wickededge wrote:


That shouldn't be hard, I bleed easily.

Make sure someone critical gets to play with it before it goes into production.

All jokes aside, I can't wait and wish you well with it.

I realized after posting and reading response that there is no need to have a consistent way of raising it above the highest depth key setting. My first sharpening didn't turn out so well. I placed back in the vice with the blade only in as far as the squareness of the spine. Which was about right.

If you use an angle cube it shouldn't matter if the depth is different next time. This blade is parallel to the spine and the spine will always be perpendicular to the vice.

wickededge wrote:


The problem has always been there is no constant radius for serrations you find. Even within a manufacturer's line, you'll find a variety of radii used. The "best" solution I've found is either a tapered rod, like DMT uses (you will find the radius you need but they will "wallow it out a bit as you go along) or a single point of contact (like the triangle edge of a Sharpmaker) where it's easy to wear the tips.

The only "real" solution is to have a variety of different sized rods and fit them to the serrations you have (or redo all the serrations to fit the rod you have, which changes the knive's design.)

Like many, I tend to avoid serrations, but I have a few (under a dozen )

Ken

I have many pocket knives (trappers, peanuts, etc) that have blades too narrow to utilize the upper alignment holes and have requested WE to consider placing multiple laser etches of varying heights around the inside and outside of the vice above the upper alignment holes. This would allow multiple reference points for narrow blades. Not sure how much this would add to the manufacturing process but would seem to be beneficial for blades too narrow to utilize the upper alignment holes. I am sure when Clay and company get caught up they will respond to the idea.