I'd like to see a closer shot of the surface of the one hone by itself. No slurry, and clean it if it hasn't been already. Hard to tell from the distance it was shot in the photos. IMHO.
Printable View
Not a problem...
Attachment 197823
Definitely looks Washita-esque anyway.
peak 2008-50 is a microscope Depth Measuring Microscope Peak 2008(DMR) 25x to 100x Peak Optics, Magnifiers, Comparators, Loupes, For Inspection & Measuring, 2x to 300x
These two photos have been made through the microscope.
Easiest is have them in your hand. There is big difference to feel the edge of lapped hone. Washita feels more like serated knife comparing with hindostan.
My vote goes to washita
I really can't tell. I'm not sure about it being a Wasita stone.
Either washita or soft arkansas, sometimes hard to tell in the older stones. It isn't anything other than one of those two.
Washita ;-) so a lot of guys are very shure....the stone in the pictures shown is for shure no Hindustan...
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8404/...d3ffe9_c_d.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7514/...1647b2_c_d.jpg
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5604/...9efc12_c_d.jpg
The second one
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8707/...16e859_c_d.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7612/...0df925_c_d.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7630/...e321fd_c_d.jpg
The stone you just pictured there is with 100% certainty a washita. I can't tell with the one in the first post here, because in pictures, some of the white clear washitas and soft arkansas stones look the same. Washitas are like a grid with an agglomeration of pores, and arkansas stones seem more like a grid with an agglomeration with particles.
Sometimes the grid in a washita stone is more solid, but a soft never looks like that unless there is color or a flaw. This last stone has the characteristic of the smooth grid on some parts and the pores on others along with the coloration of a washita, combined with sort of a waxy look on the solid area.