Thread: Sierra Trading Post - Arkansas Translucent Stone Deals

FYI
There are some decent deals on the Arkansas Translucent stone. I realize this may not be the preferred stone for many individuals, but not bad for the price.

http://www.sierratradingpost.com/sea...criptions=True

Interesting... So who's using one? (and in what stage of the hone progression)

Cheers
Ivo

I was ready to pull the trigger on an 8" x 2" translucent 2nd for $16.95(!), but I found this old post, by mparker762, which says that 2nd grade Arkansas stones are unsuitable for razor honing. Thoughts, anyone?

Originally Posted by izlat

Interesting... So who's using one? (and in what stage of the hone progression)

Cheers
Ivo

I'd like to know that as well. Seems very interesting and at a goood price.

Originally Posted by SteveS

I was ready to pull the trigger on an 8" x 2" translucent 2nd for $16.95(!), but I found this old post, by mparker762, which says that 2nd grade Arkansas stones are unsuitable for razor honing. Thoughts, anyone?

Steve,

I greatly respect Michael's opinions and advice - if this is any help.

On the other hand - I think he used it as a finishing stone, no? Which means, that you can maybe use it for some steps b/e finishing and then it would be OK

Cheers
Ivo

From reading a number of old posts on Arkansas stones this morning, I gather that the translucent Arkansas stones are slow cutters, but first quality versions can provide nice finished edges. That and Michael's comment makes me think there's no valid role for a second quality translucent.

On the other hand, perhaps one of the hard Arkansas stones would be used as an intermediate stone?

Steve,

even first q A will be a relatively low grit, iirc. Finishing stone is relative - for some it may be 8K Norton, for others a coticule or an Escher.

Currently, Michael finishes on 30K Shapton, and then follows it up with some newspaper. Before using 30K, he uses other Shaptons, which are also considered finishing hones by some (such as the 15K Shapton)

Cheers
Ivo

There is some controversy as to what would be an equivelent grit size for Arkansas stones. The stones themselves are essentially quartz (that is silica) and the "grit" consists of the edges of small crystals. These crystals are self bonded, that is they are not contained in an amorphous matrix (such as the clay matrix enclosing the garnet crystals in belgian stones). Smaller crystals produce harder denser stones, so the hardness can be a measure of grit size. The hard translucent stones should have the smallest crystals. As to grit size: Norton, who sells a hard translucent Arkansas stone, says that it is roughly equivelent to a 4000 grit waterstone.

The problem with "seconds" is what makes them of second quality. This is usually in my experience the inclusion of other matter in the stone. Pure translucent quartz is what we want for our razors any pockets of another stone will give us unpredictable, or predictably bad, results.