Thread: Hone Format for Knives Scaled to Razors

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.