Thread: How did barbers hone a wedge in the olden days?

The basics honing methods as we know them today, goes back hundreds of years, bevel setting, honing strokes, etc.
http://straightrazorpalace.com/honin...ds-1771-a.html

OK Neil, give me your quest.

How can I prove it to you that Concave Hones Can Hone Wedges?
Or if you have another way of looking at How Barbers Honed Wedges in 1760.

Alex

That is an excellent link and great information Martin, I must have missed it the first time you posted.

I would imagine that the main, solid facts e.g. bevel setting and lapped flat hones. go back much further in time, as Perret's father was a cutler too and his son must have got a great deal from his father, whether he was apprenticed to him or to some other cutler. Certainly, he advised flat hones, not dished ones.

Again, thanks for some concrete reality here rather than just theories.

Regards,
Neil

Originally Posted by alx

OK Neil, give me your quest.

How can I prove it to you that Concave Hones Can Hone Wedges?
Or if you have another way of looking at How Barbers Honed Wedges in 1760.

Alex

You are inferring something here that is not about what I am against, namely I am against your assertion that barbers in days of yore routinely used dished hones. You know that.

I do not dispute that a concave hone can hone wedges - or more properly put that it can hone a certain wedge profile. I said as much when I mentioned that some japanese razor honers used the same, unlapped hone over and over again - for one single razor!

What I want you to prove is that there is some factual basis that concave hones were used routinely by barbers. You know that is what I want - why you keep dancing around that fact is a mystery to me.

Just poney up some concrete info - like Martin has done - and I might fall in with you.

Regards,
Neil

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

You are inferring something here that is not about what I am against, namely I am against your assertion that barbers in days of yore routinely used dished hones. You know that.

I do not dispute that a concave hone can hone wedges - or more properly put that it can hone a certain wedge profile. I said as much when I mentioned that some japanese razor honers used the same, unlapped hone over and over again - for one single razor!

What I want you to prove is that there is some factual basis that concave hones were used routinely by barbers. You know that is what I want - why you keep dancing around that fact is a mystery to me.

Just poney up some concrete info - like Martin has done - and I might fall in with you.

Regards,
Neil

concrete evidence for supporting a theory would come from 3 main areas in my mind- (1.) the written documentation of facts. (2.) eye witness accounts, most substantiated by corroboration of more than one witness. (3.) what we perceive through our own observation, think archeological finds that put forth "probabilities" for the "observed facts" of an object/site.
of these im of the opinion that (2.)eye witness accounts would be the most accurate tell of facts. we are fortunate to have (1.)written documentation that has survived to our day. the written doc tells one side that also has the benefit of corroboration from several sources and can thus be given substantial weight pertaining to the facts. but..... written doc certainly doesnt tell the whole story in almost all cases. there are too many variables to be dogmatic in our thinking that since we have written facts, the method described is what was employed in most/all/or whatever percentage of situations. theres just no way of knowing. and im certainly not saying that anyone here is being so dogmatic, we all wish to have the most solid proofs before we make assertions.
this brings us to (3.) perceived observation which leads to probable conclusions. we can definitely say we have evidence that folks in the past used flat, lapped hones, and we have far too many dished hones to dismiss the notion that (SOME) folks used these for honing as well. the observations many on this forum and elsewhere have made of many old wedges exhibiting certain wear patterns and bevel condition would be congruous with the statement that (perhaps) in some instances these wedges may have been honed on dished hones. there is nothing that would indicate that if a barber or honemeister used a dished hone to deal with a heavy wedge that he would use the same hone on all razors. the observations show that a dished hone accomplishes to some extent the same goal of today many users adding layers of tape to hone these beasts! the very cutting edge being the important point of contact with the hone, not necessarily the whole bevel.
so the actual observations- where can they be taken from? as i mentioned, the wear pattern and bevel condition can be indicative (but not a dogmatic conclusion) as well as the proliferation of dished hones pointing to the fact that yes, indeed there were many dished hones in use. the unknown with finding dished hones is obvious- what was sharpened on it? knives? wedge razors and hollow ground razors? only one razor for a certain stone? used by a barber? some of my assumptions come from my having purchased whole barbers lots which included varied grinds of razors, scissors, multiple hones, other sundries. an interesting find in one lot was a perfectly flat coticule...... and a dished thuringian. hmmm..... one thought i had was that this set up could be used to accomplish something similar to what i know others have done in the past.hone a razor without tape to set a bevel and then add a layer or 2 of tape to raise the angle and only polish the very cutting edge and not the whole bevel. my theory was that this old barber may have done similar by honing on his coticule to set the bevel and initial polish of bevel. moving on to his thuringian finisher that was dished would ensure that only the very cutting edge was being polished. very interesting thought that has stuck in my mind.
there is nothing from my observations that i can dogmatically say "this is what was definitely done" but this is not an isolated group of the same observed facts. so the observations lead me to say that it seems some barbers certainly used dished hones. written documentation shows the suggested methods, not the complete set of in-use practices. many practices in cultures are passed down direct, not always written. i dont think it too far an assumption to say that although there is written suggestion, not everyone had access to this info and i would contend that most relied on direct passing down of technique by master barbers to others in their shops. and certainly new practices, perhaps akin to using tape in modern times (though not shown in the written docs from yesteryear) can be adopted and proliferate rapidly when one introduces a solution to a long troubling scenario. dished hones could have been just that. now this assumption goes far beyond just perceived observation but perhaps it is beneficial to throw out plausibles? the theories folks propose can influence what evidence others look for and one day hopefully we may find such evidence to concretely say yay or nay! til then i dont think it fitting to rely only on what is written, as beneficial as the written history is- it doe not tell all. that is a fact enjoy the quest for the facts, keep discussing and proposing!

Originally Posted by silverloaf

concrete evidence for supporting a theory would come from 3 main areas in my mind- (1.) the written documentation of facts. (2.) eye witness accounts, most substantiated by corroboration of more than one witness. (3.) what we perceive through our own observation, think archeological finds that put forth "probabilities" for the "observed facts" of an object/site.
of these im of the opinion that (2.)eye witness accounts would be the most accurate tell of facts. we are fortunate to have (1.)written documentation that has survived to our day. the written doc tells one side that also has the benefit of corroboration from several sources and can thus be given substantial weight pertaining to the facts. but..... written doc certainly doesnt tell the whole story in almost all cases. there are too many variables to (SOME) folks used these for honing as well. the observations many on this forum and elsewhere have made of many old wedges exhibiting certain wear patterns and bevel condition would be congruous with the statement that (perhaps) in some instances these wedges may have been honed on dished hones. there is nothing that would indicate that if a barber or honemeister used a dished hone to deal with a heavy wedge that he would use the same hone on all razors. the observations show that a dished hone accomplishes to some extent the same goal of today many users adding layers of tape to hone these beasts! the very cutting edge being the important point of contact with the hone, not necessarily the whole bevel.
the written history is- it doe not tell all. that is a fact enjoy the quest for the facts, keep discussing and proposing!

Thank you Silver
I printed that one out, and am going to school on it.

Alx

I have read this LONG thread with interest. Ego's aside, I try to look at history. The history I have an interest of is Japanese history of swords, this includes the making and polishing of swords. How did the Japanese polishers of the old state that they flattened stones? Three stone method. I'm sure that if they could have used two stones, they would as a quality high grit stone is of great value is it not? I have read it many times, but have not applied it...which is why I have not said much. I do know for a fact that I have had poor results with the two stone method when I got into sword polishing close to years ago. My method was more trying to use the synthetic stones "designed" to flatten my dished stones. They worked poorly.

Have fun with it guys, I will continue to use diamond plates as they work.

Originally Posted by alx

In the golden age of wedge razors, most barber were using concave hones.

Apparently the greatest minds in Europe had not yet discovered the 3 Stone Method of lapping stones because they only described a 2 stone method (post #42. Perret describes on page 8 how to get a hone entirely flat. He tells the reader to use pumice to flatten the hone and if necessary to eliminate any scratches left by the pumice by rubbing 2 razor hones together. No sandwiching a pumice between 2 razor hones.)
and I think we are close to exhausting the fact that rubbing two stones together will not really create two flat stones. Going to a local grinding stone is not a guarantee of ending up with a flat hone either no matter how romantic an idea that sounds.

With all this in mind I challenge anyone here to try and hone a wedge on a flat stone with no tape, and to try and hone a wedge on a concave stone with no tape. I especially challenge those here, lowly members and Administrators to do this so that they can speak ye or ney as to benefits of doing so, and to allow them the benefit of speaking with empirical knowledge on the subject.

I here and now withdraw the polite wording in my post #59 because if anyone claims now after these 220+ posts that barbers in the 1750 to 1840 did not use concave stones, then you are hypocrites.

Remember, this original post was. HOW DID BARBERS HONE WEDGES IN THE OLDEN DAYS?

Thanks for taking the discussion back to its original topic, Alex, but I don't agree with you.
Basically Perret is saying to lap a cupped hone with a pumice and then remove the scratches with another hone of the same material. So that is 3 stones. What he did not tell us is how he gets his piece of pumice flat. He may have used 2 or 3 pieces of pumice to get the job done. He has written more books on cutlery, it may be in there somewhere.
I am not going to get drawn into the argument of 2 or 3 stones as my knowledge of toolmaking is insufficient to add anything meaningful to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Geezer

Just for the recording...
All! the Thuringians and Coticules, other than NOS, ( about 30+) which I have recovered from the wild were hollowed diagonally across the top honing surface. I have flattened them as I use them for differing types of razors. What they did in the 18th century was their business and I have to live with every kind of blade from pure wedge to double hollow ground.

All the razors I recovered from the wild were blunt. That does not mean that barbers in the past did not have sharp razors. Perret told us he recommends flat hones. That does not mean all barbers used flat hones. You may well be able to get a keen edge from a cupped hone. Especially if it is the only hone you use to sharpen or touch up your razors it might work quite well.

Originally Posted by silverloaf

....
written documentation shows the suggested methods, not the complete set of in-use practices. many practices in cultures are passed down direct, not always written. i dont think it too far an assumption to say that although there is written suggestion, not everyone had access to this info and i would contend that most relied on direct passing down of technique by master (craftsmen) to others in their shops. and certainly new practices, perhaps akin to using tape in modern times (though not shown in the written docs from yesteryear) can be adopted and proliferate rapidly when one introduces a solution to a long troubling scenario....

Having been a grease monkey (mechanic) for 30+ years and having close contact with many trades (machinists, carpenters, welders, electricians, HVAC techs, plumbers, roofers, etc) I can verify that there is ALWAYS a "way the book (or law) says to do it" and a completely different "way we do it in the real world" for many of the everyday tasks performed in each profession.