Thread: What is a fast or slow hone?

How many laps makes one fast or slow? I know this won't be universal, but some numbers would help. I have zero means of trying out various quality hones, so I have to buy blind on the web. If a fast hone is 10-15 and a slow one is 20-30, even with the doubling of strokes and increased risk of a blown pass setting you back, I am looking at stones in the same grit range varying up to 4-5 times in price, sometimes much more. My Chinese 12K is slooow but cheeeap, as in I found 50 per side wasn't enough & 100 seems to work, but having used it, 1/4-1/3 that at ~3x cost would be okay considering what I spend on other sharpening stuff as a hobbyist.

I started with the Chinese 12k stone, and still use it for creating slurries. I have the Naniwa 12k and Shapton Pro 15k. Without using a slurry, these stones remove metal about 4x faster than the Chinese 12k and are finer at the same time judging by the polish. After a few strokes, you can clearly see the stone blackening with metal. Actually, my Shapton Pro 8k produces a shinier mirror polish than the Chinese 12k, which surprised me.

I found loading newspaper with 1 micron diamond paste to cut faster than the Chinese 12k, and is finer at the same time.

Interesting. I am finding it a little more difficult to correlate to knife sharpening than I initially thought. With the spine as an angle guide, thin geometry, and mostly straight edges with no belly, plunge, or tip to worry about, it seems one could go from bevel setting to shave ready in as many passes as it would take to reset a bevel and remove the scratches on a knife edge before even going to actual honing, particularly freehand. Add in edge damage or needing to thin the grind, and the time needed is crazy compared to being able to remove chips or a frown in a couple breadknifing passes.

I love how quickly it goes, and am now trying to see how fast is fast. Of course, speed costs in many cases.

Originally Posted by cotdt

I started with the Chinese 12k stone, and still use it for creating slurries. I have the Naniwa 12k and Shapton Pro 15k. Without using a slurry, these stones remove metal about 4x faster than the Chinese 12k and are finer at the same time judging by the polish. After a few strokes, you can clearly see the stone blackening with metal. Actually, my Shapton Pro 8k produces a shinier mirror polish than the Chinese 12k, which surprised me.

I found loading newspaper with 1 micron diamond paste to cut faster than the Chinese 12k, and is finer at the same time.

You've got to be careful not to confuse the look on the edge with the way the razor will hone. For example, the Japanese natural hones, which produce fantastic shaving edges, leave a hazy finish.

I'm also curious as to your comparison between 1 micron paste and the C12K - could you elaborate on how you made your comparison and what you mean by "finer"?

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

You've got to be careful not to confuse the look on the edge with the way the razor will hone. For example, the Japanese natural hones, which produce fantastic shaving edges, leave a hazy finish.

I'm also curious as to your comparison between 1 micron paste and the C12K - could you elaborate on how you made your comparison and what you mean by "finer"?

You have a point about the Japanese natural hones, but I believe that some pigment/particles gets embedded into the steel somehow. It is an exception.

You could easily tell the difference in scratch pattern between the C12k and 1 micron diamond under the microscope. In any case, one leaves a hazy polish and the other a mirror polish, and with the exception of some Japanese natural hones, I've found using the polish to judge the grit to be pretty accurate. It correlates with the scratch pattern that is seen under the microscope.

Originally Posted by cotdt

You have a point about the Japanese natural hones, but I believe that some pigment/particles gets embedded into the steel somehow. It is an exception.

You could easily tell the difference in scratch pattern between the C12k and 1 micron diamond under the microscope. In any case, one leaves a hazy polish and the other a mirror polish, and with the exception of some Japanese natural hones, I've found using the polish to judge the grit to be pretty accurate. It correlates with the scratch pattern that is seen under the microscope.

My understanding of Japanese naturals is that they bring out the grain of the steel, not that anything from the hone becomes embedded in the blade. Perhaps another member (or several others) could shed some light on that subject.

So your comparison between the C12K and the 1 micron diamond paste was based purely on the polish and the scratch pattern? I personally do not think that is a good way to measure which is finer or which produces a better shaving edge. You said yourself that your 8k leaves a mirrored finish, but lots of finishers do not. Does that mean the edge of your 8k is a better (or better shaving) edge. I do agree that looks count, but you have to know what you're looking for given the hone you've just used. Now, I'm not saying that I know what to look for (I actually don't use magnification when checking edges), but I do think your statements may be misleading.

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

So your comparison between the C12K and the 1 micron diamond paste was based purely on the polish and the scratch pattern? I personally do not think that is a good way to measure which is finer or which produces a better shaving edge. You said yourself that your 8k leaves a mirrored finish, but lots of finishers do not. Does that mean the edge of your 8k is a better (or better shaving) edge. I do agree that looks count, but you have to know what you're looking for given the hone you've just used. Now, I'm not saying that I know what to look for (I actually don't use magnification when checking edges), but I do think your statements may be misleading.

I use a 200x microscope (I mentioned a microscope in my previous post, didn't I?). This way, you can tell the difference between a 1 micron diamond paste finish and a 0.25 micron diamond paste finish. The polish is just the quick and dirty way to tell the finish w/o having to use a microscope.

A third way to judge the "fineness" of the finish is simply to shave with it. On freshly honed razors, the quality of the shave correlates closely with the polish of the edge. Judging by polish is pretty accurate in my use, except in the case of natural Japanese hones. How is this misleading? Your disagreement is noted, but I will go by my personal experience.

Originally Posted by cotdt

I use a 200x microscope (I mentioned a microscope in my previous post, didn't I?). This way, you can tell the difference between a 1 micron diamond paste finish and a 0.25 micron diamond paste finish. The polish is just the quick and dirty way to tell the finish w/o having to use a microscope.

A third way to judge the "fineness" of the finish is simply to shave with it. On freshly honed razors, the quality of the shave correlates closely with the polish of the edge. Judging by polish is pretty accurate in my use, except in the case of natural Japanese hones. How is this misleading? Your disagreement is noted, but I will go by my personal experience.

Looking at the polish will tell you how polished your bevel is, not how fine your edge is.

You said your 8K gives you a mirror finish, but a Japanese natural and a C12k do not, right? Does that mean that a blade off your 8K will shave better than a blade off a Japanese natural or a C12k? In my experience, the answer is no. To me, that seems to go against the statement that the level of polish is related to the "fineness" of the edge or the "fineness" of the hone.

To be fair, you said above that Japanese naturals are an exception, but it seems that the C12k is also. Here http://straightrazorpalace.com/honin...t-results.html, a member states that he got a mirrored finish off a Norton 8k, but not off a coticule. in my experience, a coticule is a finer hone than the Norton 8k (but coticules are natural, so maybe his wasn't). He also reports a "shinier" finish off a DMT 1200 than a Norton 4k and that both were "shinier" than off the coticule. There also seems to be no correlation between the size of scratch marks, "shininess" and "mirror." Maybe these are just other "exceptions," but who knows how many other "exceptions" there are.

Based on all that (my experience, your statements, and what others have said with that thread as one example), it seems that the level of polish is not related to the "fineness" of the edge, the hone, or the shave.