Thread: washita confusion

thank u kelbro for joining in
i didn t make myself clear, please read coment above which i was typing while u sent ur response.
the logical follow up questions are:

- WHY is the norton #1 your favorite?
- which leads to --> what are the other washitas like, whats their "title", do they have one?

see my confusion?

There are slight differences between Washitas just like there are between the different main Arkansas stones. There used to be a range of about 6 densities of Washitas IIRC from reading many old historical geological reports. They were differentiated by testing how much water (by weight) they could absorb. This basically was a test of their porosity. The finest would absorb something like 1% of their weight in water, the coarsest more like 6% - 7%. They were graded Lily White, #1, #2 etc. with Lily White being the finest and most uniform stones and higher numbers being more coarse (softer and more porous basically) and nonuniform in grit/porosity. #1 would be very close to a Lily White with perhaps some black speckling or very slight nonuniformity of grit or porosity size.

Another thing mentioned in the old geological reports was that the stones were softer when first mined - the mines reportedly did their best to keep the stones wet until they were sold, at which time purchasers were advised to use a very thin oil to keep the stones soaked with and during use.

ok, thats something i can work with. thank you very much.
since u r into this: any reports about that mechanic friends/ woodworkers (carpenters) dilight?

and of corse: any most heavily integrated rockhaunts here with expirience working with this stuff?

thank u guys

Sure, as I recall, the Woodworkers Delight, Mechanics Friend, Rosy Red etc. were all equivalent to #1 Washita, so on the finer end of the scale.

There are many here who use Washita stones, I myself have probably near a dozen.

As far as softer or harder Washitas, this is really mostly a matter of which end of the 1 - 6 scale they're at. The ones closer to the Lily White/#1 end will be a bit finer, denser and "harder" (in reality the hardness isn't different but the higher density makes it harder to pull abrasive particles loose, so it's kind of equivalent to using a harder bond grinding wheel). "Softer" Washitas will cut faster but groove easier. Harder ones will cut a mite slower and finer but are harder to groove.

GREAT, thank you very much!

My understanding is that the hard and "true hard" Arkansas classifications have changed over time and that this change originates at the Federal government level. Thus, an old Behr-Manning/Norton "hard Arkansas" would now be called a "translucent" and a current-production "hard Arkansas" is actually a "soft Arkansas" on the old scale. "True hard" in current production is to distinguish it from the current "hard" appellation.

Dan's website has a good chart explaining this: https://www.danswhetstone.com/inform...ne-grades-101/. On the "Past U.S. Federal Government" heading, it shows "hard Arkansas" beginning at the current "true hard" grade, whereas on the "Current U.S. Federal Government" heading, it shows "hard Arkansas" extending down into what would have been considered "soft" in the past.

As for Washitas, this is bit different. Dan's chart rates them as quite coarse, but I think that this only relates to what they may have as a supply. I have a Washita stone from Dan's, and it is very different from the "No. 1" or "Lily White" of old sold by Pike/Behr-Manning/Norton. Dan's Washita is more like pumice in that oil passes through it like a sponge. The "No. 1" and "Lily White" of old never do this. And they are not coarser. The No. 1 is a very nice bevel-setter and acts sort of like a current-production soft or hard Arkansas. The Lily white will also set a bevel, but it's action is more like a current-production translucent; one can carry out the honing with it quite far, almost to the shaving level. So from this I sort of consider Washitas as running on a scale parallel to the Arkansas line, to which they are related, rather than necessarily being a grade coarser.

I would agree with that for the most part, but in my experience the Washitas definitely cut faster than even soft Arks. It's not that they necessarily produce a coarser finish though. Since the Lily Whites are actually quite fine (but still fast cutting) they are often a favorite. #1s are not far behind at all though, and as we are dealing with natural stones, some #1s may be better than some Lily Whites. Many get around the fineness that occurs once the stones settle in by keeping one side somewhat freshly lapped and the other left alone to settle in, myself included.

I have shaved from a Washita with no issues but for me at least special techniques are necessary for a comfortable shave i.e. spine leading, (or backward to convention) honing strokes and a heavy linen stropping - and sometimes a few trips back and forth.

Interesting thread you started. I've become interested in novaculite stones since they since they are local, less expensive, and seem to be capable of everything from bevel setting to finishing.


Steel sent me a PM that helped me understand them a bit better. Maybe he will chime in with some more info. It looks like there has already been a lot of info provided.


I purchased a white/grey transluscent stone from Dan's booth at the Blade Show (they said it would cut faster than the black) and now wish I tried to find a dark transluscent as well. I have an old Norton transluscent ark, but it is a short barber hone and a I want something with a lot more surface area to work with.

Sorry for the delay. I can't add any more than what ekretz and Bronto compiled and my results mirror theirs exactly. Some of the later stones labeled Washita or Oachita seem to be more porous and coarser and not in the finisher class. I don't see a lot of difference between them and many 'soft arks' that I've purchased.

The older stones are fantastic cutters and leave a nice finish. Not like a SB or translucent but still very nice.

ok, i started this thread because i am confused about getting a benshmark about what to expect from washitas. here are my thoughts about this and i don t want to offend anybody, i really appreciate your comments here, they were very helpfull to tune me into this and i especially like to thank DaveW for joining in since his youtube videos lead me into this.

i appologise for beeing to dump to link several commets here.

- density:
comment from eKretz:

There are slight differences between Washitas just like there are between the different main Arkansas stones. There used to be a range of about 6 densities of Washitas IIRC from reading many old historical geological reports. They were differentiated by testing how much water (by weight) they could absorb. This basically was a test of their porosity. The finest would absorb something like 1% of their weight in water, the coarsest more like 6% - 7%. They were graded Lily White, #1, #2 etc. with Lily White being the finest and most uniform stones and higher numbers being more coarse (softer and more porous basically) and nonuniform in grit/porosity. #1 would be very close to a Lily White with perhaps some black speckling or very slight nonuniformity of grit or porosity size.

Sure, as I recall, the Woodworkers Delight, Mechanics Friend, Rosy Red etc. were all equivalent to #1 Washita, so on the finer end of the scale.

conclusion: the lily white are a finer stone, no1 one a litle less fine aso, and it s referred to the density. ok, we all know about this density stuff.

problem:
comment from DaveW:
There's one thing posted earlier in this thread that I thought I'd comment on since I'm here. The lilywhite and No 1 washitas are generally coarse "soft" washitas if they are labeled, unless they're labeled otherwise.
The end labels will say "soft and fast cutting" or "medium hard and fine cutting" or "hard and fine cutting".

even more problem with the comment fron DaveW:
I have a No. 1 that even when the surface is dressed it is much more “glass like” and cuts slower than my Lily whites but doesn’t leave an edge like the Lily whites either. A bit better than a soft Arkansas but not much.

there were 2 washis on ebay this week, one called soft, one medium hard.

conclusion: the density stuff is NOT the thing that is eponymous for calling a washita a lily white. seems to me, thats all about appearence, meaning being white, and maybe a more evenly gritted one, leaving more consistent results.

problem:
comment from DaveW: The lilywhite stones were always clear.

i ve seen some lilly white s that were modeled. there is a labeled modeled one on ebay right now.

conclusion: it can t be appearance either.
so: i thought of getting an idea from page 1 + 2 about washitas, now i m even more confused.

conclusion: just figure them out, it s all just names, am i wrong or did i miss something specific?