Buying Arkansas Stones

[john3126]

The recent thread on Arkansas stones promted me to buy a soft and a hard to preceed my black in the hope to go from bevel set to finish on these natural stones. I was surprised that these stones from a reputable supplier did not fall in the the specific gravity range for these grades. The seller promtly refunded my money so no issues there but I am finding it difficult to get a nice stone in the soft or wahita grade. Would I have better luck buying an antique stone marked soft or washita?

[Euclid440]

I have used Arks for many years, learned on them actually. You can easily do a complete honing on them it just takes some time. We are spoiled by our aggressive synthetics.

Like all naturals they do vary, arks seem to quite a bit.

I buy vintage Naturals, and just lost an auction for an old vintage translucent 6X2, that sold for around 35 bucks. So deals are out there in the wild.

Old vintage hard arks are the best, in my opinion, Washitas do not matter as much.

[eKretz]

Well, I think they matter if you want to set a bevel on an Ark before you turn into Rip Van Winkle. At least I sure couldn't set one on my translucent black Ark. I lapped it at 80 grit to try it and still couldn't set a bevel on it without being there for what would seem like a week. OP: which Ark seller was it that sent you stones outside the density spec?

[DaveW]

I don't find arks any slower than synthetics, but the work has to be done a little differently if they are to be the same speed. Here's what I'd recommend.

* a cheap soft, like a smiths pink multicolor (avoid dans softs, they're too fine) or natural whetstones, and something that you can use to agitate the surface, some kind of coarse diamond hone. These are coarse stones that work fast
* a washita (a true washita, not a new stone marked as washita). A washita is a different stone than an arkansas stone and back when they were both mined actively, they were divided in trade catalogs as different stones. You either bought washita stones or arkansas stones. A soft arkansas is probably about as coarse as a washita, but they sold for half as much when users were professionals, and that should tell you something. I like to let my washitas settle in and use them to remove what coarse soft would do
* a black or translucent washita that once you start using it, you never lap the surface again. Allow it to settle in.

The difference in using these vs a synthetic is that the particles are softer and a little bit more dull. a soft washita that's been agitated will cut really fast, but the rest of them (including the washita if allowed to settle in) will not cut that fast, and for most of your strokes, you will need to be more brisk with pressure and less anal retentive necessarily about the type of stroke. Light strokes can be saved for finishing work. I use medium firm pressure with everything except the finishing strokes. I don't use enough pressure on the earlier stones (or any, necessarily) to flex the razor, but I don't do weight of the razor strokes on those coarser stones, it's a waste of time.

If the hard ark is in good nick, it won't really be cutting much, and you can use firm half strokes until the edge is ready for the last few alternating strokes.

The exact same thing is true of this for tools. On synthetics, the abrasives are hard and sharp and work with just about any pressure level. On oilstones, firmer pressure is required, and the coarsest stone needs to be "kept awake" with something that will keep the surface scratchy.

Nobody has ever sold me a hard ark that was true hard that was below 2.6SG. Dans sold me a hard ark (inexpensive, not true hard ark) that was right at the 2.5 SG mark, and they made sure that it was bumped down to the next class lower.

There are, btw, no new stones that are true washita stones no matter what they say they are. Norton owns the old pike mines, and they are not open.

[john3126]

Well, I think they matter if you want to set a bevel on an Ark before you turn into Rip Van Winkle. At least I sure couldn't set one on my translucent black Ark. I lapped it at 80 grit to try it and still couldn't set a bevel on it without being there for what would seem like a week. OP: which Ark seller was it that sent you stones outside the density spec?

I would rather not ID the seller. He provided a refund with no questions. I will say that my experience supports DaveW's statement that "soft" stones from Dan's or NW are too fine for bevel setting.

[eKretz]

Sorry to be blunt, but I think that's kind of silly. Why would you not offer info that could help others not have to go through the same problem if they're looking for a soft Ark or Washita? It doesn't affect the seller at all, since even if they made a sale - if the stone isn't as advertised it will likely be returned just as you did.

[john3126]

Sorry to be blunt, but I think that's kind of silly. Why would you not offer info that could help others not have to go through the same problem if they're looking for a soft Ark or Washita? It doesn't affect the seller at all, since even if they made a sale - if the stone isn't as advertised it will likely be returned just as you did.

Sorry you feel that way. You or anyone else could order a stone from this vendor and be perfectly satisfied or you could have the same experience with a different vendor. I don't feel an ID adds anything to the discussion.

[DaveW]

If it's a vendor who sells on the internet, I've probably bought from them, and I think John's approach is good for two reasons:
* if the guy had only one stone or very few that are out of spec, and satisfies his end of the deal, he could be damaged by the notion that he's a bad seller when he's really not
* if he has a lot of stones out of spec, sooner or later we'll know about it because there will be a lot of posts about out of spec stones, and then the dots will get connected

A lot of the small-sized dealers have employees working for them and they are not getting rich by any means - they're doing dirty sweaty repetitive work.

[eKretz]

That's all fine and dandy but it doesn't alter the vendor's rep one way or the other, just gives other members a heads-up. I'll reiterate that if the knowledge is already there, why should everyone have to go through the process of purchasing a stone that isn't to the density spec they think it is when someone could let us know it's not to spec right from the get-go.

IMO it's not cool to let other people make the same mistake, and wait for them to go through that and "connect the dots" if you have already connected them.

In the OP it is pretty plain that the vendor is selling stones that do not meet the advertised spec; it's not the case here that the OP just got a stone that was accidentally out of spec. In such a case I would agree with the no-name approach. But when he says that he is having a hard time finding a stone to the proper spec - that tells me that the unnamed original vendor doesn't have any stones that are to the advertised S.G. spec, or the O.P. would just have returned the first stone or stones and gotten replacements that were to spec.

In that case there is no reason to not let people know who it is, because it's not a case of a lazy or incompetent employee making a mistake.

[john3126]

That's all fine and dandy but it doesn't alter the vendor's rep one way or the other, just gives other members a heads-up. I'll reiterate that if the knowledge is already there, why should everyone have to go through the process of purchasing a stone that isn't to the density spec they think it is when someone could let us know it's not to spec right from the get-go.

IMO it's not cool to let other people make the same mistake, and wait for them to go through that and "connect the dots" if you have already connected them.

In the OP it is pretty plain that the vendor is selling stones that do not meet the advertised spec; it's not the case here that the OP just got a stone that was accidentally out of spec. In such a case I would agree with the no-name approach. But when he says that he is having a hard time finding a stone to the proper spec - that tells me that the unnamed original vendor doesn't have any stones that are to the advertised S.G. spec, or the O.P. would just have returned the first stone or stones and gotten replacements that were to spec.

In that case there is no reason to not let people know who it is, because it's not a case of a lazy or incompetent employee making a mistake.

The seller sent me one stone that did not meet spec. I don't know why he could not provide the stone I wanted at the time. I would not accuse him of knowingly selling product that did not meet spec nor would I indict his employees. You would be mistaken if you think these stones are individually tested for sp gr and graded based on that test. A lot test is done, at best, and the rest assumed to be in the range. An example of one out of spec stone does not make a trend. I have purchased other stones from this vendor that were exactly what was advertised.

So, has anyone measured sp gr of any vintage stones and is willing to share the results?