Thread: A Cry for an Escher Compendium

Originally Posted by Kees

Escher recommend you use it with slurry on most labels. the problem is many Eschers come without slurry stone as it was lost. If you have an Escher in its original box you'll notice there's a space for a slurry stone.

Hohenzollerns had spaces in their wooden boxes for slurry stones as well.

Chris L

Is anyone a dual member of a German straight razor community? I would think if anyone should have archival info related to Thuringian hones, they would. Old ads, etc.

Chris L

*Slightly OT*

Can anyone give an opinion for why Coticules cut so much faster than Thuringers? If the grit is a similar hardness and the Thuringers are softer, they should allow more cutting media to be exposed. But in my experience, very few of either stone produce their own slurry (without a rubbing stone) which would imply that they are similar in hardness overall. So is it the shape of the grit particles or...?

So what about one of the Timbertools Thuringians? How much better is a good vintage escher? I am looking for something to follow up the coticule. Thanks for all the great information so far. I think I'm starting to get a better grasp of these stones

-Hank

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

*Slightly OT*

Can anyone give an opinion for why Coticules cut so much faster than Thuringers? If the grit is a similar hardness and the Thuringers are softer, they should allow more cutting media to be exposed. But in my experience, very few of either stone produce their own slurry (without a rubbing stone) which would imply that they are similar in hardness overall. So is it the shape of the grit particles or...?

Less grit per cubic unit? If there are less cutting particle per cubic unit, it wouldn't matter if the escher is softer, because as the chalk desintegrates, the amount of cutting particles that gets released stays low.

Hank,

You could try one of the Chinese 12k stones from WoodCraft, Natural Polishing Water Stone - Woodcraft.com, they're very nice polishers, especially for their very low price.

Bruno,

Ah, grit concentration completely slipped my mind. I was also thinking that maybe the Quartz grit is a smaller size than Garnet, but more irregular shaped so that they end up leaving a similar finish.

@ Kees

It's true that Escher recommends that a slurry stone be used but many members here, myself included, have found that using these stones without a slurry produces a more polished, smoother edge.

As to why Belgian stones cut faster even though they are harder than Eschers, I think that both the grit of the silica is finer and the content of silica is lower when compared to the garnet in Belgian stones. It would be nice if someone could make some measurments.

Just surmising about the slurry stone issue. Going back the hundred years + that Eschers, Thuringans, and Coticules were THE stones. No Nortons, Shapton GlassStones or what have you. The barbers, rabbis, toolmakers had to set their bevels and get their tools sharp from scratch. Back in those years when conspicuous consumption was the exception rather then the rule most of these people probably had one stone.

I don't know historically what lower grit stones were available but I'm thinking that the slurry was probably the go to method for the earlier stages in the sharpening process followed by the water only for finishing. Hence the included slurry stone in the vintage and mostly with the current stones.

Now with most of the members that participate in this type of thread being HAD sufferers it is not surprising that some wouldn't find the slurry stone essential,having an arsenal of hones to choose from. My theory may be wrong but it is a possibility.

I've been feeling the need for such a compendium for quite awhile. I put a "Hone Museum" button on my site and I've gotten lots of folks sending me pix of their stones as well as boxes that came with them. Next step is to get the stuff onto the site! I've been a little pressed lately.

I've got 8 or 10 eschers/thuringians of various colors and they're great stones. Their basis is silica which is the hexagonal system in crystallography. The coticule base is garnet and they're a rhombic dodecahedra. I say this because I believe that what goes on at the micro level affects what shows up on the macro level. The Eschers and the coticules are great hones but fundamentally different in the way they hone. Whoever said that grit is only part of the equation is dead on. The garnet has a natural tendency to cleave off the corners of the dodecahedron which is ball shaped. The cleaved surfaces are sharp and very tiny. This is why the "abrasive milk" works so well. The hexagonal crystals of silica don't cleave as readily and the steel is really being abraded against the embedded crystals. It's different. Not better or worse. Rather than engaging in something we have no way to measure such as wether a coticule is 8k or 10k and an escher is 8k or 10k, I look to see what is happening at the micro level on the bevel of the razors. The final test is on my face and that's what really counts to me as the result is what I'm looking for with my edges.

Originally Posted by Hank Williams

Eschers are certainly a highly talked about and coveted stone here at SRP. As a fascinate newbie, I have been able to glean some information about these stones, but they remain somewhat esoteric to me. Perhaps this already exists, but what we really need is a guide to Eschers. Something that would include their grit range, variations, what the colors mean, the label issue, possible sources, Thuringian/Escher clarification, and shave characteristics. I feel something of this nature would really help to clear up those ethereal Eschers.

-Hank

The crystal structure of garnet is much simpler than that of silica which has about 10 crystal forms! Anyone interested in silica is welcome to peruse this link: Silicon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, it is very interesting, BTW there is a meta-stable orthorhombic form as well! As if I wasn't already craxy enough! It turns out that the dodecahedron structure is a lowest energy geometrical structure that even things like lather and all types of foams like to assume. Not that it matters but having made a living studying polyurethanes this has always fascinated me. And Howard, here is my public permision to use the pics of my big B/G Escher and my Y/G Escher that you can find in this sub-forum for your museum. Thanks for all your work and help to this community! BTW, we all have an idea as to the abrasive content in Belgian stones, about 30-45% garnet but do you or anyone know the abrasive content, that is, the range of silica % in Eschers? And if I might be so bold as to ask, does anyone know the aproximate % of silica of the major Escher classifications, i.e. Dark Blue, Blue Green and Yellow Green? OK, know everyone can say that I'm truly crazy!