Originally Posted by
tok
I think the reason, Coticules as barber hones were sold without a slurry stone is because they were used without creating slurry.
Letīs assume, that the "old " barbers didn'tīt buy their razors on Ebay or on a flea market.
Letīs further assume, that the "old" razor companies were able to put a shaveable edge on a razor, or at least an edge, that only needed to be finished.
If these statements are true, the barbers never actually had to hone a razor. All they had to do, was to maintain the edge by touching it up, unless they rounded it by using pasted strops (I am not sure at all, but I think that Iīve read somewhere, that those, who used pasted strops, sended the razors to the companies to let them hone). They just touched up, as soon as the razor got dull, and as we all agree (well, I guess), on a coticule, this is best made without creating slurry.
Iīve read about three or four historical barbers manuals, including the one linked above. Everything Iīve read there, supports this. No one tells something about using a series of hones.
When we hone a razor, starting with bevelsetting, we actually do the work, that is done by the razor makers. So, if we want to find out, how razors were honed yesteryears, looking how the barbers did it, is missing the point. We have to look how they were sharpened in the factory.
This being said, dilucot and unicot donīt claim to be historically correct. They might be as incorrect as lime green acrylic scales or diamond sprays are. I donīt see, why this should be a bad thing.
@ hi_bud_gl:
How would you recommend to work on a coticule, when Iīm setting the bevel on it, too? Using heavy slurry, until I worked out the bevel, then rinse off the slurry and starting on plain water, using a little pressure, then finishing with no pressure, without rinsing the hone in between?
And, may I ask if youīve tried the unicot or dilucot method? (If yes, what are your thoughts about them?)
Regards,
tok