Thread: 8K Norton is not enough.

Originally Posted by dickerydee

I have in the past and I have a few in my collection and have honed them for other people. THey are not my primary razor and you coming to this conclusion all by yourself is rather interesting. I'd love to hear your point of view on gold dollars and other chinese razors but this thread is not about that.

conclusion, what conclusion is that.... I never made a point, I asked a question.....

dickerydee, I find this conversation boring honestly, I'm out.

You're creating an argument where there is none.
No one said 8k is shave ready to full potential.
Again, the point is what potential can be achieved from 8k.

Finally, if you are going to quote something, context matters, so please provide the source when doing so.

I apologize for being boring. I guess it's only fun when everyone agrees and drinks the kool-aid?

Originally Posted by Utopian

You're creating an argument where there is none.
No one said 8k is shave ready to full potential.
Again, the point is what potential can be achieved from 8k.

Finally, if you are going to quote something, context matters, so please provide the source when doing so.

https://scienceofsharp.wordpress.com...g-progression/

Where did this 8k level ever come from? Because the norton 8k was all we had back in the day? soo by default we use that as our benchmark? that's not how science works.

Originally Posted by ecormier

When you learn how to hone properly, 8k does give a DFS, there is no YMMV to it

Oh buddy, you were doing pyramid honing as recently as November of 2014 and you're saying things like this? Please please please don't be passing around bad info. Pyramid honing is.... oh nevermind lol.

Science does not work by cherrypicking statements either.

Again, no one assigned any special role for the Norton 8k. No one said the 8k achieves the maximum potential for a shave. These are you own creations.

Regarding your insulting kool-aid comment. If you knew me you would know that I disagree with many concepts here. That fact that I disagree with your opinion of how the assessment of an 8k edge matters is no reflection on my ability for independent thought.

Please enlighten me then. What are you saying about the Norton 8k that I'm not understanding? I don't think I had any problems with what you were saying, just someone else who clearly has very little honing experience.

Things like "if you can't shave well off an 8k". Huh? How does that make any sense.

The Norton 8k is an inferior 8k hone and serves no purpose as a benchmark for anything.

Originally Posted by dickerydee

I don't think anyone is arguing the fact that a progression of grit or how you achieve it isn't required. I never said "1k to finisher". Someone's opinion of 'shave ready' and setting that in stone at the norton 8k is simply silly. Since when did this become scribed in sand? I could shave off a 1k stone, doesn't mean shave ready to me. nope. sorry. never. same goes for 2k, 3k, 4k, up to 8k. nope, not for me. sorry.

This attitude of '8k is shave ready' or as it's being put here 'shave properly' is very strange to me. What imperical data shows this? None. It's just something that someone said that people bought into. In fact, if you look at some real data, the bevel is apparently set at the 4k mark, not 1k, not 8k. So to say shave properly, i think you really need to focus ok 4k and prior.

I quote "No significant change in the bevel angle or width at 3 microns occurs after the 4k level. No measurable difference is observed between the 4k and 16k level, other than a reduction in the apex width, observed in the edge-on views (above).

I also quote : "The convexity near the apex is removed by the 4k level, and the measured geometry is unchanged with higher grits beyond the 4k. This result indicates that the bevel set is completed at the 4k level, not the 1k level as commonly believed. Beyond the 4k level, the bevel polish is refined and the edge width is reduced from about 0.3 microns to about 0.1 microns.

Sharpness is achieved during the bevel setting stage up to 4k grit. Beyond the 4k grit, Keenness improves, but Sharpness is not improved further."

Not sure where this magic 8k number keeps coming from.

Post # 56 by Utopian pretty much states how many of the members here see the role of the 8k Norton hone.
Maybe you should read the post again.

When I see someone fire off a reply that includes facts, such as established units of measure like microns; then finish their post with subjective terms such as "sharpness & Keenness" ,,, then I know I'm being baffled with bull $&(!.

Originally Posted by dickerydee

Please enlighten me then. What are you saying about the Norton 8k that I'm not understanding? I don't think I had any problems with what you were saying, just someone else who clearly has very little honing experience.

Things like "if you can't shave well off an 8k". Huh? How does that make any sense.

The Norton 8k is an inferior 8k hone and serves no purpose as a benchmark for anything.

Your simply a troll with with nothing to do on a Tuesday morning,,,,,,,,,,,

Originally Posted by Hirlau

Your simply a troll with with nothing to do on a Tuesday morning,,,,,,,,,,,

I'm deeply offended by your snap judgements. Terrible of you.

Just because I'm new here doesn't mean I'm knew to sharpening stuff or have an appreciation for how to make dull things sharp. I get what a progression is; I learned to count ya know.

How are sharpness and keeness subjective?

Originally Posted by dickerydee

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,How are sharpness and keeness subjective?

Just asking this question confirms my suspicions about you,,,,,