The one I'm looking at is a new stanley blade. I touched it up (having
used it) to do your test, and I do see a little bending near the edge.
Odd, since I used a pristine side of the stone.

The Norton water stone? Possibly too soft. Best for back flattening must be as
hard as possible, glass and abrasive paper, Japanese kanaban and grit powder,
Norton india oil stone and Arkansas natural oil stones. The glass and abrasive
paper is the worst of all the above methods simply because of the softness of
the paper, or it takes a lot of 'concentrating on keeping it flat' just to get it right.
The Norton waterstone is a veritable PEZ candy compared to an oil stone, or a
steel Kanaban. http://japanwoodworker.com/

Okay, I checked my own blade (O-1 Starrett) and that doesn't do it at
all. It's also sharper--I haven't used it since I last sharpened it
(had to rub off some paste wax)--a lot sharper. It doesn't show any
difference in sharpness from one side to the other either (and I have
the bare patches to prove it.

Maybe The Stanley metal is just crap. Maybe I need to back up and redo
the back...

Yes it is, but with my above mentioned methods it is still doable, then useable.
I have two Stanley #4 type 19 planes both with original cutters, these were last
made in 1961 (I was born in '64), these blades are definitely worse than Hock
HCS, the edge wears down sooner. But they work.

Like I said, I know I could be wrong in my interpretation of what you wrote. Also, if it's
an A2 blade, simply harder to sharpen, and it can't get as sharp as HCS, of which by Hock
tools is quite superior. Very fine grained steel and RC 62.

Anyone is invited to correct me, if I am wrong.

This should be fun. I ordered the A2 blades. I'll see how they compare
to Stanley's, and mine.

The A2 holds the same edge for a long time, longer than Hock's HCS, I still kinda
think it's a bit "bunky".

er
--
email not valid