A Scotch Hone Quiz!

just for fun, a little quiz. on the picture below you can see 13 scotch hones: dalmore blue, tam o'shanter and water of ayr. there are:

1 labelled dalmore blue DB
1 unlabelled dalmore blue DB
3 labelled tam o'shanter TOS
2 labelled fine tam o'shanter FTOS
1 labelled white tam o'shanter WTOS
3 unlabelled tam o'shanter TOS
1 labelled water of ayr WOA
1 unlabelled water of ayr WOA

so, which numbers are DB, TOS, FTOS, WTOS, WOA?

SOLUTION AND MORE PICTURES ON NEXT PAGE!

regards,
hans

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5608/2...17f3b82c_b.jpg

Are you ablr to put them here saparately to have better pictures?

maybe tomorrow, it's already dark here. from which one(s)?

Especially those TOS an d WOA as they can be difficult even when you have them in hand. However I would post pictures of all of them in order not to make it any easier.

No 1 is the unlabeled Dalmore blue,
No 2 I'm not sure if it's a WOA unless it says so as a labeled one,
No 3 the size is not the usual so I'd say an unlabeled TOS,
No 4 an unlabeled TOS, and along with the 5 they are very fine, really sharp shaves, not smooth but not harsh either,
No 5 a white labeled TOS, possibly the finest of the lot,
No 6 a labeled TOS,
No 7 is the labeled Dalmore blue (if it's not, we would doubt it is one)
No 8 is a labeled TOS, this kind of box has a history by itself, a classic one,
No 9 a labeled TOS,
No 10 an unlabeled TOS,
No 11 a "fine" one,
No 12 an unlabeled? I can't see a lot from the size,
No 13 a WOA, if the No 2 is labeled, then this one isn't. WOA used to be a common name for TOS stones as well, but I doubt we have to guess that too.

I'd guess, I've made less than three mistakes.

:idea:

Holly Tam-o-Shanter , father of all scotch hones Thats a beautyfull view I like them both .
Ive never seen such hone in my life so i will not guess
Stunning colection by the way ha hahah a a

So hans

1) labeled Dalmore blue
2) Water of Ayr Paddle (labelled) even if it looks like a TOS
3) unlabeled TOS
4) unlabeled FTOS
5) labeled White TOS
6 labeled FTOS
7) unlabeled Dalmore Blue
8) labeled TOS
9) unlabelled TOS
10) labeled TOS
11) unlabeled TOS
12) unlabeled TOS
13) unlabeled WOA

Haha i ask myself which one is the labelled water of Ayr. I know that due older Times the wording for the Water of Ayr was also used for TaMs....so this change of the Name created a bit a chaos

Also i see no second Dalmore Blue, what the heck did they label wrong or what the hell wasnt identified correct ;-) wanne see detail shots of that one

vasilis, good and clever guesses! a hint: nr. 13 is a in fact a WOA, although the unlabelled one. but nr. 2 is a TOS...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doorsch

Haha i ask myself which one is the labelled water of Ayr. I know that due older Times the wording for the Water of Ayr was also used for TaMs....so this change of the Name created a bit a chaos

---

ah, good...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doorsch

So hans

1) labeled Dalmore blue
2) Water of Ayr Paddle (labelled) even if it looks like a TOS
3) unlabeled TOS
4) unlabeled FTOS
5) labeled White TOS
6 labeled FTOS
7) unlabeled Dalmore Blue
8) labeled TOS
9) unlabelled TOS
10) labeled TOS
11) unlabeled TOS
12) unlabeled TOS
13) unlabeled WOA

Haha i ask myself which one is the labelled water of Ayr. I know that due older Times the wording for the Water of Ayr was also used for TaMs....so this change of the Name created a bit a chaos

Also i see no second Dalmore Blue, what the heck did they label wrong or what the hell wasnt identified correct ;-) wanne see detail shots of that one

---

Changed Nr. 2: thats a Water of Ayr paddle due the Snake Stone Pattern

Changed Nr. 7: the only possible second Dalmore even if it looks very fine and homogenious. Unlabelled because Nr. 1 looks more typically like the labelled stones

I would chime in if i would own enough labeled ones....most of mine are without any label ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doorsch

Changed Nr. 2: thats a Water of Ayr paddle due the Snake Stone Pattern

Changed Nr. 7: the only possible second Dalmore even if it looks very fine and homogenious. Unlabelled because Nr. 1 looks more typically like the labelled stones

---

nope, nr. 2 is just a not so handsom TOS, sorry!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brightred

nope, nr. 2 is just a not so handsom TOS, sorry!

---

Really hard guessing game Hans....i look what others find out and what will be the solution at the End....

Thanks for that fun Game!!

and here is the solution:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brightred

1 labelled dalmore blue DB: 7
1 unlabelled dalmore blue DB: 1
3 labelled tam o'shanter TOS: 6, 8 (Mauchline), 12
2 labelled fine tam o'shanter FTOS: 3, 5
1 labelled white tam o'shanter WTOS: 11
3 unlabelled tam o'shanter TOS: 2, 4, 9
1 labelled water of ayr WOA: 10
1 unlabelled water of ayr WOA: 13



https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5608/2...17f3b82c_b.jpg

---

a few remarks:

obviously the people at the honeworks did not waste too much time when assigning colours and grit fineness to the stones: nr. 3 and nr. 5 are both dual hones, consisting of WOA and FTOS.

saying that there are 2 WOA among the stones was a bit unfair: nr. 10 is what we call a TOS today, but it is labelled "WOA". there was a time when the honeworks sold both types as Water of Ayr. so, nr. 10 must be an old stone.

nr. 9 and 13 were glued into one single box. i didn't buy it because of the TOS, but because i thought and hoped that the dark one (nr. 13) might be a WOA. after cleaning and lapping it became clear that it is in fact a WOA.

nr. 11 is a rare labelled WTOS. it is my new colour reference for bright tam o'shanters. as you can see, nr. 4, 5 and 11 are about equally bright.

nr. 4 is an old, unlabelled TOS with an unevenly shaped back. it is brighter and finer than all the other TOS. a gem and the last one i'd give away.

i hope you enjoyed this little quiz! more pictures below!

regards,
hans

the labelled hones. labels removed from stones, except for the WTOS.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5782/2...9f4aef78_b.jpg


the dual hones (WOA/FTOS)

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8693/2...91ea0984_b.jpg


the WOA side of the dual hones and the back of a small WOA (nr. 13)

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8380/2...499e0903_b.jpg


the labelled WTOS

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7571/2...1f1b6851_b.jpg


closer view of the bright TOS. top to bottom: nr. 4 (unlabelled TOS), nr. 11 (labelled WTOS), nr. 5 (labelled FTOS)

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8151/2...69651690_b.jpg


an old TOS, sold as Water of Ayr

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8179/2...89c859ba_b.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brightred

nr. 11 is a rare labelled WTOS. it is my new colour reference for bright tam o'shanters. as you can see, nr. 4, 5 and 11 are about equally bright.

nr. 4 is an old, unlabelled TOS with an unevenly shaped back. it is brighter and finer than all the other TOS. a gem and the last one i'd give away.

i hope you enjoyed this little quiz! more pictures below!

regards,
hans

---

We did enjoy the quiz, thank you. And I've had more than 3 mistakes, but that's the fun part, if you know everything it gets boring.

As for the stones 4, 5, 11, there is a difference between them. The 4 and probably 5 are the true white ones, the 11 kind of looks like a white one, I'd be pretty sure there is a difference on the edge.
For your No4 stone, I know what you mean. Also, it doesn't go "the older, the finer", even more recent true white ones can shave similarly. I used to have one, honed with Smith's solution, really hard stone, but I sold it. And I still regret it. We hear about all kind of German, French, UK, US among others, (Jnats excluded) but that kind of TOS is far finer than any Escher, Charnley, WOA, translucent/Black Arkansas... From the west there are really few stones that can compare to that edge, and they are exceptions among their kind.
The general belief is "TOS stones are in the 6-7k range" but it's not as simple as that.
Here are a couple of shots from the one I used to have, unfortunately, you can't see the stone clear enough.
Attachment 246352
Attachment 246353

I can see that i have misse dmy chance to play but that is price to pay when eyes palying up.
As with TOS their main advantage is that they love crapier steel unlike others which would rip the edge of crappier stell off TOS don't.
As with the how fine they are they wary all the way. The same what applies to other hones.

Now little question for you where do you think most of the TOS material finished?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrspach

I can see that i have misse dmy chance to play but that is price to pay when eyes palying up.
As with TOS their main advantage is that they love crapier steel unlike others which would rip the edge of crappier stell off TOS don't.
As with the how fine they are they wary all the way. The same what applies to other hones.

Now little question for you where do you think most of the TOS material finished?

---

I don't know about TOS stones being more forgiving to "bad steel" than any other stone. There used to be a rumor that "a TOS never overhones" but I never understood it. In any case, it worked perfectly well on all razors equally (razors, not razor shaped objects, I don't know about them). I also don't understand the science behind their love for bad steel.
As for the question on "where most of the TOS material finished?" are we talking about time? I don't know when did they start extracting it, and that would definitely be an interesting story, but like most old quarries, I'd assume the stopped cutting/selling it the last 50-20 years? As far as I know, there are still warehouses with stones and old men who reluctantly sell a piece or two of the unsold ones whenever they feel like it. As for the place they were finished, Mr. Henk's article describes it, it was close to the mine.
So, I'm not sure, please share your knowledge.

Not everything has so called science behind it. Sometimes it is about experience of generations of users simmilar to Pierre La Lune.
To answer the question - The most of the material was crushed as filler for paints and pastes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrspach

Not everything has so called science behind it. Sometimes it is about experience of generations of users simmilar to Pierre La Lune.
To answer the question - The most of the material was crushed as filler for paints and pastes.

---

Yeah something we have with a lot of so called razor hones. As seen at ardennes fex. and on some of the german razor hones. In most cases razor hones were not the "main" product of the quarry because it would easily just too expensive to run the quarry only selling the hones....so producing and selling hones has always been a small but probably money bringing side business. Sure this cant be transferred to all hones but as said to quite a good amount.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrspach

Not everything has so called science behind it. Sometimes it is about experience of generations of users simmilar to Pierre La Lune.
To answer the question - The most of the material was crushed as filler for paints and pastes.

---

A sad answer. And, if I remember correctly, most of the material of the Charnley forest (or Llyn Idwal was it?) was crushed and used as a bed beneath the roads to stabilize their structure, most of the material of the huge Japanese layer of hone material beneath Kyoto was used and depleted for the military industry in the Russo-Japanese wars and world wars, otherwise today these stones would still be extracted from most of the famous mines, and would continue for the next decades... As for my local Cretan stone, a lot if not most of the material gets crushed for making chinaware, there is a high demand for its powder. A small part of it goes in the watch industry for the "quartz". We don't appreciate what we have until it's gone.

For the science part, anything has everything to do with science; we might not have discovered it yet, but it's there. For our case with stones and steel, we know all we need behind it's mechanism, so, this experience of generations is either based on some unique characteristic of the stone, or is just a rumor repeated for generations without any meaning behind it.