Thread: That shaped hone...

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I am sorry but what makes you think, some of us haven't tried it ???

Hell I have even tried using simple Crock Sticks too, so far with experienced hands there isn't one system I haven't been able to make work

The answer is,,, there is no advantage over flat hones, honing proficiency isn't in systems it is in the hands..

Nothing replaces time on the hones, or "The more you hone the better you get"

I also love when people say "Faster / Easier" we see exactly what easier and faster looks like from Dovo

Sorry but if it was easier, faster, better, those of us that hone professionally would be all over it...


But Hey, if it works for you and you like it go for it

There’s no reason for a convex or narrow hone to be used on a properly made and honed straight razor.

Glen is correct that other people have tried convex hones. Iwasaki (1960s) even mentions in his chapter for barbers that lapping a stone with loose grit will make it slightly convex and he is correct.

I’ve replied with this image of my glass plate for making convex JNats on these threads on two other forums where people think that no one else has tried one. Crickets every time.

I also disagree that honing on a domed hone is easier. It’s harder to maintain the wear on the toe and heel as even as the center. Here’s Dovo’s own image. Look at where the swarf is on the stone - in the middle. Note that both the toe and heel are off the stone and imagine what stroke contortions you have to do to get even wear on the toe and heel. You can do it, but it is not easier IMHO. On a stone shaped like that you’d have to hone the toe and heel separately to keep the wear even then blend everything together. That’s why many of Dovo’s razors frown, because maintaining even wear on a domed hone is harder, not easier.

Is there a use for them? Sure, they’re functionally a narrow hone as you can see by the swarf pattern Dovo’s image - they’re really only using the middle 1-1/2”. It’s a nice convenience sometimes. I have tringular and pointy (but flat) hones for those cases. But you don’t need a narrow or convex hone.

This is a false equivalency like saying if you have observed one 1950s television program you do not need to see anything further from the concept of the television.

At best, your effective diameter via your concaved glass might be 10m. This is unlikely to be felt shaving and only slightly when honing.

Please reduce your diameter to 8m maximum, but at 5m to maximum 8m primary axis ( = maximum diameter upon terminus of cutting edge), the changes will be undeniable.

Below 5m diameter, the visual change in bevel width should begin to become apparent if one is only used to observing flat V-shaped bevels.

The best functionality will come from a small diameter (1-2m) to thin the rear or bevel width without addressing its apex, followed by successively larger diameter refinement/finishing to guarantee a precise terminus.

The concept of wheel shaped convex hones is much more complicated than saying "here is visual proof I have used one slightly dished sheet glass, so I therefore understand all manner of wheel-shaped abrasives on hollow ground knives, at any diameters".

When you significantly thin the entire bevel form and reduce its cutting edge as well, the difference in the manner of the shave is well established, as has been [in German-only text] since 1834.

Originally Posted by razorfranken81

This is a false equivalency like saying if you have observed one 1950s television program you do not need to see anything further from the concept of the television.

At best, your effective diameter via your concaved glass might be 10m. This is unlikely to be felt shaving and only slightly when honing.

Please reduce your diameter to 8m maximum, but at 5m to maximum 8m primary axis ( = maximum diameter upon terminus of cutting edge), the changes will be undeniable.

Below 5m diameter, the visual change in bevel width should begin to become apparent if one is only used to observing flat V-shaped bevels.

The best functionality will come from a small diameter (1-2m) to thin the rear or bevel width without addressing its apex, followed by successively larger diameter refinement/finishing to guarantee a precise terminus.

The concept of wheel shaped convex hones is much more complicated than saying "here is visual proof I have used one slightly dished sheet glass, so I therefore understand all manner of wheel-shaped abrasives on hollow ground knives, at any diameters".

When you significantly thin the entire bevel form and reduce its cutting edge as well, the difference in the manner of the shave is well established, as has been [in German-only text] since 1834.

And yet Dovo still can't produce a shave ready razor on this system, which they use day in day out

Pretty much disproves the advantage of using it, that just keeps come up like a huge brick wall in all this discussion

You can make claims and spout theory yet in actual use Dovo had to file Bankruptcy because they insisted on producing not only subpar shaving edges, but actually damaged edges from frowns

What a great idea in practice huh,,, got any other bright ideas to wreck razors ???

Originally Posted by razorfranken81

When you significantly thin the entire bevel form and reduce its cutting edge as well, the difference in the manner of the shave is well established, as has been [in German-only text] since 1834.

So British & American made razors, to name a couple, have got it all wrong or are there some "texts" from Wade & Butcher or other makers who make similar claims ?

If so please enlighten us. If not then I think it's a marketing ploy , like "resting" a razor for 24-48 hours.

senior moderator, you are making the false equivalency of the refinement of factory edges and their shape.

They are two very different things, the shape of the bevel and the refinement of the bevel's edge, but each matters.

The factory edge presuming honed on wheel shaped forms (as at Böker, Wacker, Thiers-Issard, do not forget to include them in your logic with Dovo) always has advantages of thinness, edge radius, and cutting angle versus any later corrections you will do with flat abrasives or with tape upon spine and flat abrasives (which even further harms edge thickness, cutting angle, and edge radius). It just comes as a less refined but thinner edged object which you "fix" by making highly refined and thicker edged object.

Factory labor time is costly and they can't spend the time per unit as in peak Victorian Era production (when one Solingen factory had over 200 grinders and another in Sheffield over 600, vs today the largest factory - Dovo - has only 10). Yes, you obviously improve the refinement in what you do, but only at the expense of the other 3 metric, and all of this now occurs at a position closer to spine.

The razor is never more capable of flexibility than at its longest width from factory, the goal should be to further refine *without* increasing edge thickness, radius, and cutting angle, and this is entirely possible simply by reshaping your abrasive field. Is this such an outlandish concept, that a wheel might influence uniquely versus a flat field? Try a few diameters on an experimental razor with whatever abrasives you prefer and see for yourself.

This predates the existence of Dovo, in print (an 1834 Leipzig text for grinding is highly detailed of which diameters and abrasives to use when in process), by not less than seventy years. By your equivalency the 1834 professor put in motion the bankruptcy proceedings 185 years to follow by instituting his foolish honing methods. That is silly.

Originally Posted by onimaru55

So British & American made razors, to name a couple, have got it all wrong or are there some "texts" from Wade & Butcher or other makers who make similar claims ?

If so please enlighten us. If not then I think it's a marketing ploy , like "resting" a razor for 24-48 hours.

No, the German textbooks are rather clear that Sheffield, England first adopted the process.

Are you stating that if you cannot find easily viewed in PDF form for English readers historical books from Sheffield and Victorian American production, that your conclusion is therefore that these parties used flat abrasives throughout their processes (and that therefore no such books existed, as 100% of books have been fully digitized)?

Do you have any proof that they did not exist, beyond that you have not seen them?

Do you have any proof of what grinders state either way besides the aforementioned one German grinders' textbook which clearly states they do?

Is the absence of immediate proof equal to immediate proof of absence?

What is (or was) today's financially-transparent goal for the 1834 textbook authors, to ensure a victory in a pub debate 181 years later?

If one would like to understand why razor companies such as Wacker Böker etc will not "answer letters", it is because of these sorts of thought processes - they do not feel they will be given any respect for their position as historical producer if anything they had to say did not agree with the local collective's self-determined fact, and they will instead have their integrity questioned for financial motive, when the brand / industry long term is always of their paramount importance.

Let's see.... We've heard all this before. This guy is trying to "save" everyone from the horrors of flat stones that have served us all well. The motivation is only to stir the pot AGAIN and maybe get a sale of a "specially" custom stone..and for the low low low price of x we even have the matching lapping plate for ya! Maybe for a couple bucks.more he can have matching pin stripes added to both. You thought you were shaving all these years. Those whiskers that went down the drain and your cleanly shaven face is all an illusion. Lol.

Actually "FrankenName" I would be willing to bet you are actually misinterpreting any of the writings if they exist just like has already been done here and conflating Hollow Grinding and Honing..

You have offered no proof of this anywhere and simply keep banging the same hollow drum

Also I wouldn't use any other Razor manufacturer's as proof,, those of us that have been at this for years remember the TI's of a decade ago with frowns as bad as Dovo's and none of them should be "Bragging" about any edge they produce.
The very idea that it takes too long in a factory setting to hone to a good edge falls on deaf ears too those of us that are actual experts and know better.. The Idea of losing life long customers by insisting that is a "Shave Ready" edge is simply bad business and it shows.

Let's also keep in mind that the very idea the a Hollowed Bevel would be a good thing is suspect if it is even possible which I doubt you can see any appreciable hollowing..

senior moderator, the proof you asked that the idea of shaping the bevel itself predated Dovo/modern qc labor shorting and was done for no motive beyond shaving comfort is shown in the first post of the thread.

Find a native German to read or translate pages 29-43 to you directly, it is made quite clear that the notion of reshaping a bevel from a flat is important among other discussions about which diameter to use when in the sharpening process, and ways to determine from observing a razor diameters were previously employed.

The 1834 'local encyclopedia' 19th c. book involving discussion of the convex hone.

https://www.google.com/books/edition...xwEACAAJ?hl=en

Broaden horizons by joining that overseas forum for more, you can see almost every page digitized.

Standard practice is just over 2mm of rise upon 200mm/8" length whetstone, making a radius ~2.5m; all competent grinders ably perform upon such a size. You do not need a shaping mechanism to try this on a waterstone, simply file away slightly beyond 2mm from the 70-75mm ends of any common 200mm length waterstone and blend this reduction in stone thickness toward the midpoint for a ~5m cylinder. Use a ruler to blend to center summit and check for and fixing irregularities by spot grinding/targeting,...this like long division has/was done by hand for nearly 200 years without issue.

On a standard Solingen 6/8" today, there is ~20.3mm from spine's contact to termination, slightly over 1mm average as the cutting edge (bevel) itself. With a 2.5m radius standard, your abrasive field moves 0.02060mm in to the hollow grind of the razor profile between the spine contact and the terminus, before returning to the edge from there, instead of always being beyond/aside the razor's physical borders with a flat field or with tape on spine and flat field (which will have larger discrepancy than .0206mm).

Mathematically, however finished in a grit refinement, shaping the abrasives in such a manner produces physically-narrower edges with reduced thickness/radius/cutting angle, on all tools, until the tool's metallurgical limits or physical obstructions would preclude further improvements via smaller wheels [straight razors are hardened precisely for such conditions, and welcome it].

You may state you do not concern yourself with this because you fix the factory edge razor with tape and much finer abrasives/time. But you cannot remove the prior mathematical advantage in thickness the rougher factory edge razor possessed simply by saying show homework or something like this; you fixed it, yes, but you thickened it as well - and some will with straight razor by definition consider this un-fixing it. Most crucially is that everything done to 'fix' the razor using flat fields must take place upon a materially-narrowing razor, while further refining with no labor cost time limits but keeping upon abrasives shaped <8m reference as the finishing shape in production would retain the thickness/radius/cutting angle advantages while producing the exacting-refinement edge condition you demand.

Your corrections are costing meaningful reductions in the lifespan of the tool at its absolute peak performance, for no improvements that could not also have been enjoyed merely by reshaping the abrasives that had been chosen by you.

Every hundredth of a millimeter further from the 'belly' of the Solingen hollow is precious, its best days are never ahead of it in width no matter the razor model, and there is no doubt you are meaningfully reducing that which you are honing in a completely preventable way. This is why many of the producers choose not to correct slight frown, they believe to some extent the wider razor the better ground razor for any given model, and to await consumption to discard that steel, that the perfectly straight and always slightly narrower version of the razor is actually the razor with less skill required to produce. This thinking needs to reverse, with modern tastes, and it will (in Solingen!) soon, upon which time the observed reductions in width of the familiar models sold by new producers will surely become that time's new topic.

Dear FrakenJarod

Stop just stop nobody is buying your stories any longer

Also your last dissertation has convinced me of EXACTLY who you are

That gives me an actual reason to lock this down and bring it to the Mods attention

Thread Closed for Mod Discussion