Thread: What is the more important stone ???

Eh... (first off, we're assuming everything is done properly)

it is the variation against the face. it is that you can get distinctly different effects with different finishing stones on different blades. true?

The fact is, the bevel setter is there to set the bevel. To get the edges from both sides of the bevel to meet. By the time you get done with the finisher all traces of the bevel setter and edge developer are GONE. The artifacts of the finisher remain.

Look at it another way. If you end up with a properly honed/finished blade, is there any way to tell what was used for bevel setting or edge development?

Originally Posted by gssixgun

At the bevel set is where you have to work with the stone to create the foundation of the entire edge.. Again keep in mind we are talking edges that need this here, otherwise you would not be down this low in grit...
That was sort of what I was getting at in the very beginning of this thread finishing is the easy part of honing setting the bevel is the hard part yet most people concentrate their money and effort on the easy part.....

I couldn't agree more. I have seen my share of razors that didn't perform very well, send to me for evaluation and honing. Sometimes the bevel is set with sandpaper, that has a tendency to bounce up in front of the edge. The resulting bevel is convex. I've seen razors with that non-cutting part of the bevel nice and shiny, and the very edge still carrying sandpaper scratches. The owner thought he'd overhoned.
I've also seen edges with very deep scratches running underneath 2 or 3 other scratch patterns, each deep scratch running all the way to the very edge, dividing that edge into separate parts. The owner complained that the razor lost his edge before the end of the shave.
People understand that, while polishing up a razor, a scratch pattern needs complete removal during the next the next level, because further down the road removal has zero chance of success.
And yet they often seem to forget that same principle while setting a bevel. (It may not be that important during the final stages of honing).

Another thing that hasn't been covered yet, is that some hones apparently have a fondness for eachother. Take my Chosera 10K. If it's allowed to elaborate on the Chosera 5K edge, you have to stop at the very stroke it removes the 5K scratches. BAM! (1) You end up with an incredibly keen edge. Hone a bit longer on the 10K and you'll start to loose something again (there's Lynn's "less is morre" adage) Nothing dramatic, the edge will still be more than sharp enough (2), but there's definitely a difference. Now. Use the same Chosera 10K after a Coticule with slurry. Works great. You'll end at the the same sharpness level as (2). There simply is no sweet spot as with the 5K. (That's why I always include 10 laps at the 5K, ever since I found that out). I'm sure similar relationships are to be found between other hones. Tell me again that the previous hone doesn't matter. We're not just polishing bevel sides, we're creating the best shaving edge.

Bart.

Originally Posted by Quick

Eh... (first off, we're assuming everything is done properly)

it is the variation against the face. it is that you can get distinctly different effects with different finishing stones on different blades. true?

The fact is, the bevel setter is there to set the bevel. To get the edges from both sides of the bevel to meet. By the time you get done with the finisher all traces of the bevel setter and edge developer are GONE. The artifacts of the finisher remain.

Look at it another way. If you end up with a properly honed/finished blade, is there any way to tell what was used for bevel setting or edge development?

Absolutely correct there should be no way of telling.....

This is why I think a larger repertoire of bevel setters would benefit the edge...
Like thinner ones for smiling and warped blades, softer ones for harder steels etc: etc:

Lets look at a list:

Norton 220
DMT 325
Shapton 500
DMT 600
Norton 1k
Shapton 1k
Naniwa 1k
King 1k
Wet r Dry 1k sandpaper (argh !!!!)
DMT 1200
Shapton 2k

Which did I forget???? let's keep it under 2k, even though we know that with slurry many others can be pressed into service also....

Originally Posted by Bart

Another thing that hasn't been covered yet, is that some hones apparently have a fondness for eachother.

I could not agree more.... I have been saying for awhile now that the Shapton's seem to like other Shapton's, except the 16k is pretty sociable, it gets along with others

Originally Posted by gssixgun

A
Which did I forget???? lets keep it under 2k, even though we know that with slurry many others can be pressed into service also....

four more hones in the list that I don't have and didn't know that I need .

Seem pretty rare in these parts but there are the Arkansas stones.

I think they can be equally important and I try to base my hone purchases (and usage) on efficiency. My idea of efficiency is a variation on the formula: "speed-of-cut/finish" vs. cost vs. maintenance requirements. It's more like a guess than a math exercise. My purchases for razors was also heavily influenced by what I already own for other tools.

My "polisher" can usually remove lower grit scratches in under 20-30 laps from anything 325 grit and up. Of course, if you really remove all of the "bevel-setting" scratches with your polisher; then the scratches from the bevel-setter are no longer a factor. The bevel-setter can determine how long it takes your polisher to do it's work. It's all a balancing act IMO.

I think the newspaper is my most interesting hone because of it's dual nature:

• If I want a sharper edge after the barber hone, I strop on newspaper.
• If I have an edge that I feel is too sharp after the barber hone, I strop on newspaper to get it much smoother (and sharper).

I have some 0.3 micron honing film, but I like the edges I get well enough that the package hasn't been opened yet...

If we actually remove all the bevel-setting scratches with the higher grits, then I think the higher grits can be more important, finish-wise.

If the particular razor actually needs a complete bevel reset; then, time-wise, I think the bevel-setter's speed/finish ratio makes it more important.

I personally have far more finishers than bevel-setters and polishers combined.

Originally Posted by Sticky

If we actually remove all the bevel-setting scratches with the higher grits, then I think the higher grits can be more important, finish-wise.

If the particular razor actually needs a complete bevel reset; then, time-wise, I think the bevel-setter's speed/finish ratio makes it more important.

The question (as I understood it) was not "is THE bevel setter more important than THE finisher". The question was: is it more important to have MORE bevel setters than it's important to have MORE finishers.

So my argument is that if you've settleled on a bevel setter than meets your requirements (speed, material removal, coarseness relative to what you've got to move up to after, etc) then it's much less important to have MORE or alternative bevel setters. I think it's more important to have MORE finishers because it's less easy (if at all possible) to achieve particular results with a particular blade using only one finisher.

I really like the finish off my 16K shapton glassstone. 16K then strop on latigo... perfect (for me). I think many would feel this to be too agressive an edge. I tried the 16K then CrOx on a balsa paddle then strop on latigo. It was way "smoother". I didn't like the feel at all (no feedback). I much preferred it straight off the 16K. I tried it with 7 different razors. Same results.

I don't consider the CrOx to be a "finishing stone" but I assume similar differences from the 16K shapton could be achieved by using an Escher, coticule, etc, etc. instead of the 16K?

I believe I can set a bevel on any razor with my D8C (after which I go to my D8E). Maybe if the blade already has some sort of bevel I might start with my D8E. That would apply to ANY blade and ANY end result I might want to achieve. So is it important to have MORE bevel setters? I don't think so. Is it more important to have MORE finishers. Yes. Because I cannot achieve different results without different finishers.

Are some stones more compatible with the next step stone? maybe. But going from a bevel setter to edge development it doesn't really matter does it? Maybe it takes a couple of more or less laps. But when you get to the finisher it may just not be possible to achieve a particular end result without one specific stone or another. That's why I think it more "important" to have more finishers than have more bevel setters.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Absolutely correct there should be no way of telling.....

This is why I think a larger repertoire of bevel setters would benefit the edge...
Like thinner ones for smiling and warped blades, softer ones for harder steels etc: etc:

Lets look at a list:

Norton 220
DMT 325
Shapton 500
DMT 600
Norton 1k
Shapton 1k
Naniwa 1k
King 1k
Wet r Dry 1k sandpaper (argh !!!!)
DMT 1200
Shapton 2k

Which did I forget???? let's keep it under 2k, even though we know that with slurry many others can be pressed into service also....

Fore some strange reason I've wanted to try the Sigma Power 1K and 2K as I've read favorable things about it's performance on carbon steel over at knifeforums.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

....
What is the more important side of the honing spectrum???
Do you get more and more low end bevel setting stones, or do you get the high end finishers....
...
I was thinking that really it is the lower end that is actually more important...

But what do you guys think???

Originally Posted by Quick

The question (as I understood it) was not "is THE bevel setter more important than THE finisher". The question was: is it more important to have MORE bevel setters than it's important to have MORE finishers.
...
But when you get to the finisher it may just not be possible to achieve a particular end result without one specific stone or another. That's why I think it more "important" to have more finishers than have more bevel setters.

I understood the 2 main questions to be:

1. What is the more important side of the honing spectrum???
2. Do you get more and more low end bevel setting stones, or do you get the high end finishers...

I considered the first question to mean "lower spectrum = lower grit bevel hones"; and "higher spectrum = finishing hones".

My "short version" answer is the same as my long version answers in my first reply:
To question #1:

Originally Posted by Sticky

...
If we actually remove all the bevel-setting scratches with the higher grits, then I think the higher grits can be more important, finish-wise.

If the particular razor actually needs a complete bevel reset; then, time-wise, I think the bevel-setter's speed/finish ratio makes it more important.
...

To summarize my first question answer: it kinda' depends on what you need to do to the particular razor.
To question #2:

Originally Posted by Sticky

...
I personally have far more finishers than bevel-setters and polishers combined.