Trying to identify old hone. Help appreciated!

I just finished lapping up an old stone that was covered in old grease and dished out by a couple of millimeters. I was told that its an Arkansas stone. In general I know that the stones are more identifiable by their specific gravity, but as it is in the block and its a family heirloom that's not feasible at the moment. I flattened the stone using loose silicone carbide grit (very course, not sure what grit as it was from an unmarked bag for rock polishing) and then finished it up on wet/dry sandpaper up to 600 over a flat tile. It seems softer than my surgical black Arkansas stone but left a great edge on my every day knife ( I haven't tried out any razors on it yet). I forgot to take before and after photos but it was a hell of a transition from greasy black to what can be seen now. Here's a shot of the stone with a layer of mineral oil on it. I'm curious to know what it is, any ideas?

All input is greatly appreciated! :tu
-Sailor

https://photos.app.goo.gl/ggzFwJpmbuvmtWjy2

Attachment 289481

I don't know, but it looks great. Butterscotch Dalmore-Washita? Where's the family from and from what vintage? Thanks for keeping it in the block.

Yup, looks like an Arkie to me. They aren't super popular for straights, though some guys do use them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brontosaurus

I don't know, but it looks great. Butterscotch Dalmore-Washita? Where's the family from and from what vintage? Thanks for keeping it in the block.

---

We are in california, the owner of the stone says that it's been in the family for at least 100 years. It would have started out with his great grandfather around the Big Sur area here in California. I think it was originally used in a sawmill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

Yup, looks like an Arkie to me. They aren't super popular for straights, though some guys do use them.

---

I've observed a lack of arkansas stones being mentioned around the forum. I recently purchased my own set because I have HAD and I wanted a harder stone for larger knives. After lapping the surgical black stone ( purchased from Dan's) on the 325 dmt which took a very long time... I finished a my satin edge dd on it after taking it through the progression:
Dilucot
thuri
and the black arkansas with oil
and it shaved nicely.
Any particular reason you can think of that makes the less popular? As far as I understand arkies and Jnats are made of very similar if not the same components and they are extremely favored amongst honers. That said I haven't used a jnat myself yet, and the information that I am referencing had to do with arkansas stones, in which they referenced the fact that both arkies and jnats contain quartzite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SailorJ

I've observed a lack of arkansas stones being mentioned around the forum. I recently purchased my own set because I have HAD and I wanted a harder stone for larger knives. After lapping the surgical black stone ( purchased from Dan's) on the 325 dmt which took a very long time... I finished a my satin edge dd on it after taking it through the progression:
Dilucot
thuri
and the black arkansas with oil
and it shaved nicely.
Any particular reason you can think of that makes the less popular? As far as I understand arkies and Jnats are made of very similar if not the same components and they are extremely favored amongst honers. That said I haven't used a jnat myself yet, and the information that I am referencing had to do with arkansas stones, in which they referenced the fact that both arkies and jnats contain quartzite.

---

I love my translucent for finishing my kitchen knives. I guess I don't like oil stones on my razors and that would be the only reason

I really don't consider JNats and Arks to be similar either in performance or microscopic appearance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utopian

I really don't consider JNats and Arks to be similar either in performance or microscopic appearance.

---

Interesting! I was under the impression that they both have a lot of SiO₂ content. Though it sounds like jnats have a higher clay content (if arkansas stones have any). Have you done any investigation yourself into the composition or microstructures of the two varieties?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SailorJ

We are in california, the owner of the stone says that it's been in the family for at least 100 years. It would have started out with his great grandfather around the Big Sur area here in California. I think it was originally used in a sawmill.

---

If it was used in a sawmill, it could be a Washita, if not an Arkansas, as a Washita is a little more versatile. It would be good to see some closer shots of the surface in daylight (or otherwise color-balanced lighting) without the standing oil. Washitas will often pick up a black pepper dusting-like effect after use. Translucents and lily whites can feel more molten than a black hard when honing, the latter of which can seem more brittle in comparison.

Uhhh. Arks are damn near 100% microcrystalline silica. The closest stone found in nature to 100% silica. Usually something like 99.9% IIRC. They are not quartzite, that is a different animal, though quartzite can have a similar composition, characteristics and level of silica (not quite as high though). JNats are mostly way softer (yes there are exceptions, but pretty much ALL Arks are hard as a coffin nail) and with smaller percentage of silica (IIRC somewhere around high 60's% to low 70's%) but having more other things like alumina, mica, iron oxides, clays and others.

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.

Attachment 289498

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.

Quote:

---

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, . . .

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Gotcha. The distinction between ALL of these stones you mention is density. (They use specific gravity but it's basically the same distinction). There were actually several "grades" of Washita stones available back in the old days. From Lily White to No.1 and through to around No. 6 IIRC. The Lily White was the premium stone, very tight grain structure and regular grit with No. 1 being very nearly as good but with some small amount of physical blemish or grain irregularities. The stones got progressively worse in terms of "grit" or density regularity as the No. increased and also got progressively less dense, or more porous. This can be tested for by checking the percent of its weight in water the stone will absorb. IIRC a Lily White or #1 will be around 0.1% to 0.5% of its weight, where a number 6 could take in as much as 7%. It has been a while since I've pored over all the old geological reports.

The denser the stone the more likely it will resist grooving and give a finer edge. The nice thing about the Lily White and similar graded stones is that they cut fast, resist grooving and still produce a very keen edge. Rosy Red stones were merely those with some presence of red color likely due to iron oxide impurities. They most closely resembled Lily White or No. 1 otherwise.

There were some slight variations in hardness of the "binder" strength in the stones as well, with some Lily White styles being labeled as "Soft Grit" or similar and some not. Originally the stones were kept wet when mined until sold as the miners and users discovered that the characteristics of the stone would change somewhat if they were allowed to dry out, and not for the better. This was another reason the stones were advised to be used and soaked with oil.