Thread: Norton 5" Hard Arkansas

Just pulled the trigger on one of these bad boys to add as a finisher after some of my coticules that need that little boost.

Are they better then the newer mined translucent stones? I know it's more of an opinion thing but.. I want to hear opinions.

I will probably need to lap and burnish it so I hope it's flat.

I watched Dr Matt's maxing out the edge video on his coticule series and figured what the heck..

Get us some dang pics,,,,,

When it arrives you will have the pictures Hirlau. Until then we can only imagine.

Personally I think old vs. new doesn't make any difference - all the stones are the same age in reality since they formed at the same time. In point of fact, it could be said that the earliest mined stones are actually newer, since they were likely mined shallower!

Anyway, to me, the more important factors are stone density/specific gravity and surface preparation. According to an old geologist's report on Arks I read, the more dense the stone is, the finer the edge produced but the easier it glazes.

I seen a good looking Norton marked stone on e-bay not to long ago. It had the Norton stamp on it which looks cool to me I am sure it doesn't help the stone all that much. No, on second thought it helps a lot I not sure that the stones quarried yesterday are going to be better or worse than the other stones from the mountain because mother nature produces them. Man just needs to put a good cut on the stone so it is easier to use.

Originally Posted by eKretz

Personally I think old vs. new doesn't make any difference - all the stones are the same age in reality since they formed at the same time.
.

This is the bit I don't understand. I get that the formation is the same age. But when the mine was young they would have had more of the better quality stones. No impurities, etc. I guess I am trying to say that people assume that all the stones coming out of the ground are the same. I am not so sure the stuff that comes from the centre of the vein is the same as the stuff the comes from the edges. So then who grades it as suitable before selling to you and do you trust them?
It's not like there is a process to purify them like metals

When the mine was young, they were likely working from the outside in. And when it comes to Arkansas stones, they're surprisingly uniform across the grade. Translucent and hards are something like 99% one homogenous material. They're not like coticules, which have a broad variance from stone to stone. I'm willing to wager any hard black stone once lapped and surfaced, will perform very closely to any hard black that's been given the same treatment. Old vein, new vein, doesn't matter. It's still the same silicate material with the same density formed by the same natural process.

As far as I'm aware, the only testing done at all is density/specific gravity. And that isn't tested on every stone by a long shot. (This according to Dan's website IIRC).

No, they're not likely to do a density test on every single rock - and specific gravity is what they're graded by going by Dan's. But, as far as Naturals go Arkansas stones seem to have an uncannily uniform structure. As close as nature will come to synthetic manufacturing tolerances. So in theory, new should be just as good as old rock.

The translucent can be different colors black, yellow, pink, and grey. They seem to function the same regardless of color, and they react the same to a light regardless of color. I don't think when it was quarried or the location will matter either.