Originally Posted by
Neil Miller
Therein lies the problem. If (unknown to us, of course) a 'new' natural hone has good to bad ratio of 1 to 3 and a honer of some influence gets a good one, hones 500 razors on it and announces that it is manah from heaven, then three quarters of the people who bought one after reading his review are going to suspect that all his rocks aren't kept on his table!
Lets not forget the mantra about naturals - they differ, sometimes markedly, from each other. You would have to be a nut to stake your reputation on just one example. No matter how good you are, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
No, one man's say-so is not enough. What is needed is a number of capable honers testing different examples of the same type of hone. Enough to form a meaningful cross section, and thats quite a few reviewers.
Passing the same example from hand to hand will not give us a meaningful analysis at all: if the honers are worth their salt, and the example hone is a good one, they will all have the same findings, similarly they will find the same for a bad hone.
Even supposing you could get enough reviewers (the easy part) and enough franconians (for examples same) to test (expensive and doubtful), then what to make of the conflicting results if the hone has a high fail rate? Simple logic dictates that people will attach importance to what their favourite honer reports and doubt the ability of the nay-sayers.
A thankless task for those involved, methinks!
Regards,
Neil