding session eliminates them (or
intends to). How thoroughly they are removed, depends on how well each respective person
performs the peening/grinding. In most cases a small portion of the secondary bevels
remains, a portion so very small that it often goes unnoticed. (Look through a good loupe to
see if the hammer prints on your freshly peened blade reach all the way to the last fraction of
a mm to the apex.) Not that it matters much; the peening hopefully lowered the ‘shoulders’
(i.e. evened out the transition zone between the secondary bevel and the rest of the primary
bevel) thereby making the edge more penetrating. But then from the very next strokes of the
  
 
whetstone on, those secondary bevels are, however imperceptibly, once again being formed.

The flip side of all this is that it also does not really matter whether the scythe blade is
referred to as single, double or triple-beveled. As it has for centuries, it will continue to
function relative to how well its user can sharpen it. The issue is addressed here for two
reasons: Firstly, because it has been touched upon by others, most notably in the oldest-still-
in-print English standby text (1981) on the use of the “Austrian” scythe. Secondly, because
we believe that there is value in trying to understand what is happening down there at the
zone of micro-bevels.

Presently the most frequent recommendation regarding the “correct” stone-to-edge angle
across the topside of the blade is along the (imaginary) line connecting the edge and the top
of the blade’s back. While not universally applicable, that is more or less a good approximate
guide. Still, it refers to the ‘easy’ side.

Regarding the angles from the underside, far less is specified in print, in spite of the fact that
everyone writing on the subject surely knows that this is where novice mowers are more
likely to flounder. Here the one reference point (which the blade’s back provides from the
topside) is missing altogether. So while the whetstone may begin its pass with its lower
(hand-held) end touching the edge, the upper end is in mid-air with plenty of room for
deviations as it moves along. The question then is: at what angle should the stone be
moved? At this point we suggest reading Note 24 24 – a summary of guidelines regarding
                                                                                                               
24    Surprising  to  beginners  as  it  may  be,  this  ‘correct  honing  angles’  is  another  of  those  hazy  how-­‐to  topics  on  which  too  little  

clarity  exists.  In  addition,  the  use  of  technical  terms  varies  enough  with  the  respective  authors  to  compound  the  existing  
discrepancies  and  resulting  confusion.  At  least  if  we  were  novices  searching  for  dependable  information,  and  compared  all  
that  is  presently  offered  on  the  theme,  it  certainly  would  have  us  confused!    
 
Here  is  the  summary  of  pertinent  excerpts  from  those  five  previously  referred-­‐to  texts:  
 
1.  Tresemer,  (1981)  offers  the  following:  
From  the  topside:  “Here  the  stone  is  guided  by  the  rib  which  stands  out  along  the  back  of  the  blade”  
From  the  underside:  “Hold  the  stone  against  the  blade  so  that  across  the  back  side  of  the  blade  the  angle  of  stone  to  blade  is  zero  
degrees.  You  should  see  the  first  ¼  inch  of  the  edge  brighten  up  with  the  whetting”.    
 
2.    Lehnart  2000,  2005,  2008,  
“To  hone,  hold  the  whetstone  parallel  to  the  edge.  If  you  instead  move  the  whetstone  on  an  angle  to  the  edge  you  will  hone-­‐off  the  
Dangel”.  ‘Dangel’,  in  German,  refers  to  the  peened  portion  of  the  bevel.  (2000)  
“During  honing  the  mowing-­‐created  deformation  of  the  edge  should  not  be  honed-­‐off,  but  instead  only  re-­‐sharpened  and  lined  up.  
This  is  possible  by  guiding  the  stone  ‘flatly’  (parallel)  along  the  edge  under  firm  pressure,  in  short  curved  strokes,  alternately  
from  upper  and  underside  of  the  blade.  The  most  frequent  mistake  of  whetting  is  the  moving  of  the  stone  on  too  steep  an  angle  to  
the  edge  –  the  result  of  which  is  all  too  quick  honing-­‐off  of  the  “Dangel”.  (2005)    
“Hold  the  whetstone  always  so  that  it  is  parallel  to  the  edge”.  (2008)  
 
Though  the  blade’s  sides  (with  possible  differences  as  to  the  stone’s  angles)  are  not  specified  in  any  of  the  three  books,  the  
advice  is  presumably  referring  to  both  of  them.  Or  is  it?  One  thing  that  stands  out  is  that  angles  as  such  are  ‘undesirable’  and  
that  “flatness”  (”parallel-­‐ness”)  of  the  stone  is  what  one  is  to  strive  for.  
 
  
 
honing angles published to date.

The principle “rule” regarding honing angles we stated earlier (“… as low as possible as long
as the stone still touches the edge at the outermost end of the bevel”) does not really
contradict the essence of the combined advice offered in Note 24, it merely adds what we
consider an important detail. Nevertheless, although there is probably a general consensus
among the voices contributing to discussions on this very topic, all actual advice, including
our version of a honing angle “rule”, still covers only the theoretical side of the concern. In
practice, those “as low as possible” angles can vary substantially – from both sides. Apart
from the mower’s skill to perform the honing as intended, any or all of the following three
variables may contribute to the actual in-field disparities.

a) The degree of concavity and the width of the respective blade model’s body.
b) The degree of concavity each person incorporates into the bevel while peening it.
c) The degree of ‘edge rounding’ taking place during honing sessions.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
3.  Anderson  (2008):    
(Following  peening):  “Final  honing:  Hold  the  blade  by  the  tang,  and  place  the  tip  in  a  stump.  Brace  the  hand  holding  the  tang  
against  your  body,  with  the  cutting  edge  facing  away  from  you.  Hone  from  beard  to  tip,  with  a  wet  whetstone.  If  you  are  a  
beginner  start  with  a  soft  stone,  then  follow  with  the  Rozsutec  or  Doppelbock  stone.  Remove  the  burr  only  with  the  Rozsutec  or  
Doppelbock.  Use  the  shape  of  the  whetstone  to  feel  for  the  correct  angle  that  you  need  to  hone  the  edge.  Too  steep,  and  you  will  
dull  the  edge;  too  shallow  and  you  will  not  be  doing  much  of  anything.  Use  a  fairly  light  touch,  and  let  the  stone  do  the  work.  
Experienced  peeners  can  skip  this  step,  and  just  quickly  hone  the  blade  like  they  do  in  the  field.”  
 
4.  Tomlin  (2016)  
From  the  topside:  “On  this  side  you’ll  use  the  rib  to  set  the  angle  of  the  whetstone  which  makes  it  fairly  easy  to  get  right”.    
From  the  bottom  side  (which  Tomlin  calls  the  “bottom  face”):  “[The  purpose  of  honing  from  underside]  is  just  to  straighten  out  
the  burr  [created  from  the  opposite  side]”  …  On  this  face…  you  will  be  looking  to  see  the  angle  where  the  stone  just  touches  the  
very  edge  of  the  blade.  Place  the  narrow  face  of  the  stone  on  the  blade  …  Keep  in  mind  the  idea  of  straightening  the  burr  right  at  
the  edge  which  will  help  you  visualize  the  action”...  “…you  will  be  relying  on  having  learned  to  find  the  correct  contact  between  
edge  and  stone  while  using  the  kneeling  method.”  (Described  earlier  in  the  text.)  
 
5.  Miller  (2016):  
“It  is  crucial  that  you  hold  the  whetstone  at  an  angle  that  approximates  the  shape  of  the  edge.  The  blade  is  single  beveled,  so  the  
whetstone  should  be  parallel  to  the  blade  along  the  underside  and  at  a  slight  angle  (the  angle  of  the  bevel)  along  the  topside”.  “If  
the  top  of  the  whetstone  is  touching  the  chine  of  the  blade  (here,  going  by  the  accompanying  drawing,  he  is  referring  to  the  
topside),  you  are  starting  too  high…  and  a  whetstone  will  not  be  lying  at  an  appropriate  angle”.  “Pay  close  attention  to  the  angle  
of  the  whetstone  at  the  point,  since  the  blade  is  so  narrow  there  that  it  can  be  difficult  to  approximate  the  angle  of  the  bevel.”  
 
All  these  bits  of  instructions  may  well  represent  certain  portions  of  a  good  theory,  but  (even  if  they  were  comprehensively  
explained)  implementing  some  of  them  in  practice  is  another  matter…    
Here  Tomlin  comes  closest  to  offering  a  concrete  hint  regarding  how  to  settle  on  the  stone’s  ideal  angle  (and  subsequently  its  
movement)  from  the  underside.  Wisely,  without  specifying  number  of  degrees,  he  nevertheless  tells  the  readers  how  they  can  
obtain  at  least  a  visual  image  of  the  angle  they  should  attempt  to  maintain  as  the  stone  is  in  the  process  of  doing  its  job.  It  may  
have  been  helpful  to  add  that  the  exact  angle  will  vary  in  each  individual  case  of  blade  model/user,  but  he  did  provide  more  
useful  information  in  this  regard  than  the  other  authors  all  put  together.  What  both  Lehnard  and  Miller  bring  onto  the  table  
contradicts  the  standard  topside’s  “rib/back-­‐to-­‐edge”  recommendation.  That  does  not  make  it  “wrong”,  of  course.  And  
although  the  vast  majority  of  European  mowers  do  not  use  that  technique,  the  recommendation  has  merit,  in  cases  of  some  
blade  models.  (Briefly  addressed  further  below.)  
  
 
In Chapter 4 (Figure 11) we suggested the angle to be 25-30 degrees (a common one on
many other edge tools). Below we use that same diagram again as Figure 36, and, to avoid
confusion, with only the field-honing angle indicated.

While drawing that diagram, we hoped everyone would notice the included “approximate”. As
it is – in view of the combined advice now summarized in Note 24 – that number may seem
too high to some. Keep in mind that 25-30 degrees refers to a combined angle, not one from
either side individually, and that each of the single sides’ angle is not necessarily arrived at
by dividing the combined angle by two. Of course, even if not very conveniently or accurately,
they can be individually measured. But a visual image taken in one’s head to the field may be
more useful than numbers arrived at by means of some kitchen table measurements, and
such an image is not difficult to obtain. Tomlin briefly explains how to do that, and in addition
his book features at least two photographs that in this case become “a picture worth a
thousand words”. We second his suggestion, except that rather than obtaining that image in
the field with a blade attached to its snath, we prefer a table or bench as a support, initially. 25

Figure 36.

                                                                                                               
25  The  blade  can  be  rested  upside  down  on  a  table,  which  puts  its  working  underside  facing  upwards  and  more  or  less  

horizontal  with  the  plane  of  the  tabletop.  Then,  while  one  hand  steadies  it  by  the  tang,  the  other  hand  positions  a  whetstone  
across  the  middle  of  the  blade’s  back.  On  most  average  Alpine  blade  models,  the  stone  will  look  to  be  making  ‘full’  contact  
with  the  blade  body’s  center  over  a  distance  of  approximately  4-­‐5  mm,  no  more.  Begin  to  slowly  tilt  the  stone  toward  the  
blade’s  primary  bevel,  and  observe  how  wide  a  portion  of  the  bevel  the  stone  is  actually  contacting  at  any  one  moment;  it  will  
not  be  more  than  2-­‐3mm  in  the  majority  of  cases.  Then  tilt  the  stone  still  further,  until  the  stone  just  contacts  the  outermost  
end  of  bevel.    
“Just  contacts”  means  that  the  tiny  space  between  the  apex  and  the  stone  closes  completely.  A  source  of  light  from  the  
opposite  direction  assists  in  seeing  when  exactly  the  stone  has  been  tilted  just  far  enough  to  close  that  very  small  space.  At  
this  point,  as  it  just  contacts  the  outermost  point  of  the  bevel  (which  is  the  lowest  angle  to  use)  the  stones’  outer  end  may  be  
significantly  farther  from  the  blade’s  back  than  one  might  initially  guess  it  ought  to  be  when  trying  to  keep  their  stone  at  a  
“low  angle”  while  honing  in  the  field.  
 
  
 
However, either approach can provide adequate visual perspective on how “low” the stone’s
angle can actually be in order to sufficiently contact the apex. In both cases it would be found
that the stones’ outer end may be significantly further from the blade’s back than one might
initially expect while attempting the low angle recommendation.

In any case, fixing that distance in mind and asking a scythe-friendly friend to do the same,
may be the next best step. He/she can then, while field honing takes place, face
perpendicularly to the mower’s stance, and make periodic ‘voice corrections’ as needed.
Those who hone their blades in the field with blade’s point in a post, tree or the ground (see
“Positioning the scythe during honing”, below), do not need such a helper. But during the
actual honing the angle can at best be adhered to only approximately because no normal
person would take the time needed to actually watch when exactly the stone touches the
outermost end of the bevel while executing each stroke. Relying on the visual memory of the
stone’s top end from the blade’s back is about as close as we can get to that angle in any
practical way.

With practice and attentiveness it eventually becomes a matter of simply feeling for the
outermost end of the bevel ‘through’ the stone; as soon as that point of contact is felt, one
strives to keep the stone at that angle throughout the entire honing stroke. This is true
regardless of the honing method employed.

In view of the now widely promoted instructional guidelines that (rather simplistically) state:
“…the whetstone should be held flat against the back of the blade”, we add a bit more food
for thought regarding how the shape of the bevel can influence the actual stone to apex
angles.

If technical accuracy mattered, truly flat bevels on the ‘Continental’ blades are rare. Those
that come closest are initially made in the scythe factories, and even that is not the norm. On
such bevels the stone could contact a larger portion of their width from the underside, though
usually not quite all of it. (And we are taking into account that far fewer than half of the bevels
of blades made by the various factories are 5-6 mm wide these days.) As for the stone
contacting the bevel from the topside “flatly”, and then using that contact to determine the
overall angle/direction of the stone? That may be something to merely illustrate by way of
diagrams drawn onto the pages of a book, but not realistically implementable in the field.

Once hand peening begins, and is repeated, the bevel is prone to take on all manner of
shapes, many of them with at least a slight but sometimes quite pronounced hollow. (We are
not talking of ‘pronounced’ anywhere near that illustrated in Lehnart’s books under the term
“Hohldangel”, nor Miller’s nearly identical “curved edge” on page 64 of The Scything
Handbook.) That in turn changes the possible number of millimeters of the bevel the stone
can actually contact from either side, and on exactly what angle it is best tilted in order to still
contact the apex.
  
 
As for the advice that the bevel should be maintained ‘flat’, there is another perspective on
the matter…26

Certainly the sort of bevel described in Note 26 absolutely does not allow the whetstone to be
laid against it ‘flatly’, from either side. Its ‘hollowness’ also increases/steepens the angle at
which the outermost end of the bevel is touched by the stone – something that (in the
excerpts quoted in Note 24) Lehnart, Miller and to lesser extent Anderson tell us is a bad
thing because it will all too quickly remove the desired “dangle”…

A partial way out of this predicament could be by following Lehnart’s and Miller’s suggestion
and (on the blade’s topside) begin the stone’s downward honing pass below the back/rib.
That does slightly lower the actual honing angle, and could also somewhat compensate for
the compounded effect of the model-specific ‘hollowness’ or concavity of certain blades’
bodies, plus the owner-made hollow along the bevel. However, it is not something most
mowers using the average narrow (50mm) blades are prone to do, mainly because it is a bit
awkward to execute and slower overall because the stone’s stroke will (unless pulled
significantly more sideways) be inevitably shortened. Still, there are occasions where it can
be, and traditionally has been, applied to advantage. 27

We stated that 18 years ago while writing The Scythe Must Dance, and in Figure 9 of that
manuscript drew a representation of the Lehnart/Miller-advocated whetstone position (at
least from the topside of the blade). However, we later came to realize that our seemingly
straightforward diagram was actually flawed. Namely, the descriptions accompanying its sub-
figures ‘a’ and ‘b’ called for questioning, and subsequent correction. In line with the popular
notions of the day, the one for the sub-figure ‘a’ claimed the stone angle as drawn to be one
for “general purpose” mowing. Well, popular notions sometimes represent no more than
theories, and this is one example. How useful are purely theoretical bits of advice in a
supposedly practical guide? Slightly refined, that diagram is now included here as Figure 37.

                                                                                                               
26  For  instance,  an  old  Austrian  standard  of  the  ideal  bevel  shape  states  that  on  a  really  well  peened  blade  one  should  be  able  

to  put  a  drop  of  water  (or  a  bit  of  spit)  at  the  point  of  its  beard,  and  then  by  slightly  tipping  the  blade  towards  its  point  that  
water  should  roll  along  the  bevel  all  the  way  to  the  point  without  spilling  over  the  edge.    That  is  not  a  joke;  we  know  by  
experience  that  it  does  work.  But  a  bevel  functioning  somewhat  like  a  trough  for  that  droplet  to  travel  in  obviously  cannot  
really  be  ‘flat’.  Instead,  it  actually  needs  to  have  more  of  a  hollow  than  one  is  likely  to  find  on  an  average  hand-­‐peened  blade  
these  days.  The  peened  zone  also  needs  to  be  somewhat  wider  than  is  common,  say  3mm  or  more.  The  Alpine  competitions’  
participants  like  it  at  least  twice  that  wide,  and  the  trough-­‐like  shape  is  desired  by  many  of  them.  The  fact  is  that  it  would  be  
exceedingly  difficult  to  hand-­‐peen  a  bevel  6  mm  wide,  do  it  to  the  desired  thickness  overall,  avoid  up-­‐and-­‐down  deflection  
(waves)  and  not  have  it  at  the  same  time  end  up  with  a  variously  hollow  profile.  If  any  of  the  ‘flat-­‐beveled’  folks  actually  try  it  
and  come  to  a  different  conclusion,  please  let  us  know.    Given  enough  evidence  /  consensus  on  certain  details,  a  correction  of  
this  text  can  always  be  made.  
27  The  few  examples  of  blade  models  that,  in  our  view,  may  benefit  by  being  honed  with  the  stone  beginning  its  path  below  the  

blade’s  back/rib  are  those  that  are  extra  wide  and/or  have  more  concavity  in  their  bodies  cross-­‐section.  Of  such  blades  there  
are  practically  none  still  being  produced.  A  few  variations  of  the  ‘typically  Basque’  model,  favoured  by  them  also  in  
competitions,  may  be  the  exception,  and  of  course,  the  leftover  blades  of  old  production  are  still  in  circulation,  mostly  in  
countries  like  Portugal,  Spain,  France  and  to  a  lesser  extent  elsewhere.  
  
 
During the whetstone’s movement across the blade’s topside, most seasoned mowers do not
actually touch its back/rib back with their stone. At this point we want to extrapolate a little.
We do not know why those old mowers would, to various degrees, disobey that most
frequently stated golden rule of a whetting angle (“from the blade’s back to its edge”) but they
do. We are quite certain that if someone wandered throughout the European countryside
during hay-making season and took photographs of “mowers whetting their blades” (albeit
from the angle where the lines of the moving stone in relationship to the blade’s back can be
clearly seen) and later analyze the collection, he/she would confirm this. With other words,
notwithstanding the sometimes large variations, cross-culturally the most frequent whetting
angle approximates the one shown in Figure 37 ‘b’ closer than the one in 37 ‘a’.

Therefore – given lack of substantial evidence to the contrary – we declare that

representation to be more or less one of the “norm” (while keeping in mind the all important
qualifying little word “approximate”). Consequently, the original captions in that figure needed
to be altered…and that is what we did.

Figure 37.
  
 
Now, we realize that so far the only decidedly optimistic hint was this brief statement: “With
practice and attentiveness it eventually becomes a matter of simply feeling for the outermost
end of the bevel ‘through’ the stone…” With other words, the whole discussion above has
provided nothing like dummy-proof formulae to field whetting. If anything, it may have spun
many readers’ heads. Well, they have our sympathies, and we hope to make up for it with
the condensed version of this book.

For now, we continue with the last subtopic, and it may be one more straightforward and
immanently useful. The following section emphasizes the importance of keeping the stone’s
path as straight as possible during honing, both from the top and underside. What bears
emphasizing is that during honing – from both top and underside – the movement of the
stone should be as straight as possible.

As many readers already know, making perfectly straight lines does not come naturally to the
human hand. Freehand tool sharpening, whether with stones or files, often suffers in quality
for this reason alone. Honing a scythe blade in the field is a prime example. Unintentionally
moving the whetstone in slight curves – even though the person guiding it perceives the
movement of the stone between the points of reference to be “straight” – happens even while
honing the topside of the blade, where, at least theoretically, there are two definite points of
reference.28

Like it or not, in both cases (of topside and underside) the stone often begins to leave that
theoretically straight line as soon as a portion of it moves past the apex. As pointed out in
Chapter 4, this unintentional ‘rolling’ of the stone is really, really common, and not only with
beginners. How ‘detrimental’/undesirable that may be depends on the degree of the roll, and
for what sort of cutting that very blade is intended to be used. Though it may not be common
to find someone who intentionally steepens the honing angle in this manner, for blades used
in rough terrain (as many are) a mild rounding of the apex gives the edge more damage
resistance. Of course, this sort of edge ‘toughness’ comes at the cost of ease of penetration;
thus blades used for lawn mowing, competitions or just plain haymaking in stone-free
meadows would certainly be better without it. The key question here is how much rounding is
one willing to accept as “inevitable”, and is that choice being made consciously?

                                                                                                               
28  We  say  “theoretically”  because  very  few  seasoned  mowers,  though  their  stone  comes  close,  would  actually  have  it  contact  

the  blades’  back  while  honing  in  the  field.  Secondly,  the  backs  of  all  blades  are  not  equally  high  and  are  really  not  calculated  to  
be  a  certain  height  in  order  to  provide  the  “correct”  stone  to  edge  angle.  With  a  few  former  exceptions  –  such  as  the  North  
German  “high  back”  models  –  each  factory  makes  the  backs  in  their  own  standard  edition  on  all  models  other  than  the  heavy  
bona-­‐fide  bush  blades.  The  differences  between  respective  makes  may  only  be  a  couple  of  millimeters  (representing  20%  or  
so  of  the  total)  but  –  along  with  differences  in  the  width  of  the  blade’s  body  –  the  actual  stone-­‐to-­‐edge  angle  can  be  altered  by  
them.  So,  even  though  ‘rib-­‐to-­‐edge’  may  be  the  most  frequent  recommendation  as  to  the  “correct”  angle,  it  should,  again,  be  
considered  only  an  approximate  guide.  
  
 
Figure 38 29 (on the following page) is our attempt at a visual representation of what actually
happens right there near the apex – a gradual change through repeated honing sessions. It
addresses an aspect of scythe blade sharpening which has not been adequately discussed,
yet one that could substantially contribute to learning how to better sharpen most edge tools,
scythes included.

While considering the details of that drawing, please keep the following qualifications in mind:

If viewed at a significantly magnified level, the very apex (of any ‘sharp’ tool) is never that
pointed. But because tool users often think that it is, we drew it according to the established
image. J

What you see here is again, a simplistic representation of but one of many, many variations
of what the owner-made secondary bevels of a scythe blade actually may look like and how it
progressively changes. The differences between them are more the result of how straight a
person can move the stone, rather than differences between this or that angle-related
sharpening guidelines followed.

Figure 38b shows one variation which is likely to take place with blades of those who can
indeed move the stone in a straighter line than most; these are also the folks whose periodic
honing sessions are more effective. Their blades also need less frequent peening and stay
“sharper” for longer between honings. With that in mind, it should be plain that it is best to
avoid letting the stone ‘dip down’ as soon as a portion of it has moved past the edge. This
hand-rolling tendency is possibly foremost among the reasons for the lack of desired results
while whetting in the field, causing more trouble than a deviation one way or another from the
theoretical “ideal” honing angle. Given attention and practice, that aimed-for line will become
straighter in time.

All in all, we still think that the subtopic of honing angles merits further discussion among
individuals interested in subtleties – and those subtleties then further communicated.

                                                                                                               
29  We  borrowed  this  one  from  our  2001  manuscript.  Back  then  we  thought  it  was  the  single  most  important  diagram  we  

included  in  it;  we  still  think  so,  although  its  effect  on  the  overall  understanding  of  scythe  sharpening  seems  not  to  have  been  
what  we  had  hoped  for.  But  it  seems  to  fit  into  this  section  very  well,  so  we  present  it  again  along  with  its  newly  sketched  
little  companion.  
  
 
Figure 38.
  
 
Positioning the scythe during honing

Of the various ways of whetting the blade in the field, not all are equally easy to learn.30
Moreover, none of them can honestly be declared to be “cut-proof”.

What makes some more ‘learner-friendly’ than others is the degree to which they allow the
mower to hone in a comfortable position, and adequately steady the blade. One of the
examples approaching these parameters is the method in which the blade’s point is pressed
against some solid object such as a tree or a fence post (while the snath’s end is resting on
the ground and the mower is standing more or less upright). Alternatively, the blade’s point is
steadied against the ground while the person is either kneeling or bending over. In both of
these cases the blade can be steadied without a wobble – certainly a plus. It is also claimed,
and rightly so, that the angle at which the stone is applied is most clearly seen and thus
easily adjusted because the person can be looking down the length of the blade
(perpendicular to the movement of the stone) – another plus. We do not, however, use this
approach ourselves nor, for reasons outlined below, consider it highly recommended.

For one thing, we have spent countless hours mowing in places where – in view of the
needed frequency of honing – walking the distance to the nearest tree or a fence post every
few minutes would seem preposterous. As for steadying the blade with its point in the ground
and then either bending over to reach it with the stone, or kneeling down, we have several
concerns. One is that bending into the position needed to hone that way is not as
comfortable as standing upright. Secondly, much, if not most, of our mowing is done with
dew still on the grass, and while both kneeling and ending up with wet pants may not be a
big deal, is it necessary? Thirdly, it takes longer; alone by the time a person kneels down and
gets up again (never mind the honing itself) someone using the standing position might
already be swinging their blade through grass again. But our biggest objection to honing with
the blade’s point being pushed into the mown stubble (somewhat less so with a tree or a
post) is that the point will inevitably miss its share of the stone. And though some people
claim that the edge section near the point does not need to be very sharp since “it does not
do much cutting”, we beg to differ. In fact, we typically overlap the honing strokes more near
the point, plus apply a bit more pressure…

For these reasons we advocate another approach to field honing, one that has been
practiced in many regions of Europe and the Near East for likely as long as any of the others.
It is an approach that in recent years has also become popular with many novice mowers
internationally. It involves having the blade positioned in front of oneself, with the point aimed
                                                                                                               
30  However  common  across  much  of  Europe  is  the  honing  method  in  which  the  blade  is  held  up  in  the  air  pointing  to  the  left  

(i.e.  its  topside  facing  the  person)  it  is  not  one  among  those  most  easily  learned.  Nor  is  the  method  widespread  in  Spain  (and  
possibly  elsewhere  on  the  Iberian  Peninsula)  where  the  blade’s  edge  is  facing  upwards  while  the  scythe  is  (seemingly  
precariously)  supported  on  the  person’s  thigh.  
 
  
 
to the right. The person is then looking at the underside of the blade (and the screws holding
the attachment ring) as illustrated in Figure 39. The upper end of the snath should be placed
on the ground in such a way (in terms of distance from the feet) that the resulting blade angle
allows one to carry out the whetting in a wrist-friendly manner, meaning that the wrist does
not need to be bent either up or down too far out of its comfort zone. Where exactly that
place may be is affected by the style of the snath, the pattern of the blade and the terrain one
stands in. (Please note that we do not recommend the practice of “standing on the upper
grip” as a way to steady the unit during honing because doing so often compromises the
most wrist-friendly angle between the stone and the blade.)

As could be expected, of this basic technique there are regional and individual variations
regarding how the blade itself is steadied and honing proceeds. In one such variation the left
arm rests across the back rib, where it remains from start to finish. In another (possibly the
most common traditionally), the left hand holds the blade, initially by its heel, and during the
process moves forward once or twice in order to provide steadier support against the action
of the stone. In both of these cases the stone-holding hand moves (in variously wide passes)
from left to right as the complete length of the blade is covered.

Nearly 20 years ago we came up with an additional touch to this principle approach. One of
its virtues is that the stone-holding hand and arm remain in a physiologically comfortable
position – directly in front and in line with the shoulder joint, with the elbow relaxed and
pointing downwards. Instead of the left hand following the length of the edge, it is the blade
that gradually moves (leftwards) as honing progresses and ‘presents itself’ so to speak to the
natural (accuracy-enhancing) position of the stone. At the start, while the beard and the first
few centimeters of the edge are honed, the left hand holds the blade firmly at its heel (Figure
39 a). Then, by what may appear to be a ‘creeping’ of the fingers and thumb forward along
the rib, the blade is gradually allowed to slide backwards – while the hand holding the stone
remains ‘in place’, so to speak. Without periodic pauses for re-gripping, the left hand is
always supporting the blade just slightly behind where the stone is contacting the edge,
thereby providing steadying support against the pressure of the stone exactly where it is
needed. In this manner, regardless of its length, the blade can’t really wobble to and fro, as is
often the case with some (though not all) methods of honing.

During honing the snath does not need to begin (nor can it remain) in a vertical position,
because for the blade to slide backwards easily (somewhat by its own weight) the snath
needs to be leaning at least slightly to the left. In the process the whole scythe pivots
gradually leftward. If the blade is, for example, 90 cm long (and especially if the snath is a
long one of the ‘Eastern’ type and/or the mower is standing on a steep slope) the snath may
end up tilted as low as 45 degrees, or even less, towards the ground. (Figure 39 b does not
show such an extreme tilt because the drawn blade is short, and the invisible person is
standing on a flat surface.)
  
 
Figure 39.

In most traditions, the direction that the stone travels during each honing stroke could be
described as a combination of movement parallel to the edge, and perpendicular to it. Exactly
how much of the blade's length is covered with each downward movement of the stone is a
matter of personal preference and/or regional tradition. It can vary from a very short forward
progression consisting of numerous strokes to covering the whole distance in one
movement. The latter variation is common only in areas where relatively long whetstones
were used, often equipped with handles as in North America, and in parts of Europe where
the even longer "Streichholz" (a wooden stick covered with baked-on synthetic abrasive) is
still popular.

Not all directional patterns of the stone recommended during post-peening treatment
(Chapter 4) are well suited for actual work in the field. Once the blade is attached to the
snath, the whetstone, as a rule, is moved from the rib towards the edge. Of the examples
illustrated in Figure 40, we recommend options ‘a’ or ‘b’ (in that order). In the options ‘c’ and
‘d’, the scythe may need to be positioned differently than shown in Figure 39.

Typically, individual stone strokes alternate between the upper and underside of the blade.
This classical back-and-forth motion not only has a nice flow, it is also faster than honing one
side at a time, and seems to produce a slightly better cutting edge. A case can be made for
  
 
beginners honing one side at a time, because it is easier to focus on the consistency of the
angle that way, and it is better to hone the blade ‘accurately’ rather than insist on the
traditional switching back and forth. While honing one side at a time it is also easier to apply
less pressure against the blade's underside, though that can be done while alternating the
strokes as well. Beginners may benefit by having a friend standing at their side, turned
perpendicular to them, to watch for and help correct the (probable) deviations from the
desired angle as the stone progresses from beard to point.

Figure 40. a, b, c, d – Various stroke patterns of a whetstone

  
 

Cleaning the blade before re-honing in the field

Before each honing the blade should be wiped clean of all grass and grit, because such
matter tends to be pulled towards the edge as honing proceeds and can inhibit the
functioning of the whetstone. Although the cleaning can be done with a bare hand, picking up
a large handful of mown grass and using it as a rag is the most common way to do it.
Enough is picked up so it can be folded over the back of the blade and squeezed against
  
 
both sides of the blade's body. Then, one sweeping motion along the rib, from the neck
towards the point, is usually enough to wipe off the bulk of the material. A second pass might
be necessary, especially while mowing in wet conditions, to ensure that no bits of grass
remain. We usually make yet a third pass along the very bevel itself, not so much to clean it
even more thoroughly but to check for any damage the edge may have suffered since the
last honing session. This has merit especially while mowing in rocky terrain or in places
where dry stubs of previously cut saplings may be found in the grass. For this third pass, the
abovementioned ‘grass rag’ would be counterproductive, and any really cut-proof gloves
nearly useless.31 To explain how this seemingly ‘dangerous’ technique is performed: the
thumb and either the index or middle finger are placed against opposite sides of the bevel,
pressed together lightly and then moved along from beard to point. Should a small dent or a
‘schrup’ be detected, it can be dealt with, even if partially, right then and there (Chapter 9).

(Again!) The question of "how often?"

“Dawn is still afar, only the stars are growing less distinct… Patches of mist lie on the
meadows. The dew on the grass wets the mowers’ torn shoes… They put their scythes
down, fill their whetstone holders with water, drink, whet their scythes and the farmer marks
the border…. Seventeen mowers… start swinging their scythes at the same time… Every
twenty steps the scythes have to be whetted.”

From Ignac Koprivec’s 1939 novel, as quoted in Whetstone Holders by Inja Smerdel; refer to
credit in opening to Chapter 4.)

Once at work, the blade needs to be whetted rather frequently. If the level of performance
matters, frequently might mean approximately every 5 minutes, on average. This is not one
of the 'radical' concepts we had already communicated. Rather, it seems to be an uncommon
example of consensus among old mowers right across most of Continental Europe and the
Near/Middle East. The quote we open this subtopic with – a historical account of one region’s
tradition with respect to honing frequency – states “every twenty steps”. The author was, of
course, not writing a scythe use instructional manual. But he was rather accurate here.32

                                                                                                               
31  While  on  the  topic  of  gloves,  we  want  to  point  out  that  a  scythe  held  in  gloved  hands  is  definitely  a  modern  phenomenon.  

One  would  probably  have  to  wear  out  several  pairs  of  shoes  walking  the  European  countryside  to  find  an  old  mower  wearing  
gloves.  And  if  one  were  found  (who  has  not  been  learning  about  this  tool  by  watching  YouTube  videos)  he  could  rightly  be  
considered  an  anomaly.    
 
32  A  ‘step’  is  not  what  some  novices  these  days  think  of  as  the  ‘shuffle’  a  person  takes  along  with  each  stroke.  A  step  usually  

means  about  three  feet,  or  90  cm.  So  20  steps  equals  about  18  meters.  Those  mowers  likely  used  blades  75+  cm  in  length,  and  
probably  advanced  at  roughly  15  cm  with  each  swing,  possibly  more.  Their  swings  (typically  narrower  than  what  we  suggest  
in  these  guidelines  for  a  ‘field’  stroke)  may  have  taken  two  and  a  half  seconds  each  –  and  all  that  computes  to  approximately  5  
minutes  worth  of  swinging  for  each  twenty  steps.  Keep  in  mind  that  these  estimates  are  mere  guesses.  However,  they  confirm  
our  in-­‐field  experience  and  we  trust  that  they  come  close.  
  
 
Even so, adhering to centuries old traditions is not a must, with aspects of it possibly
undesirable. Using the account from Slovenia (played out in countless similar scenarios) as
an example, it is not difficult to see how a strict protocol inevitably “punishes” a certain
portion of the group:

Among those seventeen mowers, some no doubt had their blades peened better than the
average, and some less so. The former few could no doubt keep going (especially so early in
the morning) for more than twenty steps, while those with least wide/thin bevels may have
had to strain beyond their personal preference in order to keep up with the group’s given
standard.

With the above in mind it may be easy to see why the frequency of honing is another one of
those questions that cannot justly be answered in a straightforward manner. We could
simplify the dilemma and repeat what has been said elsewhere: “whenever the blade ceases
to cut, it is time to re-hone”. Or, to be somewhat more explicit, we could add “well” or “easily”
after the word “cut”, and leave it at that. Another alternative is to state an actual time period,
as we had done eighteen years ago.

In The Scythe Must Dance we suggested approximately every 5 minutes, on average. Back
then (in the aftermath of Tresemer’s “15 minutes” as the only widely read specifics on the
topic in English) it seemed a radical concept, and some new scythe teachers then chose to
split the difference by suggesting every 10 minutes. Still, everyone can settle this issue for
him/herself; it may require some attention, but really is not difficult. An attentive mower will
notice that at some point between when the blade was last honed and several minutes later,
the cutting begins to require more effort. While this could possibly be said of nearly every
successive stroke following a honing session, we have in mind a more noticeable change –
one that takes place within a spell of less than a minute. To someone watching from a
distance, the change (and the need to re-hone) may be imperceptible, because the grass is
still being cut with no apparent misses. What is missing, or at least beginning to decline, is a
favourable ratio of energy expended to grass cut – and this the person operating the tool can
feel in the body.

At this point, one may continue mowing for a while, or pause for a moment to hone the blade.
Given practice, someone who pays attention to details will be able to identify that point of
rather sudden diminishing of performance within half a dozen strokes. THAT, in our view, is
the time to re-hone.

Admittedly, the period of time after honing and before its effect begins to noticeably diminish
can vary considerably, hence the seeming discrepancy between estimates made by those
who have written on the topic, but failed to qualify the guidelines. Here we attempt to be more
specific. The ‘ideal’ frequency of honing is usually affected by a combination of factors.
  
 
Though not necessarily in the order listed, these play the most influential role:

a) The time of day that mowing is performed

b) The species of plants comprising the sward, and their maturity

c) The condition of the edge, as far as its geometry is concerned

d) The skill of the person performing the honing

e) The qualities of the blade, such as the specific steel alloy and tempering process
employed by the manufacturer

Among the factors listed above the effects of ‘a’ can be most easily tested, because the
change in conditions over the course of the day and how it influences the need for honing
can be observed in a straightforward and dependable manner even by a beginner.

To outline one scenario suitable for a useful learning process:

Select a hayfield already past the early flowering stage, but one not yet so mature or
weathered as to challenge a scythe blade unduly. The absence of rocks and other obstacles
is highly desirable.

Get up very early, and begin mowing at daybreak. If the blade was well peened just prior to
these tests you may be able to take 150 strokes or more before a notable reduction of ease
in mowing, at which point the blade should be re-honed. You can probably keep going at this
rate for an hour or more with only a gradually increasing, but not very significant need to re-
hone more often than initially. Just before sun-up the interval might decrease to 100-120
strokes. However, soon after the first rays of sun touch the un-mown portion of the field,
there will be a notable difference within a relatively short spell of time. You may rather quickly
get down to honing at 60 stroke intervals, and by mid- morning or so it may be each 40
strokes, or even less (especially if the field contains some silica-rich species of grass).

Admittedly, the shape of the outermost ½ mm of the edge has by then changed (see Figure
38) and, being now a bit more rounded at the apex, no longer “takes an edge” as it did first
thing in the morning. Yet most of that reduced efficiency cannot be accounted for solely by
the fact that at some point between daybreak and 9:00am that blade would have benefited
by being lightly re-peened. The major reason for the more frequent need to re-hone, in this
scenario, is the changing condition of the plant texture, or, to be more specific, its diminishing
internal moisture content as the day progresses.

From the moment the air temperature begins to rise (which during the summer is usually
shortly after daybreak) the plants begin, at first very slowly, their daily water-laden exhalation.
  
 
Their cells – which previously were as full of water as the American Empire is full of hot air –
begin to shrivel. To use perhaps a less contentious metaphor, they gradually acquire a jacket
of a tougher consistency. Imagine a full Spanish-style leather wineskin (or a balloon, if that’s
easier) and an empty one: which punctures easier? The difference is akin to the difference in
ease of cutting (and frequency in honing) for the person who rolls out of bed early and the
one who doesn't. The change, you see, is only very gradual initially, but the magic of the
sun’s rays speeds up the warming in an easily noticeable leap. For that reason, in all cultures
where the daily output of a man swinging a scythe really mattered, mowers were at the edge
of the meadow when they could barely see enough to follow the contour of the sward to be
mown…

However, the oft-repeated country wisdom that “grass cuts easiest when wet” is a semi-myth.
Yes, roughly in sync with the easier time for cutting, the outer portion of the plants is usually
covered with dew. But surface wetness per se makes relatively little difference – a fact that is
also fairly easy to confirm. Here is how:

Find a dense lawn or a field that, due to its species’ composition, is not easy to cut. Go out
there sometime in the early afternoon just after a heavy shower has passed, when the grass
will be thoroughly wet, more so than it would be early in the morning with the average dew.
Mow for a long enough period to determine how many strokes it takes until that point of
diminishing energy return (and the need to re-hone) arrives. Take a stopwatch or count the
strokes. Depending on personal style, one back and forth movement takes 2 to 3 seconds.
Then – without re-peening that blade – take it to the same place the following morning at
daybreak, and continue mowing. Again count the strokes, and note the difference... For those
still needing to be convinced: there are some mornings when rain is due to fall in a few
hours, and no noticeable dew is present on the grass at daybreak. Choose a morning like
that for the second phase of the above test. We rest our case.

Similar farm-style (but still somewhat comprehensive) experiments can be conducted

regarding the differences in mowing ease due to plant maturity, relative resistance of certain
species to a steel edge, or the differences between blade patterns and makes. Considering
all of these variables (never mind the geometry of the blade’s bevel) we feel that it can be
misleading to set the honing frequency “in stone”.

A note on whetstones

Our expressed partiality regarding some aspects of scythe use notwithstanding, these
guidelines do not intend to promote any particular pattern of blades, style of snaths or types
of whetstones. In Part 2 we may be more specific, and other individuals can add notes on
various preferences, including the when and why of them. Here we take the neutral route and
attempt to play the role of referee.
  
 
The existence of two camps regarding the theme of natural versus synthetic whetstones
probably dates back to when the first of the latter began to be available, and (albeit with less
intensity) continues to date. As with many things there are two sides to a story, and it would
be hard to realistically dispute that there are times when a synthetic stone has an advantage
over a natural one and vise versa.

For instance, because the coarse grit (usually synthetic) stones remove material more
quickly they are better for post-peening honing (especially after the jig). For the same reason
such stones are, by and large, also preferable for honing neglected edges. And why
synthetic stones have taken a decided lead in popularity, worldwide, is because low quality
edges on all sorts of tools have become far more common than was the case in the past.
Additional incentive, of course, is the cost of their production, which, due to increased
mechanization of the industry (in relation to the quarry equivalent) has continued to
decrease. As well, there is the side effect of globalization and its relentless outsourcing, with
China’s, India’s, Mexico’s, etc., multitudes of low-paid labourers producing synthetic
whetstones for pennies apiece.

Unfortunately, many of the cheap modern stones contain a considerably higher percentage
of filler in relation to the actual abrasive material than was the case in the past, when some
so-called "carborundums" were both efficient for steel removal and relatively long lasting.
Additionally, synthetic whetstones finer than 100 grit are hard to find these days, with 60 grit
being perhaps more common than anything else. (The “Silikar” is one of the exceptions.)

However, learning to function more or less happily with synthetic sharpening stones may –
for many people around the globe – already be a rather inescapable part of reality. And,
considering how cheaply some of them can be purchased in many local hardware stores, it
may be worthwhile to obtain several, of different brands, and experiment with their individual
virtues or lack thereof. One will find, for instance, that some wear out twice as fast as others
while doing less sharpening in the process. Others wear more quickly when used wet than
dry, etc.

On that note, we should mention that some synthetic stones function just fine while dry, and
for the purposes of preparing a new blade for use and post-peening edge treatment we
prefer them to using the water-dependent versions. Why? The slurry created along the edge
makes the detection of unevenness and adequate ‘raising of the burr’ more difficult for those
unaccustomed to the sharpening process in general. It is also less messy overall.

The above is by no means intended as a promotion of synthetics over their natural

counterparts. Good natural whetstones are certainly to be treasured, especially as we are
faced with the fact that economic trends seriously threaten the survival of the few enterprises
that still dig in the ground for a source of good natural whetstones. Therefore, we
wholeheartedly encourage all new attempts at offsetting the trend of fewer functioning stone