Have been looking at Arkansa stones. Have read conflicting information on the black and translucent stones. Which is supposed to be finer. I know they are graded by density but seen conflicting information on that also.
Thanks Ray
Printable View
Have been looking at Arkansa stones. Have read conflicting information on the black and translucent stones. Which is supposed to be finer. I know they are graded by density but seen conflicting information on that also.
Thanks Ray
Yeah, it is one of those "it is, until it isn't" kind of things. Density seems to be the only consistent way of judging how fine/coarse it is.
I have an old Norton barber hone that is a hard grey transluscent and it is probably finer than the hard black Arkansas stones you can order new now.
Try doing a search as there are a few useful threads on the topic with information from guys that know a LOT more than I do.
According to Dan, and this is the source for many decades, he said there's no difference in the black or Trans, if the density is the same then it's the same, I believe Dan knows. Tc
Either one of those, if lapped flat and burnished with a kitchen knife or cleaver, will put a surgical edge on a razor. I doubt most journeyman honers could tell the difference, though my own vintage Norton translucent feels finer to me than my more recently prepped surgical black.
We have some serious Arkie aficionados on this board who can give you much more technical info. re the importance of specific gravity and clear up the often confusing nomenclature.
But honestly, get a good specimen of either, and given a solid, repeatable honing stroke, you can put an unbelievably sharp, crisp edge on any blade with some work beyond any 8-12k synthetic without going down the technical rabbit hole. Have fun and hone on!
A trans stone that passes light will be a good stone. Dan's black stones are about the same specific gravity and fineness as the best trans stones. Most other black stones aren't as dense and therefore aren't as fine.
Old Norton or pike (rare) black stones are good, if someone is pushing the old halls stock, those are ok, but no black stone that I've tried- new or old - is better than dans black.
If a full thickness stone is too expensive, get half thickness or combo to cut the cost.
As mentioned above, specific gravity determines fineness far better than anything else. The subpar black stones lack density. The good ones are mid 2.6s. At about 2.6, you start seeing pores, and pores are aggressive cutters until a stone is very broken in. That's bad.
I really like my Arkansas stones. I have a couple of smaller ones I got in a knife kit. A soft and hard, They feel very fine with a buttery consistency. When I started on straights I got a new 8" soft/hard combo and a black. It took a long time to get the new combo to break in, and now the soft on the combo feels nice and buttery. The hard still feels a bit gritty. The black I got after lapping and burnishing it is glassy and provides a great edge I've played with synthetics and film but I get my best edges off the Arkies. I use a honing oil that I make that is equal parts mineral oil and mineral spirits. The honing solution is important to keep your stones free of swarf and keep them working for you.
Black and Translucent are the same, the difference is literally coloring of the stone. Novaculite is novaculite, it's %99 silica if I remember right. The only difference between a Soft, Hard, or True Hard/Surgical Black/Translucent is the density of the material. Like Dave said, the lower the density the more porous. A more porous stone will be an aggressive cutter (Soft), a less porous stone (Translucent/Surgical) will be finer and slower. True Hard, Black, and Translucent stones are all in the same density range so their performance overlaps one another. Getting this color or that will not increase the odds of getting a stone with higher density.
Dan’s lists the surgical black as finer than the translucent. The translucent costs more due to its rarity.
https://www.danswhetstone.com/inform...ne-grades-101/
And if you look at the bottom of the page, it lists them as 2.50+ specific gravity. You could have a Surgical Black stone at 2.51 and a Translucent at 2.55.
Not that your blade will know the difference. Straight from the horse's mouth:
http://straightrazorpalace.com/hones...hetstones.html
Now why they say outright color has no bearing on the stone's performance, and a Translucent or True Hard will perform the same, but on their site perpetuate the same general belief that surgical black is "Ultra Fine" I dunno. Maybe for that particular classification they take a little extra time and only ship out stones with a particularly high density? But I did notice when they revamped their site this particular page did not make the cut. I think perhaps it's back by popular demand
Arkansas eye candy:
Attachment 280372
Green True Hard, banded brown Translucent stone, and a Surgical Black.
My current surgical black and translucent produce identical (to me) edges.
Dan's is a solid source for top quality, flat stones.
I want to thank every one for their responses.
I have ordered a 6x3 surgical black from Dan's. Now comes the learning.
Thanks again
Dan's has a nice selection of stones at the annual Blade Show. I bought a light transluscent stone there but wish I had gotten a larger one. The gentleman at the booth from Dan's claimed the black were slightly finer and the lighter transluscent ones were faster cutters. According to the info referenced earlier on Dan's site their representative was not giving good information.:soapbox:
That is not cool.
No reason to suspect anything. Dan's did state that the black was their finest stone at one point. Functionally:Quote:
Originally Posted by JP5
1) there's no real difference between the two, but the advice you got from the rep isn't bad advice
2) the level of fitness that you'd get from either would be dependent on your conditioning of the surface of the stone (that is, breaking it in).
If a stone is very translucent, you can always assume that it is almost maximum specific gravity (and fineness). If it appears to have pores and doesn't pass light well, then it may not be quite as good, but will probably still be good. There is a noticeable difference between a marginal norton trans at 2.6 and a dan's stone that's right around the maximum (2.67). A norton trans at that density struggles to pass light as well as a more dense stone.
Almost everyone else's black stone falls short of dan's stone, so if you are shopping used stones or new stones, and you're not looking to pay what dan's wants, I'd stick with trans stones. Even if they're smaller. It's a safer bet. Some of the worst black stones out there are REALLY bad and will never finish a razor.
You'll probably find the one from Dan's to be pretty flat, so hopefully no lapping, just burnishing. Congrats and have fun.
I thought that I had read that Dan's stones were as already lapped. I hope this is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsFan75
But as to burnishing, I'm not sure how to do this. Some one said use a meat cleaver. I would think the skarp shoulders would scrape rather than burnish.
Yeah, mine was plenty flat. It just needs burnishing if it was going to be a razor finisher. Otherwise it is good to go as is.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsFan75
I used my woodworking hand planes and chisels, chefs knives and cleavers, and then a piece of tool steel I had. I ran a lot of steel over it, keeping it wet, took a while too.
I don't know and am just bringing this up but I wonder if since the stones are natural that both claims may be true depending on where they were harvested. I would think that the layers would change as they were mined therefore the properties would change as time went on.Quote:
Originally Posted by JP5
If the rep stated that the batches that you were being offered acted that way I would believe him/her.
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have said he gave bad info. He probably told me what he thought to be true at the time. If he had explained the difference between the two I probably would have gotten a black stone instead. Oh well. They had good deals on them anyway so.:rock:
It could still be true, but the difference might be minimal. I'd say if they're within a couple of hundredths on average, you call them approximately the same. If they differ by a tenth (in specific gravity), you'd actually be able to tell that when you used them. I've had barely translucents (two) that were right around 2.6 or ever so slightly below, and at that, they start to have tiny pores on them that you can see. It takes longer to break them in, and if you lap them, you start over with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JP5
Those were norton trans. I think Dan might be eating Norton's market of natural stones, because the supply of natural stuff from Norton seems to be less consistent these days. They changed the name of their HT stones from Hard Translucent (in print on the side of the stone) to Hard, which is what they used to use in the old days. Soft and hard, and then washitas were a separate schedule with subgrades of their own. They still have the washitas, but they don't mine them (nobody else has "real" washita stones other than Norton). I'd speculate, but it's only a guess, that Norton stopped labeling their stones Hard Translucent because it's not that easy to supply long clear trans stones economically and maybe they were processing what they had on hand at the time instead of mining more. I vaguely recall hearing that the mining and processing are in different geographies, so it may not be trivial to keep a constant supply.
And there is the economic reality that novaculite must be a small portion of Norton's revenue, and probably the biggest hassle in terms of supply because it's a natural product that's variable.
