Thread: How Important Is A Progressions Of Stones?

Originally Posted by gssixgun

There is another thread I did awhile back about the tighter the progression the smoother I thought the shaves were getting... But how the heck would you prove that???? It was just an observation...

Jimmy:
You have a Norton 8k??? I am pretty sure!!! "Mister HAD" just use Bart's One Coticule method the same exact way, and wow!!! a sharp razor happens... You can try just about any slurry stone you want on it... Sham used the same on a Japanese natural... Somehow there is an almost cult following that goes with a Coticule, and while they are great stones they are not unique in the one stone aspect...Heck I shaved from 1981-2007 using one stone and two razors and that was some other hard white natural...

I think the OP is correct in a tighter progression being a "better" edge, but I would not go anywhere near stating that longevity issue...

I would say i have to agree every word you have said in here Glenn . This is first time lol.
I would be agree 100% with idea OP if you use tighter progression(grits)You will save time,better edge,loose less metal from the blade.
Each of them will take long explanation but i will leave it in there.gl

Originally Posted by hi_bud_gl

I would say i have to agree every word you have said in here Glenn . This is first time lol.
I would be agree 100% with idea OP if you use tighter progression(grits)You will save time,better edge,loose less metal from the blade.
Each of them will take long explanation but i will leave it in there.gl

I'd like to hear the explanation. Saving time, I agree with in principal (especially using multiple stones), but I'm not sure about the better edge & metal loss aspect. I'm not arguing, just trying to understand. Isn't the point of the lower grit stones that they cut faster? In my thinking, that means if I jumped from 1K to 8K I'd cut the same amount of metal as I would if I went 1k, 2k, 4k, 8k but it would just take a lot longer. I'd reason that the resulting edge would be the same though. Where am I wrong?

FWIW, I do agree with the point that you save the stone (8K in this example) by tightening the progression. However, I disagree with the concept that you need multiple stones in the progression... You just need a progression like Glen pointed out.

Originally Posted by richmondesi

I'd like to hear the explanation. Saving time, I agree with in principal (especially using multiple stones), but I'm not sure about the better edge & metal loss aspect. I'm not arguing, just trying to understand. Isn't the point of the lower grit stones that they cut faster? In my thinking, that means if I jumped from 1K to 8K I'd cut the same amount of metal as I would if I went 1k, 2k, 4k, 8k but it would just take a lot longer. I'd reason that the resulting edge would be the same though. Where am I wrong?

FWIW, I do agree with the point that you save the stone (8K in this example) by tightening the progression. However, I disagree with the concept that you need multiple stones in the progression... You just need a progression like Glen pointed out.

Time is not shaving it is honing time.
Example if you use as you said 1k next 8k you will spend 1 hour to hone.
next you use 1,2,3,6,8, (i even used barber hones on that progression)you will spend 15 minutes(richmondesi i should have old post about his) and i think explanation in there too.
less metal loose from the blade.
Honing is not the just get sharpest edge is out there. It is how you get it.
how much time, metal have you use etc is count too to get that edge.
first one end result is not my own opinion.( haven't test this yet . i believe in Glenn's opinion on this.). i will do test have my own opinion too.
hope this helps