Thread: Best hone size

In looking for a hone often the first thing that comes up is size.

I know there are sizes for different purposes. Narrower hones for smiling blades (though a few changes in my stroke makes that seem less important now). I keep finding blades with frowns and want to avoid narrow hones on those (to avoid the temptation to perpetuate the error).

I am thinking my ideal size would make it possible to keep most of the edge (say 80%) on the hone when holding at a 45 degree angle and still have a long enough stroke that one wouldn't have to do 100 strokes to get something done.

Maybe it matters a bit what stage you are at. In other words, do you like a bigger hone for bevel setting and sharpening? Is that less important when you come to polishing?

So, what is the ideal size for a hone?

Funny you ask, cause I've just broken with my routine yesterday.
Normally I use wider hones. 6 cm to 8 cm
Length is always welcome but I don't mind short strokes either. 15 cm is ok but longer is better.

Now yesterday I was in a funny mood and started out with
a small King of 5 x 15
an even smaller coticule of 4 x 15
a totally narrow old thruringian of 3.5 x 18
and topped it off with
my Cutler's Green of 5 x 16
and I was very pleased with the results.

Possibly the morale of the story is staying open to everything that contains abrasives.

I have thought about this a bit. In the past I've read that an 8x3 will give results with less strokes because the edge is on the hone for a longer stroke. Makes sense. OTOH when I look at barber hones and their diminutive size I wonder if the reason was for convenience in carrying it in a pocket (for the barber at work) or because it was thought that the stroke that size required was efficient ? I seem to remember a thread where a couple of honemiesters said a 5x2 or so would dictate a stroke that was ideal for razors but a great deal of searching didn't turn it up.

I've got a couple of labeled coticules measuring 4x2 and a couple of Eschers that are in the 5x2 1/2 range which were marketed for barbers. Back in the old days they rented a chair and had limited storage space so convenience may have been a motivation.

I find I like the 8x3 but can get by fine with a 6x2. I've got a 5x2 natural coticule that I've gotten real good results with as well. For warped blades or those with exaggerated smiles a narrow 6 or 8" hone is my preference. Here is an old thread on the topic that might make interesting reading.

For bevel setters, I like a full sized bench stone - around 8 x 3 but a little smaller is ok too. I like the size because it allows me to do circles with flat razors and keep the whole thing on the hone. Once the bevel is set, I don't mind smaller hones because it's much less work (typically) going from bevel to shave ready than from just bought to bevel. I also like to hand hold, so smaller is easier. Just not too small - no barber hones for me, thank you.

When asking about Japanese natural hones, one seems to be ale to get either "razor size" hones (15 by 7-8 cm) or long "tool" sized (20 x 6-7 cm).

I am thinking that I would like the longer sized for bevel setting and sharpening, but could drop down to the Razor sized for polishing.

I have pretty much decided to get a tool sized Ohira Shiro suita (beautiful white stone) to take me from my aoto to my finishers. It would replace my smaller Ohira Tomae.

I kind of figured if I was paying shipping anyhow, I would look at another finisher (surprise).

Then I have to talk myself into selling some of my other stones (some coticules, barber hones,some j-nat's, a DMT8000 etc).

Long and narrow is what I like generally, for all stages of honing - but I have hones in all sorts of sizes and formats and there is not one I would dismiss simply because of its size. Also, I could imagine this preference shifting with increased experience.

Larger in general of course means more expensive.
Longer has the disadvantage of making it difficult to do hand-held honing, but enables smooth long strokes. Too long though and honing may become uneven, 'overstretching' as it were.
Wider has the same contra, but is very nice for absolutely straight and flat edges.
Shorter makes it difficult to evenly cover all of the edge per stroke.
Narrower can be nice for warps or smiles - though there is the danger of rocking the blade. And the honemeisters seem to prefer wider hones no matter.

Two other remarks:
Shorter wider hones seem to have been favoured overseas, and longer narrower stones over here in Europe. No idea why, but it seems that way looking at origins of eg. Escher 'slabs' (12-15x6cm) vs Escher 'oblongs' (20-23x4,5cm) on eBay. The same seems to go for coticules too (although judging the data is more complicated as they were used for heavier tools too).

Vintage small hones often seem to be of over average quality. Not only were they, is my theory, specially selected for razors and other delicate tools (eg surgeons' and dentists' equipment), it is and was exponentially more difficult to find large specimens of highest quality raw material.

I prefer ~1"-2" x ~6". Any hone longer than ~4" works fine, too.

Originally Posted by Sticky

I prefer ~1"-2" x ~6". Any hone longer than ~4" works fine, too.

Ditto. I hold my hone in my hand when I use it, so I don't like anything too big. 2" is about the widest I like and I can get by with anything 5" or above.

I have lots...But I like holding the hone when possible. Like Holli say's, for bevel setting, that's a different story. I like the hone on the table. Now, I just picked up one of those Tri Hone systems with the three stones in it. I'm looking forward to using it.
Coti's I like to hold, So for me a 6x2 or 7x 1.5 usually works well. Of course, I won't be giving up my 8x3 any time soon.....

I see no need for more than 8" length. I find I don't even use the full 8" on most of my stones. But 6" seems a little short, workable, but 8" is better. 4" is a bare minimum. I have a couple 3x2's and it's not fun at all to use them.

When my edge is straight 3" wide is perfect. If the razor smiles, I prefer my 2" stones, 1.5" would probably be even better (theoretically, I don't own any 1.5" wide stones at the moment). I suspect I'd find 1" too narrow.