Thread: Beginners stone

Actually Norton rates their water stones on the JIS scale.

For how it actually performs, check out Grazors comment - last post in this thread:

http://straightrazorpalace.com/hones...-5k-jis-3.html

Really the only 'problem' with Norton hones is the lack of anything beyond 8K. And that's not really a problem - but they are considering fixing it. People have finished on the Norton 8K and gotten close/clean/comfortable shaves. They've also gone from the yellow brick to the Naniwa 10K/12K, every natural finisher known to man kind, CBN, FeOx, Diamond and Chrome Ox, Shapton 12/16/30K hones, the Gok 20, and I follow up with a Kuromaku 12K when I'm in the mood to create a ridiculously sharp synthetic edge.

Comparing the Norton 1/4/8 to Naniwa 1/3/5/8, Shapton 1/2/4/8, or King 1/4-6/8 is like comparing a 30-06 to a pair of .308s. and a .303 Brit. Realistically there isn't much that one can do that the other 3 can't. Just a matter of figuring out which one of the Big 4 appeal to you and having at it. All roads lead to Rome.

Originally Posted by Marshal

Actually Norton rates their water stones on the JIS scale.

Norton is an American company, but they are owned by Saint-Goban, a French company. Thus, they are more likely to use North American (ANSI/CASI) or European standards (FEPA) to rate their abrasives than they are to use the the current Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS).

I am basing my statement of Norton 8K being similar to a Naniwa 5K based on the following chart:

http://www.imcclains.com/productinfo...on%20Chart.pdf

I cannot verify the accuracy of the information in the file, but it looks like someone went to a lot of trouble to generate it. The chart shows a Norton 4K at 6 microns and a Norton 8K at 3 microns. The chart also shows the JIS 4K being 3 microns. The Naniwa 5K is a JIS stone so it should be less than 3 micron and thus comparable to the Norton 8K.

I specifically stated in my post that a lot of people like Norton stones and it is possible to shave off a Norton 8K. However, I have a tough, fast-growing beard and sensitive skin, so my standards for a shave ready edge are quite high. I do not consider either the Naniwa 5K or 8K to be suitable for producing a shave ready edge. Thus, it is unlikely I would enjoy shaving off a Norton 8K, but YMMV. Of course, those who do not have a true finishing stone can always use a variety of abrasive pastes and sprays to compensate for that omission. Hopefully, Norton will add a higher grit waterstone suitable for finishing.

The advantage of the Naniwa stones is that you get a similar feel for every stone in the series.

I have read that the Norton 4K and 8K individual stones seem to have a similar fee. However, I have also read that some people do not like the feel of the 4K side of a 4K/8K dual hone. I have not used the Norton waterstones, so I cannot comment from personal experience. I am only reporting what I have read. Again YMMV.

I find the Norton stones to be...different in the feedback category. As you say, Naniwa seems to keep a similar feel through the line up. Norton stones start off feeling quite aggressive/gritty at the 1K and get smoother as you work up the line. The 4k single grit is noticeably more gritty than the 8k, even if it doesnt have a porous manufacturing defect found in some 4k stones.I like that, but I can see where folks might prefer a similar feedback through the range like Naniwa provides.

I know they rate them by JIS, or at least they say they do. I suspect that is based on the hone's performance rather than it's cutting material particulate size. They don't auto slurry or wear as much as Naniwa stones seem to, I suspect that like a Spyderco Ceramic hone or a Swaty barber hone the harder binder in a Norton hone allows them to use coarser material for a finer polish.

On one hand, I want to get another 8K to compare to. On the other, I don't want (another) stone that's just going to sit around collecting dust. I rarely use my synthetic stones as-is. Maybe one of these days I'll spot a well worn Naniwa, King, or Shapton 8k for sale cheap that I can pick up for testing purposes.

There seems to be some confusion as to the ratings of Norton waterstones.
I found a document on the Norton web site as referenced below.

http://www.nortonabrasives.com/sites....pdf?t=2410995

It seems to indicate that the Norton waterstones are referenced according to JIS, but it also specifically indicates that the Norton 4000 stone is 6 micron and the Norton 8000 stone is 3 micron. That is exactly the information I provided in my previous posting.

There are two JIS ratings. There is an older JIS and there is a new JIS. Perhaps, Norton is going by the older JIS system.

Naniwa is now using the New JIS system for rating their stones. Thus, I still believe that a Norton 8000 (3 micron according to Nortons own information) is similar in grit to a Naniwa 5000 which by the new JIS system should be slightly less than 3 microns. When you specify grit levels there is always some confusion as to how the grit is rated. When you specify microns, there is less confusion.

Of course, the micron size of an abrasive particle does not tell the entire story. Particle shape is also important. Although the garnet crystals in a Coticule may be several microns in size, the dodecahedral (12 sided) shape of the crystal allows it to deliver a scratch pattern much finer than an octahedral (8 sided) crystal of similar size.

It's not the old JIS scale. Old JIS scale ended at 3K, 5.7 Microns. If the old one had continued to rate grit finer than 5.7 microns, 3 microns would come in around 5.5K or 6K grit.

It remains irrelevant to compare grits of different hone series. The size of the grit is not the only factor that affects scratch pattern. As long as you progress up a single series of hones you'll be fine, but if you want to compare the size of grit of a Norton hone versus a Naniwa hone, the only valid way to make that comparison is by scratch pattern.

I wonder just how many times that old Grit Comparison chart is going to cause this same old discussion

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I wonder just how many times that old Grit Comparison chart is going to cause this same old discussion

Just about every time...

Excellent explanation.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I wonder just how many times that old Grit Comparison chart is going to cause this same old discussion

The dead horse shall be beaten until morale improves.

Or until someone sits down with a bunch of 8K stones and a good microscope to lay the argument to rest.

Addendum: might also change when people realize they're honing with every component in the hone, not just the loose grit that's doing the cutting.