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

Gentlemen, I believe we must turn our attention to the works of Spiny Norman on the Maintenance and Care of Your True Wedge.

Originally Posted by WW243

Gentlemen, I believe we must turn our attention to the works of Spiny Norman on the Maintenance and Care of Your True Wedge.

Linky no worky.

Originally Posted by alx

Rubbing two stones of like nature can cancel each others shapes but at some point they take on the mirror or mimic the shape of the other, I am told. It is usually suggested that 3 stones used alternately will cancel each others foibles completely and you can get really close to true flat.

If you rub two stones together in different directions they will end up both flat. You can only keep a curvature if you don't move the two pieces relative to each other in the direction of that curvature, e.g. two cylinders that you slide only along their common axis.

I have a friend who inherited a black ark from his grandad-it was dished out. Apparently that is the stone grandad used to hone his razor, which was a hollow ground Clauss. Since my friend's dad, who saw his father hone, demonstrated to my friend on the same hone how grandad did it. Of course, memory is a funny thing. Anyway, some were still honing with dished hones even around the 1900's so they could have been doing it earlier.

It's faster if you rub the stones together in figure 8 patterns - just like you use a lapping plate. It works fine for flattening.

Or ask Spiny Norman - he's watching you...

Originally Posted by criswilson10

It's faster if you rub the stones together in figure 8 patterns - just like you use a lapping plate. It works fine for flattening.

Or ask Spiny Norman - he's watching you...

Chris
It seems like two similar stones could work but they just don't do it all. Figure 8's help but the 3 stone method is the accepted one. A granite block can work when flattening softer stones, cement can work for softer stones, but with 2 similar stones they just keep making each other a little bit less rounder and never really get flat. Remember same material.

Originally Posted by Kees

Perret describes both the process of regrinding a razor on a grindstone and the lapping of hones using pumice and a stone of the same material.

This webpage describes it very nicely.
Alex

https://fairwoodworking.wordpress.co...ten-my-stones/

Originally Posted by Kees

Linky no worky.

From an early Monty Python sketch:



Regards,
Neil

Originally Posted by gugi

If you rub two stones together in different directions they will end up both flat. You can only keep a curvature if you don't move the two pieces relative to each other in the direction of that curvature, e.g. two cylinders that you slide only along their common axis.

Nope, not correct. You can rub two stones together in all different directions and they will still develop a curve. Think spherical surface. This is what will happen. Every time. You need 3 stones to get perfectly flat surfaces, as Alex pointed out.

Additionally, if it's done with only the stones and without a loose grit abrasive such as SiC, it doesn't work very well unless the stones are of similar grit and hardness. If SiC or similar loose grit is used, this is less of a problem.

Originally Posted by eKretz

Nope, not correct. You can rub two stones together in all different directions and they will still develop a curve.

I fail to see your point. You can use 3 or 33 stones but you can only ever rub 2 stones together at one point so you're still dead in the water if rubbing 2 stones together is the problem.

Originally Posted by onimaru55

I fail to see your point. You can use 3 or 33 stones but you can only ever rub 2 stones together at one point so you're still dead in the water if rubbing 2 stones together is the problem.

Obviously you didn't bother to read the link posted by Alex above. There's no sense reiterating what's already written there.

BTW, the same method was used in the 1800's to lap gage blocks used in machine shops to size and flatness of somewhere in the neighborhood of .00005" before today's high precision machinery was available.