I've been doing simple engraving for quite a few years and the type of work I do does not require fine shading lines. I was alway under the impression the fine shades were created with a fine onglete graver and that a 90 would entirely too big. Never had cause to try either, just seemed logical. Well, the other day I discovered Sam Alfano's web site and read the whole thing. I got to the part regarding fine shade lines and was dumbfounded to find that he uses, not an onglete, not even a 90, but a 120???. I sat back and pondered this for a few minutes, cutting shade lines in my head with each tool and it didn't take long 'till the light came on. It's one of those things that, once pointed out, makes perfect sense but I would NEVER have discovered it on my own. So NOW I'm of the opinion that fine shade lines are done with a 90 or 120 (preference of the cutter)and NOT a fine onglete. I'm also under the understanding that many cutter just don't like the 120 and that it some getting used to (which also makes sense). So, what do the rest of you use to cut fine shade lines and why the one you use over the other?

Cody

BTW I ordered a 120 to try out. I expect to hate it at first but think it will be wonderfull once I get on to it (assuming I can)

Cody Tetachuk
9/19/2006 10:25:16 AM

Cody,
You are going to get a bunch of different opinions on this one. My suggestion is to try them all.
Personally, I use a 90 degree for shading and frankly most of my cutting. Why don't I use the 120 more? That's easy... I'm lazy. I've got a ton of 90 degree tools already and they are working. I would need to spend a bunch of time to re-sharpen them to 120 and then get used to working with them. Something about trying to teach an old dog new tricks....
I do intend to play more with them in time but it's hard to "practice" while you are cutting a customers job. The 120 does have its advantages, but requires that you play with it. A 120 will be stronger than a 90 but I still tend to use them as I usually just sharpen about 10 at a time. I am going to play with the 120 more however....

Rex Pedersen
9/19/2006 10:52:59 AM

I'm using onglettes for my shading and my animals....just what I got used to and feel real comfortable with it.The 90 is also a great tool and I use it mostly for my scroll work. If the steel is hard and screwing with my temprament.I'll use it to shade the scroll also like on a model 70 action I'm working on now. The 120 can give your scroll some great personality and is the strogest of the bunch but does take a little getting used to. it doesnt take much to make a fine line.just "kiss" the metal with the tip and make certain you're going in the direction you need to go.

Martin Rabeno
9/19/2006 12:07:12 PM

hi cody .. i also use an 120 for all of my engraving work here is a photo of the shading i do with it .. ron p.

Ron Nott
9/19/2006 12:08:14 PM

PS........ I also don't use any power assist tools when I do my animals. For the scroll shading I do like the GRS/Monarch handpice. Again.just what I've gotten used to.

Martin Rabeno
9/19/2006 12:08:56 PM

Beautiful work Ron. Martin, you use ongletes for shading scrolls?. I guess that just goes to show it's not the size of the tool but how you use it. Like I said, up until a few days ago I assumed that was how it was done but now I see the logic behind the 120 and, until you posted, questioned the use of the onglete. can't wait to recieve the 120 and give it a go along side the 90 and onglete. BTW I've only done 4 animals and put the hair on with an onglete by hand, except where I need a color change IE the neck on an elk, then I used the 90 with power assist. Seems to work very well.

Cody

Cody Tetachuk
9/20/2006 12:52:19 PM

Cody..if you want darker ........you have to do more lines...you can change tools to make a wider cut.but in the end you still need more lines. It's all a matter of shadow placement and textures....add more lines. We're dealing with just an illusion here..like any other type of artwork. Lines...shape..form, and hopefully good design and flow

Martin Rabeno
9/20/2006 1:35:10 PM