What finishing hone would I need to duplicate the edge I get from .5 paste ? Also, are any of the barber hones about the same as .5 paste ?
Thanks.
Printable View
What finishing hone would I need to duplicate the edge I get from .5 paste ? Also, are any of the barber hones about the same as .5 paste ?
Thanks.
I think its hard to compare paste to a hone. Hones do achieve a smoother edge than you think it just takes more practice. paste are easier to use. My coticule gives me smooth edge .5 oxide does not improve the ssmoothness. it does if my coticule has'nt got me there. most people just follow up with .5 paste afteer finishing hone.
+1 on the comments from GaryQuote:
Originally Posted by JohnG10
With paste it is also important to state what the paste is made of
and what the paste has been applied to.
A 0.5micron diamond paste is not the same as a 0.5 micron CrOx paste.
Or another 0.5 micron abrasive.
Then is the is paste on a hard surface like glass, brass, steel, balsa, apple, oak...
or on a hanging strop leather, canvas, felt...
The Wiki has a a number of pages on this and a 0.5 micron paste
is finer than just about any hone. A Shapton Pro & Glass
30,000 Grit is apparently a 0.49 micron product... See
the third URL to a pdf file below.
Using micro abrasive film - Straight Razor Place Wiki
Lynn Abrams On Honing - Straight Razor Place Wiki
http://straightrazorpalace.com/attac...n-07-23-09.pdf
Tom, Lot's of great info in those links I didn't find when reading through the wiki. Thanks !
The Shapton GS 30k purports to be 0.49 microns, but the
results (and use) is different from 0.5 CrO, which I assume
is also different than 0.5 diamond. I'd wager that you'll get
different results from 0.5 diamond pastes vs. spray as well :)
Pastes are much more affordable than the 30k stone...
- Scott
I've decided I don't like pasted strops as well as I like hones. (I dislike cleaning off the old paste, and how some areas have thicker paste than others).
Are the barber hones a better finisher than a 12K ? Which brand & model should I look for if I want something that refreshes and smooths an edge almost as well as .5 CrOx ?
http://straightrazorpalace.com/hones...teristics.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by JohnG10
How many razors have you honed on pasted strops that has caused you to dislike them?Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG10
If you are cleaning off old paste you are putting way too much on.
Lynn
Please correct me if I am wrong-
Its my understanding a diamond paste of .5 is harder/harsher and can be/should be followed up with CrOx even if the diamond is .25 follow it with .5 CrOx cause it that much smoother-
If paste will keep me away from hones longer then I am down with them-
Under magnification there are no lines left on the blade so it appears
to work where I could not get with a 8K hone which is the max I have.
Just 1. And only about 6-8 sessions. However, it was enough for me to see I liked hones better for razors. (For my micro-carving tools I prefer pasted paddle strops for polishing, but those tools have .8-1.2 mm thick stock and are probably around .25-.33mm thick 2mm's from the edge, so applying some pressure works well.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn
Thanks for the technique tip. I'll try less compound. I usually use the minimum amount to fill in the texture on the strop. Maybe I also need a different paddle &/or compound. I'm using the same strop & compound I use for polishing my micro-carving tools. The strop is 1.5mm thick leather (no give), rough side out but sanded to around 150 grit texture, on a hard oak paddle and Flexcut gold compound (which is a .5 coumpound in a chalk crayon type of binder). Would a smooth side out stop, and compound in that comes as an oil make a lot of difference for polishing SR's ?
[QUOTE=Its my understanding a diamond paste of .5 is harder/harsher and can be/should be followed up with CrOx even if the diamond is .25 follow it with .5 CrOx cause it that much smoother.[/QUOTE]
This is interesting. I did not now this. I have .5 and .25 diamond spray on a couple of felts for the SRP paddle strop and I thought this would do the trick.
Perhaps i need the CrOx as well?
You are going to have to be the judge for what works best for you. I use .5 diamond spray on felt probably more than any other media, but do use some .5 CrO paste with the felt. I have used this with an oil base and water type base. I use a Cro harder paste (almost like a crayon) on either leather, water buffalo or poly webbing and a couple of diamond pastes on either and they work very well too.
I would hold the jury until you have honed a few more razors.........
Have fun,
Lynn
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG10
Barber hones are all over the map... I saw a reply post with a
link to the Wiki on barber hones. In general the more expensive
ones on Ebray are the finer and smoother ones. You might get
lucky... all but one of my barber hones feel coarser than my 8K
Norton but when used with lather and a small number of strokes
they do fine but need a good canvas strop to tidy up after.
If you are cleaning off old paste more than once a year you are using too
much IMO. A strop with CrOx should leave little green when
rubbed with news paper. Because the CrOx bits "float" in the leather/
canvas they are not very aggressive and no "rock" is going to give
you the same finish and polish. A 12K man made hone is on the cusp and
finer hones get very expensive fast. Rumor is that some rare naturals
finish better but I do not own any.
Not sure if you can really "duplicate" it as such, but definitely a Shapton 30K, & possibly some Eschers & very hard (level 5) Jnats might give sharpness levels that are in the same ballpark. This depends a lot on the stone & even more on technique, & also your face, so it's still kind of subjective. Whatever you choose to finish with, the actual cutting of hairs should be effortless (for you).
Diamond spray is generally considered (this is also somewhat subjective, but still) to leave a somewhat sharper edge than crox, even though they're both rated @ 0.5 um. Barber hones generally are not even close. Some might be finer, but most behave ~10K or below.
Personally, I would never follow a good Escher or Jnat edge w/ anything but a clean strop--IMO it totally defeats the purpose of buying an expensive (in the case of the Escher) stone & then taking the time to really learn how to use it when I'm then not even going to be shaving with it's finish, but rather the finish of the paste/spray. Nothing wrong w/ them @ all--they work great--but if I were going to finish on paste, I'd just get a Shap 16 or something like it to use before it--cheaper & faster. :)
0.5 CrOx is 60,000 grit so your s.o.l there no stone in that grit range
There are several things that need to be corrected.
First of there is a stone below 0.5µm, that is the Shapton 30.000 (it specifically says 0,49µm).
You cannot translate 0.5µm diamond or CrOx to any grit rating number and compare this number with a different companies number.
If you´re interested in how these grit ratings seem to work, I have uploaded a little PDF of mine:
http://straightrazorpalace.com/hones...tml#post758812
Second:
That´s not necessarily the case. It is true that diamonds are much harder than Chromium Oxide, but both are much harder than steel, so it doesn´t really make all that difference.Quote:
Please correct me if I am wrong-
Its my understanding a diamond paste of .5 is harder/harsher and can be/should be followed up with CrOx even if the diamond is .25 follow it with .5 CrOx cause it that much smoother-
But high quality chromium oxide like the one you get from Kremer Pigmente is known to be of spherical shape, whereas diamond partikles are splinters.
The splinters can cause more (miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicro-) damage to an edge than a spherical shaped abrasive.
But in reality you can get perfect shaves with a 1µm, 0,5µm diamond or 0,5µm Chromiumoxide or even 0.09µm Iron Oxide.
Bottom line, to each his own, because the differences are so small
To the original question:
I own a shapton 30k and gives me great results. But the results are completely different from 0.5diamond or Cr2O3 (as far as I can tell).
Diamond and Cr2O3 is just so effective and the results so smooth and keen AND so cheap, you really have to love what you do to buy something that expensive,
to try to replicate the results. If you love the Cr2O3 or Diamond, stick with it and get a C12k or maybe a Naniwa 12k to pre-finish before stropping.
Otherwise if your level of skill is high enough, anyway you can get perfect (but different) shaving edges from a Naniwa 12k, Shapton Pro 12k, Shapton Glass 16k, Barber Hone, Coticule....
all the known finishers can give you edges that will shave you just fine, without pasting afterwards
i may be wrong but the shapton is not finer then crox . crox is 0.5 the shapton is .49 crox is a half of a micron and the shapton is not 4.9 its 49 microns
I´m sorry I don´t understand.
Chromium Oxide is believed to be around 0.5µm in diameter. Kremer Pigmente evaluated this from REM samples.
The Shapton Glass 30.000 I hold in my hands right now, clearly says 0,49µm.
1µm is 1 micron. µ is the greek symbol for micron, or 10^-6m.
So why should the shapton 30k now be 49 microns, which would make it a ~800 JIS stone?!
Just for clarification and to show at what astonishing levels both of these cutting agents are:
Cr2O3 is believed to be of 500nm average size,
whereas Shapton 30k is stated at 490nm.
[nm being nanometer]
If you would have read the PDF file I uploaded,
you would know that you can not say "shapton 30k is finer than crox"
Microns and grit rating systems only give you an idea of the average particle size, or the size distribution.
Not more, not less. Especially not more. They don´t tell you what edge they produce, how fien they will cut,
how good they will smooth out an edge.... especially when it comes to pastes vs stones the numbers are incomparable.
One will have to live with statements like: Both Shapton 30k and Chromium Oxide 0.5µm are suitable for finishing a razor excellently
well lets take a look at my shapton 16k stone its .92 micron's which is a little bit morn then half of the fineness as your stone and its 92 micron thats the first pic the second pic is a bottle of chromium oxide it speaks for itself
I´m sorry, but you know it says 0.92 microns, and not 92 microns on your stone?
Even if it would say .95 microns, that would be just another way to write 0.95
It is written on it. 0.92µm equals 0.92microns wich is less than one micron.
0.9 is less than 1.0 and much less than 90...
0.92 microns is not 92microns!
What´s your point?
The shapton 16k is rated at 0.94microns, wheras the Chroumim oxide is rated at 0.5microns and the Shapton 30k is rated at 0,49microns.
Do you think 0.94microns means 94µm? No big deal if you do, I´m just saying you may be a little off track here :)
For comparison sake here a picture of the 16k and 30k
http://lesslemming.le.ohost.de/Messe...n/PICT0017.JPG
My pictures from a review for a german forum
Along with your picture of the Chroimium oxide it looks like this:
- Shapton 8k: 1.84 micron
- Shapton 16k: 0,94 micron
- Shapton 30k: 0,49 micron
- Cr2O3: 0,5 micron
Disclaimer:
Again, for everyone who reads this at a later stage:
I am not saying the shapton 30k is superior to 0,5µm Cr2O3,
please read the pdf ;)
oops i understand now thanks for the math lesson yeah i was reading it as 92. micron insted of .92 how i got off track is looking at the bottle it said 0.5-60,000 now i just dont see how that could be if the shapton is 30,000 and thats ,49 -30,000
I´m glad we figured that out :)
Did you read my PDF file?
If it´s too complicated I would be glad to help you, but I am (of course) asking you to try and understand it first
yes i read it i guess that would explain the bottle different grit ratings
I agree that you cant really compare a paste to a hone. An Escher is about 14k grit but the edge it gives is waaay better than paste IMHO. Coticules are 8-10k and I prefer a coticule edge to paste as well.
Its really down to trying a load of stuff out and seeing what you prefer really! If I was going to use a paste it would be 0.5 CrOx and for finishing hones I'd use either my Nakayama Maruichi or Thuringian/Escher. I think its an Escher but its lost all but a tiny bit of the label so I have no idea! I like to tell myself that it is..! :D
Then there is the whole issue of monocrystalline vs polycrystalline diamonds.Quote:
Originally Posted by sebell
Once again proof that if you pry the lid off a can of worms the only thing that will contain those worms is a larger can.Quote:
Originally Posted by PonderingTurtle
:gaah:
And there is always the possibility that the bottle of Chromium Oxide pictured is mis-labled and should actually indicate .5 micron at 30,000 grit........:shrug:
:hmmm:
And then there is the issue of what does .5 micron mean. Is that a mean particle size or a max particle size. What is the distribution of particle sizes as well away from a mean number.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn
With out assumptions made by what shapton means by their size it is hard to directly compare it to anything else.
And that shapton uses a completely different grit rating system.
Listen, it´s very simple. The grit rating system numbers do not compare and do not indicate what the stones gonna be like.
It is like the 5 megapixel camera included in my HTC Desire HD. 5 megapixel sounds great, but the pictures are shitty.
What do we learn from that? Our affinity to simple numbers that tell us buy or no buy, or good or no good, make us vulnerable to misconceptions and misguidance.
It is advisable to learn what system lies behind these numbers to fully understand (or understand that you can not fully understand it).
On the bright side, it seems not to make a huge difference.
The 30.000 Shapton (or 12.000 Naniwa) and a 50.000 diamond paste both are excellent for finishing,
regalrdless of wich ones finer, or what the number really means
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lesslemming
That needs to be said again and again and maybe one more time again...
The grit numbers for the Shaptons compare to the Shaptons of that series...
The grit numbers for the Naniwas compare to the Naniwas in that series you cant even compare a Naniwa SS 1k to a Naniwa Chosera 1k or both the 10k's
The Nortons compare to the Nortons and the Kings to the Kings
The Naturals when compared to a stone from the same mine 3 feet away can be different..
Barber's Hones Compare to nothing I have seen yet..
Basically the only use I have found for the numbers on the hones is, when I am making a run up the hones in that series, it helps me keep them in order...
Now toss in all the variables with each paste and it pretty much becomes a joke...
I know you don't want to hear this again but as many of you are so fond of saying "Honing ain't Rocket Science" so why are you trying to make it so :)
Here is something I have learned over the last few years I think maybe from that Lynn guy, he knows a thing or two :D
"The more razors you hone the better you get" "The more you hone the more things you try, and the more things you try, the more you learn"
I prefer a pasted strop or in my case Balsa paddle with chrome ox to final finishing on a stone because I don't think my nervous system is steady enough to do it perfectly, a strop be it leather balsa or felt will have some give to it and produce a more uniform edge. I know my hands have more than .5 micron of jitter especially when honing after a few cups of coffee! So for me it's C12k (PHIG) or Escher, then chrome paddle.
I on the other hand have an extra cup of coffee. I find the nervous vibration helpsQuote:
Originally Posted by rodb
me hone and minimized the development of a burr.
On a more serious note the OP commented that he disliked cleaning
paste from his strops. While this may need to be done it is not
an urgent task. The steel removed by the abrasive in pastes will
oxidize and add to the abrasive character of the strop. i.e. iron oxides
will polish steel as will the micro carbides that most hard steel has.
The accumulation of swarf will also bury abrasive particles such
that less and less is exposed, reducing the scratch depth that
any grain can produce. Further over time the exposed grit will dull
resulting in an activity that is kin to a finer material.
I might note that the grit in a hone will slurry out of the matrix and
a half micron grain will roll on the surface making a half micron scratch.
The same grain on a strop gets pushed into the balsa or leather and
only has a portion is exposed. Buried in a soft strop the grit will get
pushed deeper into the strop material by the steel. The same grain
in a hone is held firm and will cut deeper into the steel than it
would on a soft strop material.
There is also the "bed of nails" effect with any hone or abrasive strop.
As a larger number of nails (grit bits) interacts with the steel the less
pressure individual grains can apply to the steel to deform and cut the
steel. As the grit size decreases the more and more grains of
grit touch the steel reducing the effective pressure and resulting
scratches.
An experiment might involve a scrap sheet of glass a sandbox and
a flat bottom kitchen pan. Place the clean pan on clean glass
and move it. Note the lack of scratches. Place the pan on top of
a pile of sand on the glass and move it about. Note the lack of scratches.
Now clean the pan and glass and place exactly one grain of sand on
the glass and place the pan on top of that grit grain and move the
pan back and forth. Note the deep scratches. Next try a teaspoon
of talc powder and compare with a teaspoon of sand.
We could also explore round objects like marbles and ball bearings.
This grit size, grit composition, grit density and matrix material is the magic
that makes one hone better than another vendor for a specific task.
One closing comment is that a knob of stiff paper can be
used to rub clean the surface and make room for a modest application
of fresh paste/ spray and thus keep a pasted strop (felt, leather or balsa)
live. When that fails a little sand paper can clean the surface.
And that no hard clean hone can hone as fine or polish
as well as a pasted strop at the same grit.
In order to fresh up my razors I use my escher, which is rather thin (30mm) and uncomfortable in my hand. But more and more often I turn to C12k or local russian stone with similar grit. Plus strop.
One thing I think we really need to do is refer to "equivalent" grit when we're talking about naturals--i.e. how fine the edge would be if it came off a synthetic of known grit, rather than trying to actually give it a rating. Coticule garnets are 5-15 um in diameter, but used w/ water, most will leave an edge in the 8-12k range as far as fineness/smoothness goes. THat way we have a sort of reference, since naturals don'w really have anything like a grit rating. THis I think would make for a much easier comparison of finishing properties than trying to "guess" the "grit level", which will vary in naturals.
Actually, hard naturals will sort of do the same "bed of nails" thing too--the particles are deeply imbedded in the stone & will leave very shallow cuts. AS far as pastes being finer than stones of the same grit level, I'm pretty sure that might be an individual thing too.
I believe there would be a problem as well. Which of the sytnhetic stones has a known grit?Quote:
how fine the edge would be if it came off a synthetic of known grit
The Norton 8k? DMT 8k? Naniwa 8k?
All of these are of known grit but give different results.
What we do is try to turn discrete data into continous data.
Discrete data is data collected with the senses of a person/operator. The operator has to evaluate the stone and assign it to a category i.e.:
- Sets bevel good/not good
- puts on a shaving edge/not
Continous data is produced with a measuring device that gives a clear value.
The device does not think in categories but in a continous fashion gives you a number
with its corresponding dimension (i.e. 1.500 JIS). It may even be doubted if the data manufactuerers can capture are continous.
The matter of the fact is if a person evaluates a stone with his senses alone,
he will create discrete data and has to think in categories.
The mesh of the categories can be very small i.e. cuts better than Naniwa 5.000 and is finer than Naniwa 2.000, but the smaller the mesh the higher the operators level of skill must be.
Since we learned that grit ratings are not relyable themselfes one should compare
a natural stone with stones from one manufacturer only and specify
wich stone he compared them to.
It wouldn´t make any sense saying something like:
Cuts slower than DMT 8.000 but shaves worse than Naniwa 10.000,
so it must be a 9.000....
The goal should be to assign the stone to a usefull category,
one that I believe is even more usefull than grit ratings.
One that tells you if you can set a bevel with refine it or shave off of it.
Everything else (especially when it comes to shaving) comes down to personal preference anyway
The most simple categories to evaluate a natural stone would look like this
With water:
- Sets a bevel in reasonable time/not
- Shaves arm hair/not
- Pops arm hair/not
- gives HHT/not
- shaves nicely/not
If a category is assigned cross checking with other stones of this category may be done,
but the collected data increasingly becomes unrelyable and biased
Personal preference:
- Sets a bevel quicker than
- Shaves arm hair more smooth than
- Pops arm hair more smooth than
- gives HHT more smooth than
- shaves more smooth than
If a small hone is uncomfortable in the hand consider makingQuote:
Originally Posted by Zelenbakh
a stand/ holder for it.
Take a scrap of 2"x4" and some lath. Cut and
glue the lath to the top of the 2x4 to hold the
stone. Then build a bed for the hone. If
a 2x4 is too use what ever fits.
In the old days they would bed/glue a hone
with pitch, today it might be easier to make
a bed with epoxy. But do not glue it to the
bed yet. Wrap the hone with multiple layers
of cling wrap and let the epoxy harden. The
goal is to make a stand that fits the hone well
enough to use. Later if you 'love' the bed varnish
it and glue the hone to it.... Silicon caulk can
also work to make a 'bed' for an uneven based
old hone. Plumbers putty will also make a
"bed", even plaster of paris, drywall patch
and a host of other common materials....
Just do not glue an expensive rock to anything
permanently until you know exactly what you want.