Thread: Are we taking honing too Seriously ?????

I've never used a microscope - don't even own anything that magnifies. Personally I take the "ignorance is bliss" attitude to minute examination of my edges. I have fairly good eyes and can generally see if there's something up by varying the angle of the light along the bevel. And the edge tests and shaving have always, without fail, told me how the edge is.

But having said that, I can see how some magnification could be useful - not only for learning, but also for examining scratch patterns, particularly when comparing hones of unknown grit to those of known grit. In fact, my FIL is going to give me one of his microscopes for the latter purpose. So maybe that means my previous attitude toward magnification is just me being cheap!

Anyway, my take on it is the ends justify the means - do whatever you need to do to get a good shaving edge. Some people magnify, some don't. There's no right or wrong. We all want to blow up the Death Star - some of us need the targeting computer, others use the force!

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

We all want to blow up the Death Star - some of us need the targeting computer, others use the force!

James.

Yes, but even those who use the force wield high-tech light sabers!

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Yes, but even those who use the force wield high-tech light sabers!

True, very true.

James.

I'll say this much. I started with a king combo stone and eventually added a strop consisting of green chrome paste on scrap leather. A plain square of scrap leather is my everyday strop. That's been my set-up for the past year.

I sprung for a chinese 12k stone from woodcraft and thus far I feel that I've wasted my money for what I got. Maybe time and experience will change my mind on this particular item, but for the most part I value simplicity. As long as my razor shaves me close and doesn't pull or tug, I'm a happy camper.

I have a higher quality glass 10x loupe and I was convinced I needed something more sophisticated so I bought a stereo microscope (20x & 40x with nice wide angle and 40x&80x with the irritating tiny field of view that I don't like). I will say it does help me to identify micro-chips and view scratch pattern progress, but....

I have mixed feelings about magnification, and my opinion has evolved now that I do have a microscope; I use it, not all the time and admittedly if I DIDN'T have it I'd probably want it, but that said, I certainly don't think it's critical for honing and clearly such a statement if made, IMO would be inaccurate at best.

I agree that we can overcomplicate. I'm for advocating starting out with a minimalist approach, gaining knowledge and experience and working upward if need be rather than advocating that members new to honing drop a chunk of change on a microscope along with their Norton 4000/8000 or equivalent before they even start to hone.

Chris L

I kind of agree. I think the main purpose of a microscope is to bypass the time it takes to learn to assess an edge by feel.

I think a big part of the past that we miss is the small bit of training that came with the razor from someone, the time they took to shave, the very low frequency of times per week they used it, and the reliance for many decades on a professional to do the task.

I find, and am open to being wrong because I know others feel differently, that straight shaving was never really something that "everybody" did. One of the big comments that you hear and read about is how the safety razor suddenly got everyone shaving nearly everyday, whereas I've always assumed, that not everyone did it prior to that. I think a lot of guys just went to a barber for a shave 2 days a week.

A lot of guys sort of assume that every guy effortlessly used a straight razor and thought nothing of it, despite lots of documentation that proves otherwise.

You and I probably find honing and shaving pretty simple stuff now considering the razors we have, and using a microscope isn't needed at all.

The other issue that seems to rattle me, probably more then it should, is the defined discipline involved in studying the art of barbering and shaving. When I teach classes in honing I'm often baffled by the looks and comments that often run along like "Why, why, why, why an X pattern? Can't I just go straight down the hone? Why do the strokes have to be sooooooooo even on eaaaaaaach side? Why, why, why? Why? Can't I just do it anyway I waaaaaaaaant? Why? Why? Why? Why all this angle discipline? Why? Why? Why? . . .

and me "for the love of God, just look at the edge in the microscope" followed by:

"Oh" . . .

In every area of interest or hobby you can spend big dollars on all kinds of paraphanelia. Most of the stuff people buy are entirely unnecessary but its like the guy who has cabinets full of high dollar tools he never uses and goes out and wipes em down every now and then.

I have a stereo microscope but I didn't buy it for razor work I had it eons before in my rockhounding days. I don't think I have used it 5 times for honing. I have a handlens I use for honing but I rarely use it. Its only when I am having trouble that I will dig it out and check the edge to see what's happening. I think its best to learn to do it all yourself and then you can use the aids for convenience. Its like the guy who learns how to fly and depends on his auto pilot and GPS to do it all and then something unexpected happens and he's lost the ability to really fly the plane and you hear about him on the news.

Originally Posted by richardhead

At the get-together a couple of weeks ago, HeavyDuty was telling me about how he did an experiment with a couticle to see if it was possible to overhone. I believe he ended up doing several hundred strokes without overhoning. I remember thinking...'how cool.'


Keep it up guys...

Actually it was well over a thousand on the yellow coticule after the razor was already shave ready

Originally Posted by RayG

Another point is that all of the honing tests are subjective - TPT etc. The picture under the microscope is objective, can be standardized, is repeatable, and most people can relate to it. That being said, I still am trying to come to grips with correlating what I see under my $10 RS scope and what I feel on my face.

I don't agree with this. For me the sharpness tests are just as objective as what I see under the microscope, if not more so. There is definately a right and a wrong way to perform the tests and interpret the results that can be learned by anyone with proper instruction and practice.

Originally Posted by heavydutysg135

I don't agree with this. For me the sharpness tests are just as objective as what I see under the microscope, if not more so. There is definately a right and a wrong way to perform the tests and interpret the results that can be learned by anyone with practice.

...I agree!!