Thread: Two Shapton 8000 Glass Options?

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

This is part 2. I didn't want to make the first post too long. I have had a 16k glass briefly and I thought it was very good. I traded it because I already have the full set of Shapton Pros and with a 12k, and a 15k couldn't see the point in keeping it unless I was going for a full set of glass and I decided I was happy enough with the pros. Many members both honemiesters and honesters have had great performance on razors with the 16k.

Anyway, my take is that if you are going to polish all of the scratches from the previous grit completely off then maybe Harrelson's gray 8k may be the ticket. If you want to sharpen the razor to shave ready IMO polishing all the scratches out of the bevel up to 16 or 30k isn't necessary and I would argue isn't advisable.

For the bevel setting I could see polishing those out but when you get into 4/8 territory and the razor is sharp enough to shave you're there and polishing the bevel beyond that is optional and I would think could lead to overhoning for many. If someone knows their stuff and they want to look at the bevel under the microscope and see it sans scratches then rock on.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the 16000, but my point to him was what was the point of going that high and still having scratches left in the bevel. Jp still use some really cool trad carbon laminated steel in there hand tools the blue(a little harder more prone to chipping) and the white( IMHO a higher quality with academic difference in edge holding but does not chip as easy) These steels are old just like our razors. The point before I go off on rant raise about non razor tools and raise whiskers(never mind...) I thought for a moment that this hone might fit better in progression and use the 16000 for the gooeey A2 plane blades for a treat on those microbevels. (Don't even go there with Harrelson)
So long story short, i will let you know how it works.
M

T. Odate has an interesting page in his book on Jp. Tools dealing with micro-bevels.

nothing to do with razors.

Not all razors are made of old crucible Swedish sand. Early 20thc. efforts are likely some alloy, right? Tungsten and such. I'm not sure really. Then there are those highly abrasion resistant stainless things.

If it is too aggressive that would (or could) explain some of the complaints of harshness- which I think one might say is a case of microchipping not "too sharp"

Originally Posted by kevint

If it is too aggressive that would (or could) explain some of the complaints of harshness- which I think one might say is a case of microchipping not "too sharp"

I think you might be right on that Kevin. Not saying that the 16k is the issue but micro chipping will have a harsh feel on the skin.

Originally Posted by kevint

T. Odate has an interesting page in his book on Jp. Tools dealing with micro-bevels.

nothing to do with razors.

Not all razors are made of old crucible Swedish sand. Early 20thc. efforts are likely some alloy, right? Tungsten and such. I'm not sure really. Then there are those highly abrasion resistant stainless things.

If it is too aggressive that would (or could) explain some of the complaints of harshness- which I think one might say is a case of microchipping not "too sharp"

Interesting to see how masters like Odate find ways to plug into western markets DMT poducts an such..

Not my field but they were very traditional about them for long time. No doubt advances in purifying were just as important as the alloys. I have "modern" Engstrom with 1912 date still on the box, how ever they did, holds an edge like no other.

It would be hard to believe that the impact forces from particles that small would cause microchips, but when the bevel gets that close could be some of those scratches might be causing failure that way. Whatever, I'm over with using the 16000 on razors. I might do what jimmy does for now and get more time off the 12000 pro series. I have Chinese but even for the price it does not work for me.
Mike

As luck would have it, we have a typhoon today, and the wind and noise woke me up at 3am, so I snuck downstairs to get a little sharpening therapy.

I won an ebay razor that was practically shave ready, but since it had some chipping, I decided to bread knife and start sharpening from scratch. I just got my JP 4K and 8K stones in the mail, so I thought I'd give them a try. (I also got my Naniwas, but that is for another thread)

When I was told about the stones, I figured it would be a hybrid - fast cutting like the glass, but with a sturdier binding like the pros. Turns out my assumptions were true. As mentioned, the JP stones are gray, while the regular glass are white.

I used the 1K and 2K glass, then tried the 4K's - a few passes on each to feel the difference, if any. Personally, the white 4K responded more favorably than the JP on the razor. The JP 4K felt very similar to the pro 5K, but with just a little more "give" (Olivia knows what I mean).

The 8Ks were another story, though. I actually found the JP 8K to have more positive feedback tan the white 4K. Again, the 8K JP was similar to the 8K pro, but with a little more give. (The 8K pro is actually softer than the 5K pro, which is a very dense stone.)

As for the purpose of the JP stones, it is quite clear that if one doesn't have a Lie-Neilsen plane, the JP glas stones are a more cost effective alternative (or better, compromise) to the 15mm pro stones.

Pics and product #'s below.

I am so lost here guys.....

I have used the white Shapton Glass Stones from 220 to 30K on about 2,000 old, new, carbon, stainless and damascus razors and they worked fine. At this point I personally like the feel of the Naniwa Supers a little better and have been using them for about 2,000 razors also with great results. I was never a fan of the Shapton Pro's (Personal Preference) and got rid of mine a long time ago.

Lynn

Originally Posted by Lynn

I am so lost here guys.....

I have used the white Shapton Glass Stones from 220 to 30K on about 2,000 old, new, carbon, stainless and damascus razors and they worked fine. At this point I personally like the feel of the Naniwa Supers a little better and have been using them for about 2,000 razors also with great results. I was never a fan of the Shapton Pro's (Personal Preference) and got rid of mine a long time ago.

Lynn

Jimmy very kindly loaned me his entire set of Shapton Pros so that I could try them out. Given that I have never touched a set of Shapton Glass Stones I cannot make a comparison to them, but I will say that so far I really like the way the Pros FEEL during honing because they release a lot of slurry. However, so far I have struggled to get good edges off of them. At least half the time I have had to go back to the hones after the shave test. I'm assuming the problem is my inexperience with these new hones. Lynn, could you elaborate on what it was about the Pros that you didn't like?

I am trying to find out if the glass stone Japanese version is the same as the pro series. Lynn, Harrelson old me the older pro series is "old technology" and the new glass japanese version for 8000 grit different all together generation of material. I think it would be interesting to get to the bottom of it.
Mike

Originally Posted by Kingfish

I am trying to find out if the glass stone Japanese version is the same as the pro series. Lynn, Harrelson old me the older pro series is "old technology" and the new glass japanese version for 8000 grit different all together generation of material. I think it would be interesting to get to the bottom of it.
Mike

Please let us know what you find out. I know Harrelson has't honed many razors, but his opinion on the differences in the technology would be very welcome.

Thanks,

Lynn

Originally Posted by Utopian

Jimmy very kindly loaned me his entire set of Shapton Pros so that I could try them out. Given that I have never touched a set of Shapton Glass Stones I cannot make a comparison to them, but I will say that so far I really like the way the Pros FEEL during honing because they release a lot of slurry. However, so far I have struggled to get good edges off of them. At least half the time I have had to go back to the hones after the shave test. I'm assuming the problem is my inexperience with these new hones. Lynn, could you elaborate on what it was about the Pros that you didn't like?

My biggest problem with them was consistency. I could only rely on about a 50% hit rate with my usual routines. Took a lot more time experimenting to get an individual razor where I wanted it.

Lynn