Thread: Possible vintage Thuringian

Good evening Gents

I have not posted in quite some time. I do apologise. I have however, been lurking, from time to time herein, since I have intermittently lost and regained interest in straights, but always maintained interest in hones. I was messaging Jimmy a couple of weeks ago about Eschers and briefly mentioned a stone I acquired from a UK vendor on eBay about 5 years ago. I had always since acquisition assumed it was a Thuringian, perhaps mined by a individual rather than a company, due to its irregular shape and natural reverse side.

Pictures of the stone dry, wet, with and without slurry are shown below. It is green in colour with an orange line running though it. Irregular in shape, which is uncommon amongst Thuringians (but not coticules) it is 4.75 inches in length by 1.8 tapering to 1.6 inches in width. You will note that the reverse is unfinished, possibly as a result of how may have been mined.

The slurry raised by an old DMT 325 is not plentiful compared to that yielded by a coticule, yet the stone is fairly soft compared to British stones however somewhat (but not immensely) harder than a coticule. The finish left on a razor is fine and provides a beautiful shaving edge IMHO.

Like some coticules, it is irregular in shape, soft and has markings. Again, like some coticules, it is green and a fine finisher. I have not attempted a dilucot method or bevel setting.

What do you think it is? As always, I would love to hear your thoughts or comments generally.

Best Regards

Maurice

Nakayama Asagi?

Good to see you posting once again Maurice, your stone does look similar to a Japanese natural. probably saying this because of the unfinished bottom of the hone.

Yea, no, the kawa doesn't match but the topside is a dead ringer. Especially if I'm seeing black dots on the top.

Thanks for the responses. You really think it could be a jnat? It never crossed my mind, having come from a U.K. Seller on eBay. I had always assumed it was a Thuringian or coticule (I have a very fine green coticule with markings which looks and behaves very unlike a typical canary coloured type).

My experience with jnats is limited to other members' comments on the forums and using Birnando's jnat (it may have been an oozuku) at a razrocon in London about 5 years ago, and it was a very different looking stone.

I would of course be interested in other opinions, but assuming it is a jnat, should I be using it differently?

What is the finish on steel like, with and without slurry?

when you lay a small, cylindrical rare earth magnet on a flat and smooth surface, you should be able to pull it with an escher or any thuringian stone. eschers are just a little bit magnetic. but not japanese stones from the umegahata valley (at least the ones i have).

btw. coticules and bbw are magnetic as well, even stronger than thuringians.

regards,
hans

Thank you Brightred, and thank you all for your comments. I shall purchase a magnet and give this a try! I am on vacation for the next two weeks but shall endeavour to post my results on return.

You should be able to tell the difference just by how hard the stone is. A Jnat will be hard, where as a Thuringian will be very soft.

when you lay a small, cylindrical rare earth magnet on a flat and smooth surface, you should be able to pull it with an escher or any thuringian stone. eschers are just a little bit magnetic. but not japanese stones from the umegahata valley (at least the ones i have).

btw. coticules and bbw are magnetic as well, even stronger than thuringians.

regards,
hans

I'm now going to go get my stones and a magnet.

Doesn't look like a thuringian to me. From the first look - shape and color and also the orange line - I would have voted for a charnley - I got a comparable one in color (also with an orange line), shape and also from the look to the backside. But since you say the stone is quite soft compared to british stones that would route out a charnley. Being harder than a coticule would also not be typical for a thuri. ?