Thread: Ebay unidentified hone!!

Originally Posted by adrspach

Weren't those Silkstones 1" thick?

I only made reference to the colour of the wrapper, and that I qualified by mentioning that the silkstone box had writing on three sides.

All the other info re silkstones was just to correct wrong and mis-information, and I am sure that most of the people reading this are aware of that fact.

Even if Icenis hone had the samecharacteritics and was the same size as the silkstone we are familiar with, it would still be an unidentified hone.

To be honest, even the silkstone is an unidentified hone. Silkstone is just a name, and as I postulated a long time ago, cambrock is probably a made up name too. We have no idea where in the UK the silkstone came from.

I suppose that in essence what I am saying is that even if Icenis hone was exactly similar to the sikstone, then all we could say about it is, as Donald Rumsfeld have it, it is a 'known unknown'...

At the moment all the two share, as I pointed out at the beginning of this thread, is the same coloured wrapper.

Anything else would be, at best, a guess. And in a field where even the same type of stone varies wildly in its honing properties and characteristics, a guess is next to useless.

Regards,
Neil

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

I only made reference to the colour of the wrapper, and that I qualified by mentioning that the silkstone box had writing on three sides.

All the other info re silkstones was just to correct wrong and mis-information, and I am sure that most of the people reading this are aware of that fact.

Even if Icenis hone had the samecharacteritics and was the same size as the silkstone we are familiar with, it would still be an unidentified hone.

To be honest, even the silkstone is an unidentified hone. Silkstone is just a name, and as I postulated a long time ago, cambrock is probably a made up name too. We have no idea where in the UK the silkstone came from.

I suppose that in essence what I am saying is that even if Icenis hone was exactly similar to the sikstone, then all we could say about it is, as Donald Rumsfeld have it, it is a 'known unknown'...

At the moment all the two share, as I pointed out at the beginning of this thread, is the same coloured wrapper.

Anything else would be, at best, a guess. And in a field where even the same type of stone varies wildly in its honing properties and characteristics, a guess is next to useless.

Regards,
Neil

Guessing is what we at least do most of the time here Neal !! If we do not have a labelled Escher, a Cambrock Stone or probably a genuine Charnley Forest Hone....that would be the easiest ;-)

A guess is just a direction to the one asking and nobody says here that this guess is 100% correct....i am shure you can agree on the fact that there are certain identifiers to certain stones to speak here of colour, patterns, sawmarks, sometimes known sizes might help...and there is a lot more of these parameters thats why most members here ask for lapped surfaces, slurry pictures, side and end shots, etc....

And to say it as i said before its all a certain fun for all of us to give a "guess"....i wouldnt like it to be here asking for a IDing and all what would be replied about was "oh we cant tell because it could be everything" or it "has no label so it we do not know what it is"....or "yes its a slate"....

And we also have to accept that there are different types of people, the one who is not interested in IDing who might like a guess and then says "oh thanks but if it has good honing properties" he sees no useage in identifying and there is a certain second type one who welcomes a guess for his unknown stone, with the knowledge that the guess
musnt be correct....

I always like guessess on my stones here, and owning quite some of those iam very comfortable with the guesses i got from other members (and from you Neal ;-))

And just from "guessing" i would say 70-80% were correct guesses....

Concerning your "known unknown" Neil thats also nothing unsual, we also have it at the french hones. A "la Lune" a "special stone" or a "Vosgienne" are all stones were their origin especially where these were quarried is unknown....but the stones are existend and were spread around the world so why not naming these how they are known or beeing sold or as for the "Vosgienne" for example were a lot of people think these have their origin? What about the Schwedenstein another "known unknown"...

thats just my interpretation and thinking to this issue...it has not to be correct and others might think different...

Regards Sebastian

Ps. Quite interesting is that what Alex mentioned, the suction on the stone. He wrote its like "honing on honey" so my description "honing on rubber" isnt too bad....

@blake: please experience your own findings and please post them here to let us all know ;-)

For your information none of this is news to me - I have been a member here for considerably longer than yourself, so the teaching grandma to suck eggs tone is completely wasted on me.

I just dont like guesses. Nothing wrong with that. Unless the guess is tbat of a trained geologist who has an interest in this niche subject, like Alex.

And talking about Alex your attempt to draw some kudos from his honey analogy by offering your very own 'rubber' analogy is lost on me. Honey? Rubber? Please...!

For the most part though its just wading through a lot of regurgitated info that has been said much better by others.

Possibly the most tedious part - for me, anyway, is that anyone and his dog can make a guess. I well remember a most tiresome charlatan who was a member here once, now a member of the home of all trolls forum, and his guesses. No matter how clear the pictures or the ID his guesses included the whole gamut of known hones. He still does this on that other forum, and blow me down, he gets kudos for it! Some things are inexplicable to me.

I don't object to attempts to identify stone types, eg slates, novaculites, sedimentary, indurated etc - there's no harm in that and besides, it is relatively easy to do from descriptions and pictures. But attempting to ID the type of slate, for instance, without even having tbe hone in your hands is just a guessing game.

Saying a stone looks like one thing or shares features in common with something else is also a million miles from saying it is whate er you think it is.

Furthermore, your estimate of being 70 to 80 per cent correct is just another guess as far as I am concerned, and I don't have to tell you what I think of guesses, do I, especially 'bigged-up'ones like that?!

No, you go your way and I'll stick to mine, I guess...

Regards,
Neil

The main reason I don't get involved with mystery hone discussions much.
UNLESS someone posts an oily Norton India! I know everything about THOSE!

I really like my way so i have nothing to worry about ;-)

....and iam excited what Blake will find on his own routine or knowledge....

Easy you two! Lets not get too worked up about a rock and it's origins.

I'm a happy man with this stone.

It does have a slight rubbery feel to it as you hone. Not in the sense of it been soft and deforming, But the resistance the stone gives on the stroke is high but not rough. That smooth resistance feels rubbery, in a similar way to rubbing your finger on a wet bathroom tile. You know the surface is smooth and hard, but the water and the finger have a kind of suction that is difficult to express, it's not outright suction, and it's not outright resistance but something eldritch in the middle.

*parent mode on*

The pair of you need to calm down a bit, I'm not interested in knowing the hole this stone came out of. If there were others like it then that would be helpful and the silkstone is similar in a lot of respects. There are other stones that it could also be, or it could be a random localised erratic.

What I am interested in is sharing what I picked up, and having you guys all take a guess at what it might be. I fully understand that even a fully labeled and boxed hone may still be something other than what it is supposed to be, It's the nature of natural stone.

*parent mode off*

Neil and Sebastian you two are superb, and without debate there is no chance of ever reaching a solution, I respect both of your opinions equally and if I take anything away from this thread it should be this.

This stone is natural, Possibly a silkstone, Possibly some other slate. It has characteristics that link it to the higher quality slate type stones that have been sold as top end products in the UK. The stone itself should only be graded by it's performance and in this case this stone seems to be a performer.

I have no plans to sell this rock, and did not post my thread to fish for my ebay description! I do not care if there is no logical outcome or even if the stone is so unique that it cannot be identified at all.

I also love the fact this has caused a debate, But please keep things from getting personal. Facts and speculation are something I don't mind, But once it gets out of a logical debate then it's time to pause and think about what you actually want to write rather than what you feel you should.