Thread: Ebay Gamble

Well it's just a trade-off really. One must decide what one wants to do with the stone and prep it accordingly. By knocking down those microscopic high points you lose cutting speed for sure - no argument there. But you also get a more comfortable shave. Leaving the high points (IOW, not burnishing the stone) gives you better cutting speed, but a less comfortable shave. I keep my black and translucent Arks prepped with one side burnished and the other lapped with 320 SiC loose grit - it's the best of both worlds IMO. And really, as the stones are used more and more, if the coarse sides don't get periodically refreshed with 320 SiC, they lose massive amounts of cutting speed quite rapidly, so it happens whether the stones are burnished intentionally or not.

Originally Posted by eKretz

Well it's just a trade-off really. One must decide what one wants to do with the stone and prep it accordingly. By knocking down those microscopic high points you lose cutting speed for sure - no argument there. But you also get a more comfortable shave. Leaving the high points (IOW, not burnishing the stone) gives you better cutting speed, but a less comfortable shave. I keep my black and translucent Arks prepped with one side burnished and the other lapped with 320 SiC loose grit - it's the best of both worlds IMO. And really, as the stones are used more and more, if the coarse sides don't get periodically refreshed with 320 SiC, they lose massive amounts of cutting speed quite rapidly, so it happens whether the stones are burnished intentionally or not.

Well said .

Well, the jury is in on the big rock:



225 lumen flash light near the edge, you can see light about a third of an inch through the rock. She's translucent! Considering it came with a 5"x2" black and a lapping plate for less than 90 bucks after shipping, I am a happy camper!

Can anyone ID this thing?





The coloring and banding had me thinking it was a Washita, but it feels glassy and smooth in my hand. Now I'm not sure what to make of it.

Slightly better pictures:

After simple green bath and a little scouring pad action:





Ready for surface prep and side beveling.

Originally Posted by Marshal

What is this Chert Nagura of which you speak?

Post #38 Alien edge's- he mentioned chert , I was kinda joking about the chert nagura's as this chert would not be suitable for razors, too rough. I can be a smartazz sometimes.

Great looking stones Marshal, I vote Washita and a very good one at that.

EKretz and Alien Edge, I believe you are Both right in your thinking, so there, that ends the battle.

Marshal, the big one is definitely a good example of a "black translucent" and I'd guess the banded one is probably a hard or soft Ark.

As far as the "battle" goes, I just consider it a discussion. And that is what discussion forums are for, isn't it? Different viewpoints ought to be able to be aired and discussed without conflict - and I don't think AE and I were at each other's throats at all - merely discussing our varied thoughts. And I thank him for the discussion, no less!

I'm not quite sure I'm believing what I'm seeing here. So I busted out my Soft and Hard Arkansas stones. Both of these have pores that are readily visible to the naked eye, but I checked them out under my 60X loupe anyway and spent a few moments just kinda feeling them out. Then I switched over to that banded stone. WAY smoother than either of them, and pores only visible at 60x magnification. So I picked up my black and translucent and did the same thing. Well, this banded hone felt suspiciously similar to my translucent. Check this out:





Light doesn't penetrate nearly as far as it does the large grey translucent stone, but you can still see it coming through. For comparison, the Soft and Hard Arkansas stones show what we would expect, 0 light transmission:





I think that may actually be a 6" x 2" x 1" translucent stone.

It may well be. I've never seen a translucent Ark so prominently banded before, pretty cool.