The differences among finishing stone.

At first i should say this is for advanced people .
Some of you may be disagree with me . It is ok. i want to figure out this idea myself.
(All conversation is about final edge)
I always was thinking when you get the edge from stone they are all same.
what i mean by that.
when you get "v" shape of the edge your blade gets it is sharpest point.
i have done so many times getting 'v' shape out of the edge then not stop in there.
just push more to see what happens to the edge.
i have gotten in sharpness stage that edge just too fragile to hold anymore or if blade ss blade just melts.
Now i mostly finish edge an Escher and i know eschers edge very well.
if i check it on microscope i know in which stage i am at.
is this blade shave ready or not or i have to hone a little more etc.
All above was my understanding.
After messing around with Japanese stones more then over year now i am getting a little different opinion.( again i could be wrong)

Specially after my Japanese stone .
what i have done is this.
i used that stone to finish the edge on 4 razor.
Blade does pass my sharpness bevel test all 4 but when i check under the microscope i am having problems to figure out this blade is shave ready or not.
My difficulty is this. Edge is not same as escher's ,cf,or coticule or any other Japanese stones which i have used before.
This edge is similar to picture stone number 3.
it seems like i have taped the spine. In fact i have not taped any of the blades.
I will post pictures(simple pictures. you will see the differences edge stone leaves)
what i want to ask is any of you have similar experience?
All 3 stones edge will be same sharpness but thickness of the bevel different?
if this is the case
Lets say this.
we can use stone number 3 in picture and hone the blade which doesn't hold the edge (instead of taping) and have a great edge?
I never thought about this and i am not sure.
has any of you have a different stones which gives similar edge but different thickness of the (lets say bevel?)
Or something wrong with me?
i am not sure.

picture is how different edge comes out from different stones. stone 1 is narrower then 3.
sharpness fine in all 3.(including smoothness)

I have an idea, but it only makes sense if you are working down the slurry on this Japanese stone and finishing on a coat of damp slurry...???
If you are diluting out the slurry and finishing on a clear water stone, then my theory makes no sense...

If you are on a coat of slurry then it would allow for some compressibility and as you hone on it it is possible that that tiny bit of compression is allowing for a slightly steeper angle much like 1 layer of tape would do on a clear water finish...

Sorry my friend that was the best I could think of...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I have an idea, but it only makes sense if you are working down the slurry on this Japanese stone and finishing on a coat of damp slurry...???
If you are diluting out the slurry and finishing on a clear water stone, then my theory makes no sense...

If you are on a coat of slurry then it would allow for some compressibility and as you hone on it it is possible that that tiny bit of compression is allowing for a slightly more acute angle much like 1 layer of tape would do on a clear water finish...

Sorry my friend that was the best I could think of...

---

Thank You Glen.
This could be cause but
I Don't dilute when i finish an Escher or Japanese stones.
i have don't only dilution on Coticule.
I always keep slurry in the stone until i am done the honing go straight to strop on leather and test the edge.
This is weird to me . confuses me . i may need to buy more hones test them.

Hehehe any excuse to buy more hones is a worthy one :D

My experience level does not provide any worthy guesses at why the wider angle, but it will be of great interest to see what thoughts come on this.

All of 3 wks w/ an asagi gives many more questions than answers. My stone is slow, but quite fine. It seems to not give normal feedback from tpt or hht like a c12k. I'm still very very pleased with the smoothness, but also have more trouble reading indicators as to when it's finished. 'Would love to hear from Lynn on this.

I haven't got any idea ..... but I don't approach it the same way either. Whatever stone, whatever blade, I hone until I think it is sharp enough and TPT strop and try HHT. If it doesn't seem sharp enough I hone some more. I only use the microscope before I start and sometimes intermittently during the honing and sometimes not at all. Like we used to say when I was an ironworker,"We ain't buildin' a watch.":D

I'm no pro honer, but I do think I can explain what is going on. The difference is geometry & angles.

I'm sure the four razors look exactly the same to the eye, but if you were to compare the thickness of each of the four spines as well as the differences in the four edges with a micrometer that read to the .0001 you would have your answers. The difference of thickness in the spine + the difference in the grind at the bevel would cause a difference that would show up on a microscope. You could hone all four on a escher or whatever and they would show slightly different.
Scott

Maybe this is an example of stones of differing hardness & cutting speeds creating different shaped bevels on steels of different hardness?
I'm not sure it applies so much to razors but I once watched So test a kanna (Japanese plane blade) on my Spyderco UF. He diagnosed the stone as a slow cutter because it polished the rear of the bevel before the edge. He said that to use that stone on that tool would require adjustment to pressure to bring the edge into contact. Not impossible but a more appropriate stone would keep the original bevel shape.
Anywho that's my WAG for the day :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onimaru55

Maybe this is an example of stones of differing hardness & cutting speeds creating different shaped bevels on steels of different hardness?

Anywho that's my WAG for the day :)

---

this is what exactly what i am thinking except last part. Steel was same
4 same kind the blade.
(I PLAYED AROUND A LOT now with different steels but 4 was same brand).
Do you think could be the stones will leave different angle edges on the straight razor?
This is may be the reason price differences among Japanese stones?
more angle but same sharpness leaving stone is more expensive then less angle but with same sharpness?
I know some of you think i am crazy?

Sham, your credibility is SO established - you can be as crazy as you see fit.

I hear about your edges from all over. So crazy or not, keep it up. The only normal people are the ones we don't know well. :)

I'm still wrapping my head around how the trailing edge of the bevel would get polished before the leading edge. Something has to allow slurry to invade underneath the leading edge and keep it lifted until the trailing edge is hone away, lowering to leading edge into contact w/ the stone.

I am confused. The angle of the bevel is determined by the length from where the spine contacts the stone and the tip of the edge and the thickness of the spine.

Take Care,
Richard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hi_bud_gl

this is what exactly what i am thinking except last part. Steel was same
4 same kind the blade.
(I PLAYED AROUND A LOT now with different steels but 4 was same brand).
Do you think could be the stones will leave different angle edges on the straight razor?
This is may be the reason price differences among Japanese stones?
more angle but same sharpness leaving stone is more expensive then less angle but with same sharpness?

---

Sham you would obviously know if all 4 were a similar hardness so that is not a variable in this case but possibly cutting speed is a factor.
I don't think awasedo are priced on the angles they can create more on cosmetics & fineness etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pinklather

I'm still wrapping my head around how the trailing edge of the bevel would get polished before the leading edge. Something has to allow slurry to invade underneath the leading edge and keep it lifted until the trailing edge is hone away, lowering to leading edge into contact w/ the stone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riooso

I am confused. The angle of the bevel is determined by the length from where the spine contacts the stone and the tip of the edge and the thickness of the spine.

---

I think the key factor may be that a slow cutting stone may not be equally abrasive for its full length & the slurry could create a cushion isolating parts of the bevel. I don't know that this accounts 100% for Sham's experience but on something like a plane blade with a large bevel the effect was obvious.

A faster cutting stone mixed with the variable of a razor with deeper hollows, and more flex, might account for some of these variables. If the razor flexes the back of the bevel gets cut more.

I think the key factor may be that a slow cutting stone may not be equally abrasive for its full length & the slurry could create a cushion isolating parts of the bevel. I don't know that this accounts 100% for Sham's experience but on something like a plane blade with a large bevel the effect was obvious. [/QUOTE]

So if one part of the blade was being cut more quickly, the rear of the bevel would be ground down, allowing the leading edge to be cut and laying flat on the stone. The part that was more slow would have the trailing edge not yet fully ground - holding the leading edge up and letting slurry flow underneath until it had finally ground down the trailing edge sufficiently.

It seems this would produce one end of the bevel being fully polished, while the other end would only have reflective polish at the trailing edge of the bevel. If this is the case, reversing the direction/orientation of the stone - now placing the faster cutting section on the part of the blade not yet fully polished - should quickly cut the unground trailing edge until it lays flat, lowering the leading edge into contact w/ the stone. Not all stones can be reversed for direction, due to unfinished side edges getting in the way. If the stone permits stroking from either side - this test might confirm the hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riooso

I am confused. The angle of the bevel is determined by the length from where the spine contacts the stone and the tip of the edge and the thickness of the spine.

Take Care,
Richard

---

Richard
i am sorry not being clear enough. what you see in the pictures 3 stones edge result. think about only bevel.
lets say assume none of the blade has spine.
lets say i made 1000x times magnification of the edge and took the picture.
i am telling all this as a example. trying to be clear.
I always thought
sharpness of the edge depends o sharp we get the "v".
this is why we get 'v' shape that is it. we will not be able to push edge to get more sharper.
this is always been my thinking.
that is why i used Term a lot PROPERLY HONED BLADE.
What i mean by that honer gets maximum out of the blade and that is it.
he cannot push more because edge gets overhoned and becomes fragile.
Now i am getting a little different idea.
lets say this example.
i finish the edge an Escher. i see this is maximum sharpness i can get from the blade.
if i continue a little more honing edge an Escher edge start to over hone.
Now i take second blade and bring the edge same level using an Escher again. As i call it usually properly edge then i dont use Escher any more instead i switch different hone and continue honing.
Edge doesn't get overhoned but gets more sharper and smoother?
My question why? it should overhone but it wont?
(name of the stones was just example)
This is makes me confuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hi_bud_gl

Edge doesn't get overhoned but gets more sharper and smoother?
My question why? it should overhone but it wont?
(name of the stones was just example)
This is makes me confuse.

---

the way I see it the second stone is finer than the Escher.

Maybe I missed it, but has it been specified that each of the 4 razors has identical geometry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainaman

the way I see it the second stone is finer than the Escher.

---

Interesting concept. I've never heard of anyone 'overhoning' on an Escher. Moler in The Barber Manual (circa 1928) says you can on a coticule but the Escher is ideal for a beginner because you cannot overhone. Anything is possible though I guess. :thinking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Interesting concept. I've never heard of anyone 'overhoning' on an Escher. Moler in The Barber Manual (circa 1928) says you can on a coticule but the Escher is ideal for a beginner because you cannot overhone. Anything is possible though I guess. :thinking:

---

Jimmy you can over hone in any stone .it will just take more or less time.
of course honer should know what he is doing too.
Lets say to overhone blade on escher you will need to make perfect strokes without pressure for at least an hour very slowly.
You can get there eventually. is this a good idea? of course not just crazy people same as me will do it for test purposes.
4 razors don't have exact same angles-- bevel and edge angle i mean. some has been used more or less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainaman

the way I see it the second stone is finer than the Escher.

---

i would be agree with you Stefen but why 1 st stone overhones then?(escher was example i mention that in op). it shouldn't be overhone if hone is course right?
We are talking on finishing stage .
we are not talking using tremendous pressure and getting similar edge on 1k level. i hope you understand what i mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hi_bud_gl

....We are talking on finishing stage .
we are not talking using tremendous pressure and getting similar edge on 1k level. i hope you understand what i mean.

---

Me, personally, I use the same pressure during the entire honing process specially honing full hollows because I want all the work to be done on the entire bevel and to stay consistent through the entire process. I will agree that for the very final finishing I go even lighter and thus have seen a kind of "band" on the very edge of the blade that would look like I taped the edge. Is that what you are seeing? J-Nats will bend your mind about honing, they are different than any hone that I have ever used.

Take Care,
Richard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hi_bud_gl

Jimmy you can over hone in any stone .it will just take more or less time.
of course honer should know what he is doing too.
Lets say to overhone blade on escher you will need to make perfect strokes without pressure for at least an hour very slowly.
You can get there eventually. is this a good idea? of course not just crazy people same as me will do it for test purposes.
4 razors don't have exact same angles-- bevel and edge angle i mean. some has been used more or less.

---

Don't get me wrong Sham, I'm not knocking what you're doing. I just don't quite understand it. It reminds me of the guys when I first came around who talked about polishing the edge until there were absolutely no scratches. I read that and figured that must be what I'm supposed to do.

Then I got razors honed by Lynn, Glen, Josh Earl, Joe Chandler, Livi ..... and they were shave ready to the max and had a scratch pattern. A pronounced scratch pattern. So I figured out that, for me, getting the razor sharp was the paramount objective and that putting a scratch free bevel on display, as it were, was not something to be concerned with.

Of course we want an edge that will stand up to use after honing but differing bevel angles is something that has never been something I've examined. Interesting topic. Thanks for bringing it up. As far as being crazy .... Sham I've always thought you and I are the only sane people on SRP and sometimes I'm not sure about you ! :p

Don't own Japanese stones, but do have a thought. Maybe the Japanese stones require more pressure during honing to maintain contact with both the bevel and edge during the honing stroke. Could it be this simple? Probably not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croaker

Don't own Japanese stones, but do have a thought. Maybe the Japanese stones require more pressure during honing to maintain contact with both the bevel and edge during the honing stroke. Could it be this simple? Probably not.

---

no they do not require to do anything different than other finishers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Don't get me wrong Sham, I'm not knocking what you're doing. I just don't quite understand it. It reminds me of the guys when I first came around who talked about polishing the edge until there were absolutely no scratches. I read that and figured that must be what I'm supposed to do.

Then I got razors honed by Lynn, Glen, Josh Earl, Joe Chandler, Livi ..... and they were shave ready to the max and had a scratch pattern. A pronounced scratch pattern. So I figured out that, for me, getting the razor sharp was the paramount objective and that putting a scratch free bevel on display, as it were, was not something to be concerned with.

Of course we want an edge that will stand up to use after honing but differing bevel angles is something that has never been something I've examined. Interesting topic. Thanks for bringing it up. As far as being crazy .... Sham I've always thought you and I are the only sane people on SRP and sometimes I'm not sure about you ! :p

---

Jimmy i always thought angle of the blade depends spine and edge.
it is mostly will stay same as you hone spine and edge wears same time.
Now i have nothing against it.
This is the easiest way to explain.
lets say you hone and finish edge without taping.
stones are X and next is Y.
you check the edge you see X edge is how it should be but
then you check Y and see edge looks like you have used tape when you hone this blade in fact you are not.
now i am thinking why in the world Y stone should act this way?
sharpness of the both blades almost same.
This is new to me and i don't understand so far.
i am thinking this may be the big reason some Japanese stones are so expensive.
why type edge they produce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pinklather

It seems this would produce one end of the bevel being fully polished, while the other end would only have reflective polish at the trailing edge of the bevel. If this is the case, reversing the direction/orientation of the stone - now placing the faster cutting section on the part of the blade not yet fully polished - should quickly cut the unground trailing edge until it lays flat, lowering the leading edge into contact w/ the stone. Not all stones can be reversed for direction, due to unfinished side edges getting in the way. If the stone permits stroking from either side - this test might confirm the hypothesis.

---

Assuming that's the only factor in play... but I would bet a different steel would hone differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hi_bud_gl

you check the edge you see X edge is how it should be but
then you check Y and see edge looks like you have used tape when you hone this blade in fact you are not.
now i am thinking why in the world Y stone should act this way?
sharpness of the both blades almost same.
.

---

Maybe this is to do with individual stones hardness. I know you are talking about finishers but imagine honing a bevel on a DMT1200, even flat bevel both sides. Then use soft King 1200 waterstone. King edge would become slightly convex. With polishers & light pressure convexing may only show as a slight microbevel assuming Y stone is slightly softer than X :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onimaru55

Maybe this is to do with individual stones hardness. I know you are talking about finishers but imagine honing a bevel on a DMT1200, even flat bevel both sides. Then use soft King 1200 waterstone. King edge would become slightly convex. With polishers & light pressure convexing may only show as a slight microbevel assuming Y stone is slightly softer than X :shrug:

---

Softness of the stone could be factor too.it does make sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onimaru55

Maybe this is to do with individual stones hardness. I know you are talking about finishers but imagine honing a bevel on a DMT1200, even flat bevel both sides. Then use soft King 1200 waterstone. King edge would become slightly convex. With polishers & light pressure convexing may only show as a slight microbevel assuming Y stone is slightly softer than X :shrug:

---

I think you might be on the right track here based on what I've read about the honorable Nakayama. I've read that if it is, let's say for arguments sake, a 30.000 grit equivalent, as you hone the grit that is released from the binder is ground even finer.

So your 30,000 equivalent is becoming 50 or 60,000 as the honing progresses. I'm not speaking from experience here, only repeating my understanding of what I've read in the past and postulating that this could be the source of the mystery of the bevel angles Sham presented. :confused:

I think this is why So only likes to sell what he considers hard stones to razor folks ie to keep the bevels as true as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onimaru55

I think this is why So only likes to sell what he considers hard stones to razor folks ie to keep the bevels as true as possible.

---

Well that is also interesting. I have an Escher with a label on one end that says 'yellow/green and on the other end a label that reads 'guaranteed soft'. :thinking: This stuff can get confusing. :confused:

I do not have a way to test this but one idea that I have not
seen posted is that as the slurry drys it keeps the spine
from touching the hone and lifts the spine a little. Additionally
the slurry gathers ahead of the edge and as the edge rides up
on the micro marbles they cut more aggressively at the front
of the bevel and generate a false bevel. Combined the slurry in
front of the edge and the slurry under the spine could and adjust
the apparent/ effective angle of the edge as much or more
than a layer of tape would (+/-)

Coticule garnets pulverize and change dimension (finer) in the slurry
and act differently as the honing progresses. I suspect the spine is key
in this pulverizing action -- tape would reduce this effect. When rinsed
of slurry only the rounded tops of the garnets scratch the steel. This
is a good thing especially when a little lather and a soft hand is used.

Silt and slate stone hones like the Chinese 12k have micro grains of quartz
that are tougher and do not pulverize. Combined with the clay mud they
would support the spine a lot higher and bounce more along the front
bit of edge.... Think marbles in pancake batter. Some quartz grains
are very round and very fine and when well held by a sturdy matrix they
do not scratch deeply.

Rinsing the slurry lowers the spine and presents the cutting edge
to the very top of the hard bits hidden in the hone. For a lot of razors this is
is the best final step.

Barber hones may have coarser bits but only the top of the grains
are exposed. A little lather helps the blade skip across the tiny tops
to good effect as does a skilled light touch. Some barber hones
have finer bits than others... Arkansas hones are in the skip across
the top class of hones.

Modern man made hones... a light slurry cuts very fast. The grains
do not pulverize but are finer to start (10K/12K). Rinsing the
slurry again presents the sharp noses to steel for an even finer
finish.

Jnats... I have almost no clue -- someone please send me a dozen
to I can spend the next year learning a bit about them.. I will
pay return postage :)

I said I have no way to test.... one way is to take a microscope
and inspect the slurry. All the minerals need to be checked
especially the harder sub micron bits. Big floppy flat clay grains are
almost a do not care but they dominate many of the micro photographs
I have seen. They are important in how the slurry works and
presents the durable hard bits to the steel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Well that is also interesting. I have an Escher with a label on one end that says 'yellow/green and on the other end a label that reads 'guaranteed soft'. :thinking: This stuff can get confusing. :confused:

---

Hmmm... I know nothing about desirable traits in Eschers. May be a relative term or marketing ? Does this soft Escher require more frequent lapping than other finishers ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niftyshaving

Coticule garnets pulverize and change dimension (finer) in the slurry
and act differently as the honing progresses. I suspect the spine is key
in this pulverizing action -- tape would reduce this effect. When rinsed
of slurry only the rounded tops of the garnets scratch the steel. This
is a good thing especially when a little lather and a soft hand is used.

---

Only thing I would fix there is garnets do not cleave--hence the extreme slurry-dulling effect you get on a coticule.

I get the same microbevel look on my Jnat too--requires slurry to do anything. If I only go 1-2 rounds, it does look like I used tape on the edge. I always stick to pretty much no pressure on that stone, as it has a way of sucking a blade to the surface.

Have the bevels gotten taller as they've gotten thinner Sham?

That is the only explanation that makes sense to me... One way or another more steel is being taken off of the thin ones. I can only speculate as to the cause (but I can think of a few causes where this could happen irrespective of the geometry of the edge in relation to the spine). But... If they are getting thinner, they should also be getting taller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HNSB

Have the bevels gotten taller as they've gotten thinner Sham?

---

if i understand your question right You mean by taller --bevel gets wider?
is this correct?
if yes then this is the answer.
You know when you hone the blade as you move higher grits your edge gets finer --narrower-- and bevel is getting thinner or narrower right(thickness of the steel on bevel level)?
respectively.
Now are there any way some stone could make edge finer-narrower - but will make bevel less narrower(thickness of the steel on bevel level) when you compare another stone edge?
this is the part i am having trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hi_bud_gl

if i understand your question right You mean by taller --bevel gets wider?
is this correct?
if yes then this is the answer.
You know when you hone the blade as you move higher grits your edge gets finer --narrower-- and bevel is getting thinner or narrower right(thickness of the steel on bevel level)?
respectively.
Now are there any way some stone could make edge finer-narrower - but will make bevel less narrower(thickness of the steel on bevel level) when you compare another stone edge?
this is the part i am having trouble.

---

You understood correctly. Since we are talking about the thickness of the bevel in two different dimensions, I wasn't sure what word to use.
All else being equal, if two different stones leave bevels of different dimensions, they are abrading the steel differently. That, in my mind, is certain.
The cause is the part that requires speculation... If I get some time I will draw some pictures to show what I believe are potential causes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PA23-250

Only thing I would fix there is garnets do not cleave--hence the extreme slurry-dulling effect you get on a coticule.

I get the same microbevel look on my Jnat too--requires slurry to do anything. If I only go 1-2 rounds, it does look like I used tape on the edge. I always stick to pretty much no pressure on that stone, as it has a way of sucking a blade to the surface.

---

+1
Yep they do not cleave but they do shatter into
smaller bits with sharp edges. That is why I used
the word "pulverize".