Thread: Trying to identify old hone. Help appreciated!

Thank you! I was just trying to identify the stone, I certainly intend to go through and investigate it further for myself when time permits.

Here's a photo of the stone in the light sans oil.



I was under the impression that washitas were a specific type of arkansas stone.
I take it from the way you mentioned it and it's properties that it might be a category onto itself. Is that the case?

Washita stones are composed of the same material as the "harder" varieties of Ark but are considerably less dense. This means the abrasive peaks are father apart, which equates to a slightly coarser stone and also allows particles to be dislodged easier which creates a faster cutting stone.

Sounds like that could explain how quickly the stone wore down during the lapping process, relative to my Arkansas stones.

I would call Washita stones a sort of parallel genre to Arkansas stones. Quarried in the same area, they are similar in composition, although I'll leave this to the more dedicated students of geology. In a workshop, they respond a little bit better to variances in pressure than the more static Arkansas stones, making them more "versatile" in this regard, the Arkansas stones benefiting more from various surfacing to extend their range. I've seen Washitas with an amber look like yours. They can even be slightly translucent. A lily white can go from bevel setting to early shaving stage with the same surface.

Nope, Washita is pretty much exactly the same in composition as a Hard, Black or Translucent Ark. 99% - 99.5% or 99.9% silica, forget which one it is. Actually I'm thinking 99.5% now that I've had a little time to ruminate. Google it if you really need to know. The difference is density. Washitas vary in porosity up to something like 16% IIRC. There are sometimes a few more impurities in some Washitas, and that is where you get the little black "pepper" spots or the "Rosy Red" etc. Some can even contain a little alumina (aluminum oxide). There are even other colors of "Washita" level stone but the best is the white stuff.

Easy-off is the best thing for cleaning up washitas I have found. If you would like to get it like new I would suggest loking for easy-off grill cleaner. Just spay it liberaly and put it in a turkey bag for 24hrs, then rinse it with water. Do this two to three times, with a final rinse with simple green or dawn dish soap to get the easy-off completely off. Works better than anything I have tried with a lot less work, and I have tried a lot of different methods. Good find! Washitas are very good stones with many uses, including straight razors.

Originally Posted by Brontosaurus

I would call Washita stones a sort of parallel genre to Arkansas stones. Quarried in the same area, they are similar in composition, . . .

Originally Posted by eKretz

Nope, Washita is pretty much exactly the same in composition as a Hard, Black or Translucent Ark. 99% - 99.5% or 99.9% silica, forget which one it is.

I don't think I said that they were different in composition.

Originally Posted by Brontosaurus

I don't think I said that they were different in composition.

"Parallel genre" and "similar in composition" seemed to say that to me, perhaps I misinterpreted. Mea Culpa. They are composed of pretty much exactly the same stuff though, not similar.

Thanks. You're obviously knowledgeable as to the composition, and yet a fluctuating distinction is to be made between Arkansas and Washita stones, particularly with regard to old versus new terminologies. Let's go back to Dan's "Stone Grades 101" table. There, it shows a past federal government grading that makes soft and hard Arkansas distinctions, whereas the current federal government grading allows for the harder end of the former soft category to be labelled hard (meaning the current crop of hard stones). Above all this, the Arkansas geological commision's grading for Washita matches the old federal grading for soft Arkansas, while the current Dan's Washita is the softest of the soft Arkansas stones. So, traditionally, one might say that a Washita stone is nothing more than a soft Arkansas stone of old, this extending into the current hard labelling. Dan's says that the Washitas are almost gone, and yet they're still cranking out soft and hard Arkansas stones which could be Washitas under the old AGC listing.

And if that isn't complicated enough, my experience in using labelled lily white and no. 1 Washitas is that they do act a bit differently to soft, hard, and translucent Arkansas stones as currently labelled, the lily white in particular being capable of a wide range, and being more molten in polished feel than any soft or modern hard Arkanasas, approaching translucent (or hard of old). Others have concurred with Washitas as termed having a wider range. Pike's old labelling of soft Arkansas alongside rosy red, no.1, and lily white Washitas seemed to imply that a distinction was being made there, but what was it exactly? Not having used a rosy red Washita or an old-labelled soft Arkansas, I would say that the current Dan's stone that comes closest to a no. 1 Washita would be its hard Arkansas stone, whereas its true hard or translucent stones would come close to the lily white. And yet the true hard or translucent are a bit finer than the lily white, while the current hard Arkansas is not as aggressive as the no. 1 Washita, etc. So that is what I meant by a "parallel genre," that the Washitas of old seem to be capable of more of a sliding scale, in addition to appearing to have slight surface differences regarding the orientation of the grain and the way swarf accumulates on it. Maybe it all boils down to the familiar adage that "the new stones are nothing compared to the old stones" and all that, as well as an issue of terminology, but a subtle distinction seems to be there.