Thread: Hone Format for Knives Scaled to Razors

Originally Posted by Brontosaurus

I've recently been watching a video where a guy is re-establishing the edge of an approximate 8" knife blade length on an 8" x 3" synthetic water hone. This has me wondering if hones for razors might be scaled accordingly. So I grab a nearby 5/8 full-hollow ebay straight razor junker. Blade length there is around 3". This leads me to conclude that if an 8" x 3" honing surface suffices for an 8" knife, then perhaps a 4" x 1-1/2" honing surface would be more than enough for the razor, which is essentially a folding pocket knife in this regard. Does this seem reasonable?

You can sharpen a samurai sword or a straight razor with a 4'' x 1'' pocket stone. Your technique will have to be very different. After watching the video you posted and reading your post # 21 I am wondering if your not wanting to sharpen your razor like a knife. This is just my opinion but sharpening the razor at a 15 degree angle on a 400 grit stone will turn it into a whittling knife.

Originally Posted by AlienEdge

You can sharpen a samurai sword or a straight razor with a 4'' x 1'' pocket stone. Your technique will have to be very different. After watching the video you posted and reading your post # 21 I am wondering if your not wanting to sharpen your razor like a knife. This is just my opinion but sharpening the razor at a 15 degree angle on a 400 grit stone will turn it into a whittling knife.

Thanks for your comments. Just to clarify, I am not seeking to hone a razor like a knife, just trying to scale the knife and hone being shown to the size of straight razors.

Originally Posted by 32t

You might find this thread interesting.

http://straightrazorpalace.com/hones...than-mile.html

Thank you for the link. I’ve glanced at the first posts and it seems to suggest that a narrow stone isn’t needed as a wider stone serves the same function by concentrating on a selected area of the stone. And in the first post, the OP refers to someone who cut some Nortons in half to arrive at two 1-1/2" x 8" pieces and only used them once. I suppose that these were probably being used on the bench.

My impression is that most stones/hones as sold today are intended for use on the bench with kitchen knives, plane irons, chisels. In seeking to hone straight razors, folks have arrived upon methods to account for large bench stones like these. Otherwise, there also is a small side market known as “pocket stones,” perhaps intended for pocket knives. These stones usually run around 1” x 4” and are fairly limited as to selection and grain differences. Here I note that a 5/8 straight razor is closer to a pocket knife in scale and size than an 8” kitchen knife or a plane iron.

Over the past year, I've used a 1-9/16" x 5-1/16" Suehiro 1k/3k combo followed by a 40mm x 125mm coticule a few times, and I have found them viable as a format held in the hand, as compared to a 3" x 8-3/8" Bester 1200 followed by a 2-2/8" x 8-3/16" Suehiro Rika 5k, also held in the hand and perfectly viable apart from the added bulk and weight. Wanting to challenge myself further, I have successfully honed a couple of eBay specials using generic 1-3/8” x 4” 1k and 6k JIS synth stones followed by a 1-1/4” x 3” natural Honyama. This has led me to contemplate chopping 8” x 3” stones into four pieces as mentioned. Hence this thread as I was seeking confirmation that, yes, indeed, doing so is a viable option.

So why should anyone want to work with smaller stones? First, they have the potential to save in money and material costs. And second, they are more convenient for hand-holding. A few years ago, I was able to sit in on a few honing sessions with a professional razor restorer in France. Method used there was predominantly lateral X-passes on 8” x 3” hones on a bench. What struck me at the time was how little of the stones’ 8” length was actually being used—no more than three or four inches. Subsequent reduction of the actual length of the hone/stone being used next led to my entertaining a corresponding reduction in width as a possibility.

Once I acquired a razor set-up that a guy in Milwaukee was using in the 1950s-60s. It consisted of a 2” x 4” Carborundum 118S and a 2” x 5” Frictionite 00 double-sided barber’s hone. Already this tells me that hones as used “back in the day” could be smaller than bench stones, the 118S in particular being a very versatile little hone. And I will admit that 2” x 5” is a very comfortable size for honing razors. The problem today is that 2” x 5” sized hones/stones are not generally available, while 3” x 8” bench hones/stones are; and synthetic sharpening-stone manufacturers do not seem convinced that the razor-honing market is sufficiently large to merit scaling things accordingly. But cutting down a 3” x 8” bench stone down to 2” x 5” seems rather wasteful as to the remaining, leftover pieces. Also, I have a little bit of a problem with 2"-wide stones, preferring something either wider or narrower, as I mentioned before. So that leaves 1-1/2” x 4” as a possibility.

The linked thread example of the Norton stone cut into two 1-1/2” x 8” pieces reminds me of a coticule I picked up a little over five years ago. At the time, in starting out, I was thinking that a narrow stone would help with a wonky bevel, seemingly dismissed by folks, both here and elsewhere. The coticule in question measures ~1-1/4” x ~7-1/4” and in trying to hone with it on the bench, as I was doing at the time, I found it too unwieldy. So for around three-four years it just sat on the shelf as I was hesitant to sell it as it was a very pretty stone. More recently, as I have moved to smaller and narrower stones held in the hand, I have returned to it; and let me tell you, it is really a tremendous stone used this way. Held in the hand, there is a compensating give in the support which make it far less unwieldy than on the bench. And the 7-1/4” length seems like so much luxury that I am tempted to cut this down, if only to arrive at a matching slurry stone. But again, the stone is so beautiful that I don’t want to do this in the end.

Anyway, to end this far-too-long post, thanks for the feedback, both positive and negative.

Yup, your original premise is wrong. The two, are not related, any more than a chain saw is sharpened with a file.

The ability to hone a razor is dependent on the honers skill, but to learning to hone is much easier, on a larger stone, at least as wide as the blade is long.

It does sound as if you intentionally tried to make learning to hone more difficult than needed. If using smaller stones works for you, go for it, though it will not, for most new honers.

For new guys reading this post, set yourself up for success, buy the best quality synthetic stones you can afford, full size 3X8, and learn to do what the razor needs, then experiment with smaller or natural stones.

You can purchase a quality set of full size, synthetic stones for less than a hundred dollars.

Originally Posted by Euclid440

Yup, your original premise is wrong. The two, are not related, any more than a chain saw is sharpened with a file.

The ability to hone a razor is dependent on the honers skill, but to learning to hone is much easier, on a larger stone, at least as wide as the blade is long.

It does sound as if you intentionally tried to make learning to hone more difficult than needed. If using smaller stones works for you, go for it, though it will not, for most new honers.

For new guys reading this post, set yourself up for success, buy the best quality synthetic stones you can afford, full size 3X8, and learn to do what the razor needs, then experiment with smaller or natural stones.

You can purchase a quality set of full size, synthetic stones for less than a hundred dollars.

I'm not really following you here. My original premise was that if an 8" x 3" honing surface suffices for an 8" knife, then perhaps a 4" x 1-1/2" honing surface would suffice for a razor. I still maintain this, so my premise hasn't changed. I learned honing on large stones before moving to smaller stones, so how did I intentionally make learning to hone more difficult in this way if you think that using smaller stones in starting out won't work for new honers?

For me, the alleged difficulty in starting out with smaller stones/hones may come from starting out on the bench with large stones. If one starts out hand-held, then smaller stones are more viable and easier to deal with, although my original premise wasn't about starting out with honing. If one wanted to start out with hand-held stones, then I would suggest that something around 6" x 2" or 5" x 2" would work well and would not be all that difficult. Yet here the problem remains that there are not many synthetic water-stones cut to these format sizes. Oil-stones, yes, but not synthetic water-stones. And this brings me back to cutting larger synthetic water-stones down to a smaller size.

Originally Posted by Brontosaurus

...And this brings me back to cutting larger synthetic water-stones down to a smaller size.

I cannot see the point of doing this at all. It is obvious that smaller stones can be used to hone razors, they are what I use for the most part. But to attempt to cut a perfectly good 8" x 3" stone just to meet a hypothetical ideal makes no sense to me. Without meaning to offend, I think that you are tilting at windmills here.

"I'm not really following you here. My original premise was that if an 8" x 3" honing surface suffices for an 8" knife, then perhaps a 4" x 1-1/2" honing surface would suffice for a razor. I still maintain this, so my premise hasn't changed."

The point is, sharpening a knife, has nothing to do with honing a razor… So everything after that, does not matter.

A new guy learning to hone is processing a lot of information. One of the most important things is keeping the razor, edge and spine flat on the hone.

Using a smaller/narrower hone, increases the difficulty, with no-added benefit. I refer to your post 28, where you describe your process of learning to hone and all the stones you experimented with, when all you needed was an inexpensive 1K, and a 3/8 or 4/8 K, combo Naniwia or Norton. Once “Mastered” then experiment.

“Yet here the problem remains that there are not many synthetic water-stones cut to these format sizes.”

There is a reason for that… There is no benefit?

“At the time, in starting out, I was thinking that a narrow stone would help with a wonky bevel, seemingly dismissed by folks, both here and elsewhere.”
Using narrow stones to hone, compensate for improper technique, it may work but is unnecessary. Just learn the rolling X stroke.

So, your original premise, “This leads me to conclude that if an 8" x 3" honing surface suffices for an 8" knife, then perhaps a 4" x 1-1/2" honing surface would be more than enough for the razor, which is essentially a folding pocket knife in this regard. Does this seem reasonable?”

Nope…

This thread got me thinking an looking around my desk. The smallest hone there is a Norton #37280K9. I don't know what grit 3/8" x 3/8" x4" I sharpened my leatherman and it worked ok. I held the knife still and moved the hone though. My lansky set that I like for pocket knifes is 1/2" wide by 4" long with lots of plastic on top to protect my fingers. Which makes me think about the 2 sided diamond plate that I carry in my day bag. 2" x 3" but only 1/4 of an inch thick. Small and nice to carry but I would not use it held in my hand or I am afraid I would loose my finger tips! I have big but not what I would consider large hands and a full size 4000/8000 Norton feels good holding it in my hand while honing.

Originally Posted by Euclid440

"I'm not really following you here. My original premise was that if an 8" x 3" honing surface suffices for an 8" knife, then perhaps a 4" x 1-1/2" honing surface would suffice for a razor. I still maintain this, so my premise hasn't changed."

The point is, sharpening a knife, has nothing to do with honing a razor… So everything after that, does not matter.

Again, I am not saying that the methods used to hone a knife should be used with the 4" x 1-1/2" hone example. Just that the razor would be approximately scaled to the stone as compared to the 8" knife example.

Originally Posted by Euclid440

A new guy learning to hone is processing a lot of information. One of the most important things is keeping the razor, edge and spine flat on the hone.

Again, my original premise was not necessarily entertained with the beginning razor honer in mind.

Originally Posted by Euclid440

Using a smaller/narrower hone, increases the difficulty, with no-added benefit.

I agree that using a smaller/narrower hone may increase the difficulty, especially in starting out as you mentioned before.

Originally Posted by Euclid440

I refer to your post 28, where you describe your process of learning to hone and all the stones you experimented with, when all you needed was an inexpensive 1K, and a 3/8 or 4/8 K, combo Naniwia or Norton. Once “Mastered” then experiment.

Maybe I wasn't clear before. I was directly shown a honing method that involved bench stones, an 8" x 3" Norton 1000 and an 8" x 3" Norton 4000 combo, followed by a fairly wide coticule bout. I adapted this example according to my own circumstances and followed this example as shown before branching out in other ways. This has been a gradual process evolving over five years.

Originally Posted by Euclid440

“Yet here the problem remains that there are not many synthetic water-stones cut to these format sizes.”

There is a reason for that… There is no benefit?

Time will tell. Let us recall that old barber's hones and Carborundums were generally small in size.

Originally Posted by Euclid440

“At the time, in starting out, I was thinking that a narrow stone would help with a wonky bevel, seemingly dismissed by folks, both here and elsewhere.”
Using narrow stones to hone, compensate for improper technique, it may work but is unnecessary. Just learn the rolling X stroke.

I agree that learning the rolling-X stroke is very important here. But in using the rolling X-stroke, one also can come to the conclusion that wider stones are not needed. There are two ways to take that example of marking out the larger stone to show that selected areas can be concentrated upon, as revealed by a dedicated accumulation of swarf there. One is that, yes, a narrow stone would not be needed. The other is that if one can concentrate swarf in a dedicated area like that, then a wider stone may not be needed.