Quote Originally Posted by Mike Blue View Post
I am late to this discussion and my comment may be of little value. The lack of objectivity in testing has already been mentioned. A contrary positive is that the testing mentioned falls within measurements that have been traditional for razors probably since the days of early manufacture, e.g. personal subjective judgement and the "feel" of the user. I suspect there is a much stronger volume of measurement via touch/shave than there is for using paper to test razors.

Here is a thread from a site known for better than average objectivity about their products and an author known for a mild obsession with objective testing and a good sense of statistical analysis. Spyderco Forums • View topic - Edge retention slicing cardboard (15 dps, x-coarse DMT)

With the exception that the paper material being discussed is cardboard and that the blades are knives, there are very valid principles of analysis and the discussion of several variables that can readily transfer to this discussion. If anyone is interested...

From this external thread's perspective the paper variable is the greatest threat to the argument for testing with it unless multiple cuts are made, at a volume that becomes prohibitive, or specially calibrated paper is used for multiples of cuts. In the end, the paper is the limiting variable, not the edge, as Oz has noted with his report of different edges shaving well. The Spyderco thread reinforces the notion that paper cutting is damaging, not enhancing to a blade's edge. It also discusses the bias that creep into any such analysis no matter how well intended.

This thread need not close as there is more to learn. The question remains if the length and rigor of such study is practical when the methods advocated here are not broken.
Thank you for your comments, and the link. The information on the link is very interesting. I did not find much correlation. As the writer notes, he used any cardboard he could find, and his testing was for much different purposes. About the only real correlation I could find that was sharp steel instruments were the subjects of the tests, and a paper products was used as the test medium. I use paper I buy. About as consistent, convenient size, and proper thickness for the intended use as I have found. He used any used cardboard he could find, and didn't say if he attempted to check moisture content. He tested to compare steels, and I test to check progress of the honing progression, and am simply looking for improvement of the test results along the way. My testing is totally subjective, and not as useful for someone very new to the test, other than the difference between the test results for 600 grit and 10,000 grit are as obvious as night and day. Differences of 20-30 laps on a given stone may not be so obvious, with much less experience. You mention multiple cuts needed for the test, but my tests use one cut at a time, at different spots in the progression.

It has been pointed out here, and I completely agree, that many of us have little need for testing beyond 1K. My original statement was to a new honer, and that was probably my biggest mistake. My test is evidently not so easy to perform and get usable results from as I had assumed. The newbie was looking for 'easy' and this evidently does not fit that description.

For most people here, the time and effort to acquire the necessary experience to get a lot from my tests, is probably not worth the effort. It may be more useful for someone testing lots of stones, as an initial indication, but even that would be questionable.
Thanks again,
Cheers,