Printable View
I was looking at the Arkansas Translucent hone, wanting to feed my ever growing HAD. It is a nice looking hone. Does anyone here use it in their honing ritual? I was curious as to how it performs or behaves, and what it would be compared to? I see in the WIKI we have "Arkansas" and that's it...I assume it's a finisher of sorts....I may have to go to Woodcraft, see if they have it, and check it out...
Hi Rich,
I have one of these and the only thing I really can compare it to from a honing perspective is the Spyderco UF only maybe a little slower. I did try both hones one time with a generic nagura stone to see if that would help the speed any and it did a little, but overall not the most consistent hone out there. Fun to play with though.
Lynn
I know McWolf1969 uses Arkies quite a bit, so maybe you could try dropping him a PM. From my chats with Mac, I've also gathered that the Trans is quite fine and on the slow side, so it's a good finisher if the speed doesn't bother you (and, just for the record, "slow" is a relative term, so take that with a grain of salt).
My only experience with Arkansas is what ever one mine is. I use it as a bevel setter and it is SLOW, but produces a fine bevel.
gregs656 - you must have the patience of a saint! Whatever you have, it must be much faster than a white translucent - you'd be honing for a month of sundays trying to set a bevel on a translucent!Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs656
The translucent white I used to have gave a very fine finish indeed, but as I came to hone more and more it was too slow to be a viable option - its small size didn't help any, either - a 10" x3" would have been much better (and costlier).
I'm sure I have seen Mastro Livi finishing on a translucent in one of his videos - doesn't seem to give the razor many laps on it either (but he doesn't appear to many laps on anything in those videos) - if he uses one, they can't be that bad!
Regards,
Neil
I'm curious about the quality of the current stones versus the vintage. Back in the seventies reading knife magazines some guys said that the 'good' stones had long since been mined and the stuff they were digging up then couldn't compare.
Here we are forty years later and old Norton or Pike Arkansas stones bring a lot more than the buy it now stuff I see on the bay. Is there anything to that vintage versus current quality or is it just nostalgia ?
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n...6/100_1253.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Neil Miller
It's that, and that picture is a pretty good representation of the stone I think. It's not a new one, it's old, I bought it s/h.
What ever it is, it's sets a cracking bevel, in it's own time.
Good point Jimmy, With Coticules, People talk Vintage, and your talking what, 50-60 years maybe. It's funny to me when the age of the stone is 500,000 million years old. What difference does 50 years make. It seems like a drop in the bucket to me. Now, Where they were mined, or the vein, Well, than that's different. I don't know about Arkansas, but I'm interested in the translucent, and even if it's slow, I'd like to see what kind of edge it produces. In any event, They are not bevel setters, but finisher's and not versatile like Coticules...
Hello all,Quote:
Originally Posted by zib
Here is my Norton Translucent Ark, c 1955. It is a 6”x2”x1” (150x50x25) and it’s a true translucent as you can see the sunlight passing thru 1” of solid stone.
On the original box, it states the stone is a ‘Hard Arkansas’ only.
It is just one colour, flawless and very fine, slow cutting.
I think in the past, hone producers would have been more fussy when selecting raw stone to make their product, where as these days, half as good is good enough!
My understanding is the Arkansas stone seams run from a few feet to very deep. So somewhere in there must be some excellent material as good as ‘the old days’.
These days if you want the best you must look for it and be prepared to pay top price.
Sorry about the photos, I can't seem to rotate them.
Maybe these are better......