Another whats under the stone post.

Received this 2nd hand natural sharpening stone from the U.K this morning.

Under all that old oil and grime there are features that indicate its most likely crystaline novaculite in structure, an oil stone, either Washita or Arkansas.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/...psqde2gueo.jpg

The same stone after being flattened reveals much more of the stones natural features.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/...psfu7jmd0t.jpg

During the flattening process, indications are, its a hard stone, slow slurry releasing, most likely pointing to its identity as being Arkansas.

To validate that fact, requires some mathematics to work out the stones specific gravity. (SG)

Weight of the stone = 515 grams.

Mass ( 20.1 cm x 4.7cm x 2.3cm) = 217.28 cm3

515/ 217.28 = 2.37 g/cm3

SG = 2.37.

Using the following site as a reference; http://www.danswhetstone.com/stone_grades_101.htm,

It identifies the stone as being within the Hard Arkansas range of 2.30 - 2.45 SG / 800 - 1000 grit.

StewieS;

Should be an excellent finisher/polisher. I have a translucent Arkansas that I use occasionally after the Select Coticule for a little more polish and smoothness.

Washita

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Give it a hose of Oven Cleaner, a scrubbing with a scotch brite and a Simple Green bath and you will have a very good idea of what it really is.

If it’s an Ark, put a razor on it before you lap it, it may have a hundred-year old burnished finish on it, that will put a nice edge on a razor, who knows, next time...

If you want to get all the oil out, Simple Green and water and a good soak, I have soaked Arks for up to a year, to get an old Lilly White pristine and clean smelling.

Lately I have been using 99 Cent Store “Awsome” on some stones with better results than Simple Green for soaking. Glass Pasta jars with the clamp on lids and rubber gaskets, from the thrift store, work well to keep the air out, change the water and degreaser every couple weeks, until they stop releasing black oil.

Nice find, should be a good bevel setter or tool hone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaron1234

Washita

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

---

aaron; I am prepared to listen. Put forward your case that the stone is not an Ark, but a Washita.

StewieS.

Also looks like many grimy washita stones that I have cleaned up. I'm not close to as knowledgeable as the folks here though.

I have a Washita that is similarly colored. Great stone for me.

Stewie may be right in this case. The volume (not mass, as he inadvertently labeled it) of the stone if it's a Hard Ark or Washita would be less than his calculated volume, because Hard Arks and Washitas are somewhat porous (not to mention any missing volume due to chamfers, corner rounding etc). Less volume means the density would actually be slightly higher than his calculated density. Thusly it would pretty much have to be a Hard Ark if it's really from the Ark family of stones.

Had the opportunity to test this stone out to form a secondary bevel on 1 of my workshop chisels. The stone itself retained a good level of oil on the top surface of the stone, and there was no need to add further oil while working the stone. Fairly impressive given its a rather hot day outside, and a few degrees hotter within the workshop. The stone is a very slow release stone, with little sign of slurry release. The top surface of the stone is what I classify as hard to very hard. As noted within my opening post, using the ANSI Standard, based it suggests the range of grit at 800 - 1000. I have some slight concerns with how the ANSI and JSI Standards vary greatly from that being stated by a lot of natural stone suppliers. Japanese nat stones being a relevant example. Based on what is being declared by these Japanese nat stone suppliers, I would rate this stone equivalent to 8000 grit. This is to large extent based on the level of sheen left on the steel after being worked by the stone. The finer the scratches, the higher the grit, the change in sheen to reflective shine. Some alloy steels such as A2 and PM may vary slightly from this principle. Moving on to the photo's, the 1st photo shows the secondary bevel after being worked by the stone. The 2nd photo shows both the primary and secondary bevels after a dozen strokes on the pure chromium oxide impregnated leather stropping block. The end result is a very sharp cutting edge.

regards StewieS;

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/...pspzgr42jf.jpg

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/...psytgq8s2j.jpg

Of interest, if I were to reduce the total weight of this stone by 25g (4.8% of its current weight), it would still be borderline high of a Washita's range of SG. (2.25 or under)

StewieS;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StewieS

aaron; I am prepared to listen. Put forward your case that the stone is not an Ark, but a Washita.

StewieS.

---

I have no big reason. A while back I posted a stone real similar and it was identified to be a Washita by the people on this forum. Personally if you brought that stuff to me and asked me what it was I would say it's a Washita. http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...040b578838.jpghttp://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...3d0ea8d5eb.jpghttp://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...43c8212a78.jpg
I still have yet to fully lap this Stone.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StewieS

~~~~ using the ANSI Standard, based it suggests the range of grit at 800 - 1000. I have some slight concerns with how the ANSI and JSI Standards vary greatly ~~~~~ I would rate this stone equivalent to 8000 grit.~~~~~

---

Yep that is how Ark's work, Dan's appears to be the cause of these inaccurate grit ratings, my opinion (not fact) Dan seem to rate his Ark's based on what the grit would be if you could remove a quartz crystal from the stone and measure it, which is just not reality on the hard ark's as they don't release slurry unless your doing something crazy like sharpening an axe with lots of pressure and gauging out bits of rock, I might also mention not all quarry's are the same.

Also burnishing of hard/translucent/hard black(SB) can bring them up into the 15k to 20k+ range on some stones when honing with light pressure such as a razor, it is more about how they work than any grit rating, so in effect I am saying my prior sentence about 15-20k is bad form as well, I would prefer to never even mention a grit rating on Ark's but people like numbers.
I would really like to just call them as Washita = medium, Translucent/SB = finisher and polisher etc.

my .3 cents.

That stone is loaded with oil, so how it looks can change. I have remove all the oil from all my Arks and use them with water and Smith’s water soluble Honing Solution. Removing all the oil can take some time, it took years of soaking in dirty swarf and oil to look like it does.

All that counts, is how it performs. If you have other Arks, compare it to them to see where it will fit in your progression.

You cannot grit rate natural stones, but you can compare them to known grit stones, and even that can change from one side to the other. A shiny bevel and especially one stropped, on Chrome Oxide, tells you nothing about the stone.

What the stone is called, or looks like, does not matter as much, as how it performs. If you are going to hone razors, on that stone, I would use one side for tool and a smooth prepped side for razors.

I doubt it is a finisher for razors. Blacks and Tranlucent’s, are much better finishers for razors.

Euclid; you may want to refer to work of the late Henk Bos, who applied a grit rating to the natural stones featured within his website. https://bosq.home.xs4all.nl/info%202...ing_part_3.pdf

StewieS.

Yup, familiar with their work.

They give estimates… of 2-3k spread.

You cannot grit rate a natural stone, they were made by nature, over hundreds of thousands of years, there was no quality control.

Another stone I recently purchased from the U.K. (Most likely the last honing stone I am going to purchase.)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/...ps1djzhgzd.jpg

The top surface of the stone showed no obvious signs to its origin.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/...psg4p5yfy8.jpg

But the underside was quite different, and the primary reason I chose to bid on this stone. The grain pattern indicated a natural stone, and not a man made stone.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/...psgve0abtd.jpg

Flat sanding with 220, followed by 400 grit w & d, highlighted it as being a quick release slurry stone, of a soft to medium hardness. The swirly grain pattern was now much more obvious to see after a light spray of water.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/...psj8fcwqtg.jpg

The next photo shows the sedimentary layering within the stones side grain.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/...psmbexpkqc.jpg

Additional information;

Dimensions; 20.1 cm x 5.3 cm x 2.5 cm. (266 cm3)

Weight; 740 grams.

Specific Gravity (SF) = 2.78

Conclusion; the stone appears to be a highly featured Scotch Dalmore Blue. Possibly better suited to water as a lubricant than thin oil. A quick release slurry stone, suggesting a fast cutting stone. A high range in SF, indicating a large % of fine particles within its make up.

I would rate this as a high value/ high quality honing stone, purchased at a remarkably cheap price.

StewieS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Euclid440

Yup, familiar with their work.

They give estimates… of 2-3k spread.

You cannot grit rate a natural stone, they were made by nature, over hundreds of thousands of years, there was no quality control.

---

Euclid; not wanting to upset the apple cart between us, but a 2 -3 k judgement on the stones working properties, tells me far more about the stone than a simple rating of coarse, intermediate, or fine.

I understand that 2 natural stones of the same origin, mined from the same quarry, do need to be judged independently.

My apologies for reiterating my point of view. I will say no more on the subject.

regards StewieS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Euclid440

Yup, familiar with their work.

They give estimates… of 2-3k spread.

You cannot grit rate a natural stone, they were made by nature, over hundreds of thousands of years, there was no quality control.

---

Right on. I have tested plenty of natural stones and two examples of the same type stone can be considerably coarser or finer per example. I personally just like to rate natural stones as "razor bevel setter" "razor midrange" or "razor finisher." Alternatively swap the "razor" for knife, plane, chisel or whatever.

Dalmore Blue I would rate rate as "razor midrange" or "kitchen knife finisher."

That's a nice Dalmore Blue there Stewie. I like mine quite a lot for kitchen knives - quite a nice honing feel. I use mine with water. I would be kind of surprised if that was actually sold by Salmen. I'm inclined to think someone just stuck it in the sleeve.

Quote:

---

I would be kind of surprised if that was actually sold by Salmen. I'm inclined to think someone just stuck it in the sleeve.

---

EKretz; I am assuming you have limited knowledge of Salmen's background as an owner, major dealer and exporter of U.K mined natural sharpening stones. They were equivalent to Pikes from the USA.

StewieS;

“My apologies for reiterating my point of view. I will say no more on the subject.”


Not a problem, your stone may perform at x grit performance, but some new guy reads your post and thinks he can buy the same stone and expect the same, a la Chinese “12” K or the ethereal rating of EBay Slates. It did sell a lot of rocks.

What you must remember is that others will read these posts and not knowing better, believe claims.

There is no quality control in nature. Take a walk through a stone yard and look at the difference in slabs, from one side to the other, 1inch of material.

As for natural grit ratings, I understand and agree with the statements above with one caveat.

Here's a thought for discussion: With respect to a given natural stone used by a knowledgeable person, you could ask them 'What grit synthetic would you replace it with in a progression?' And I believe you would get a good answer.

Also, synthetics are not all the same grit either, there is some coarser and some finer grit in them too though the distribution is known and can be described.

Cheers, Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StewieS

EKretz; I am assuming you have limited knowledge of Salmen's background as an owner, major dealer and exporter of U.K mined natural sharpening stones. They were equivalent to Pikes from the USA.

StewieS;

---

Yes, I'm aware of that. However I hadn't heard that Salmen was also selling stones obtained from the Meikledale quarry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve56

As for natural grit ratings, I understand and agree with the statements above with one caveat.

Here's a thought for discussion: With respect to a given natural stone used by a knowledgeable person, you could ask them 'What grit synthetic would you replace it with in a progression?' And I believe you would get a good answer.

Also, synthetics are not all the same grit either, there is some coarser and some finer grit in them too though the distribution is known and can be described.

Cheers, Steve

---

That is true, but they at least are consistent hone to hone since the grit is screened/purposely sorted. I have seen natural stones that are purported to be "the same stone" vary quite a bit - since they are basically just grit/detritus deposited by Mother Nature, they aren't always very consistent. That was mostly the point I was getting at. Just because one person's natural stone is equivalent to "X" grit synth finisher doesn't mean they all will be, so it's difficult to give an accurate rating other than an approximate range.

I have no intention of buying more honing stones. So that in itself will represent the end of my posts on nat stones. (you can breath easy now gents).

StewieS;

I have no intention of buying more honing stones.”

Said the exact same thing to my bride, just the other day…

She laughed…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Euclid440

I have no intention of buying more honing stones.”

Said the exact same thing to my bride, just the other day…

She laughed…

---

I say that every week.

Well all have stated fine views on natural hone grit. Only remaining point is how to rate a nat hone? The last resort, after trying the hone on tests razors, could be to lick the hone and thereby comparing it to a synthetic of similar grit. There are threads about it here and thou the method is weird, it does work and gives a good key to the hone grit.

Just don't do it when the wife is at home. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristian

Well all have stated fine views on natural hone grit. Only remaining point is how to rate a nat hone? The last resort, after trying the hone on tests razors, could be to lick the hone and thereby comparing it to a synthetic of similar grit. There are threads about it here and thou the method is weird, it does work and gives a good key to the hone grit.

Just don't do it when the wife is at home. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

Considering there's no telling what some of my old stones are liable to have in them, licking them is perhaps not the best idea. I don't want to know what hundred plus year old whale oil, honing oils that are older than I am, or the simple green I used to leech the oil out of the hones tastes like. :dropjaw:

I think I'll stick to honing a blade on the rocks, then examining the stria under a loupe and giving it my best guess.

Marshal; do you honestly believe that whale oil was used.

StewieS;

Whale oil has low viscosity (lower than olive oil),[4] is clear, and varies in color from a bright honey yellow to a dark brown, according to the condition of the blubber from which it has been extracted and the refinement through which it went. It has a strong fishy odor. When hydrogenated, it turns solid and white and loses its unpleasant taste and odor.[5][6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_oil

Depending on the age of the stone? Without a doubt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honing_oil

Quote:

---

There are many different kinds of "honing oils" to suit different needs. It is important to use the appropriate solution for the job. In the case of knife sharpening, motor oil is too thick or "heavy" and can over-lubricate or clog a sharpening stone, whereas WD-40 is too "light" an oil and will not carry the metal filings plus stone dust (collectively known as "swarf") away from the stone, and clog it. Not using any oil at all will also clog or "glaze" the stone, again reducing its cutting power.[5] Historically sperm whale oil, Neatsfoot oil, and other animal fats were popular.

---

It wouldn't surprise me if a hundred plus year old Arkansas stone had seen some of all of the above. I've got a few that have been used with various motor oils, WD-40, Crisco, bacon fat, spit (with and without tobacco juice), corn and vegetable oil. And that's just what I saw my grandfather put on them in my life time.

Edit/addendum:

This is also why I balk when I see the suggestion of licking a stone.

I see no mention of spit........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 32t

I see no mention of spit........

---

Sorry, I was editing that in there because I forgot. Came in 2 varieties: With and without tobacco juice. :rofl2:

Yup. A lot of mention of sperm oil (from the head of a sperm whale) in old materials referring to Arkansas stones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal

Sorry, I was editing that in there because I forgot. Came in 2 varieties: With and without tobacco juice. :rofl2:

---

I expected tobacco spit would be too acidic to use. It might etch away whatever edge you're putting on the razor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KenWeir

I expected tobacco spit would be too acidic to use. It might etch away whatever edge you're putting on the razor.

---

Couldn't tell you. I never tried it myself, tobacco isn't my thing. And I wasn't about to argue with a man that was doing it before I was born. :beer1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eKretz

Yes, I'm aware of that. However I hadn't heard that Salmen was also selling stones obtained from the Meikledale quarry.

---

Yhen nw you have as I have few of those. Just to add to that knowledhe they were also giving jobs to Inigo Jones as I have seen their order book

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrspach

Yhen nw you have as I have few of those. Just to add to that knowledhe they were also giving jobs to Inigo Jones as I have seen their order book

---

Thanks to both of you for the info!