Quote Originally Posted by Brontosaurus View Post
The problem for me is the default JIS reference that we are assuming on the forums. Only that makes a Naniwa 12k a "standard purchase" as suggested. Or why not refer to microns instead of JIS? Rather, if we go by collective wisdom or word of mouth, we might still arrive an agreed categorical system of "bevel setters," "mid-range stones," "finishers," and the like, be they natural or synthetic.
Completely agree! I think we could actually pick any number of synthetic finishing hones to use as the reference point, the Naniwa 12k makes sense because of how widely adapted it already is, as well as it's relative accessibility to people. In other words, it makes sense here and now but there is nothing inherent to it that makes it a better choice than a Shapton Glass 16k (for instance).

As long as people are using the same stone, we don't need to give it a grit or micron rating at all, since it would still allow people to say "In comparison to that Naniwa stone, I find the edges off this other stone keener/harsher/softer/duller/etc." This keeps the emphasis firmly on a standard starting point, one that is experiential rather than purely objective. As long as we keep this focus I don't think it matters that we're using the default JIS instead of microns, just that we're more or less using the same stone.