Quote Originally Posted by Bill S View Post
To address your original question, I doubt that you will find anyone using your "three stone" process who could advise you as to its effectiveness. To be honest, this technique sounds like the answer to a question that no one is asking. Of course this is just my opinion.

If you have a low grit stone that is flat enough to lap another low grit stone why do you need three of them? Just use it to lap the higher grit stones....of course, then it would be a lapping stone which brings you back to the beginning.

Maybe I'm missing the point here???
Well the thing is that the low grit stone does not remain flat, as you
know. So how do you keep it flat.

Which brings up my question. Does using 3 stones of the same grit(to flatten each other) have a real advantage compared to a diamond flattening plate?

In my question there is no 1 low grit stone that is flat and which is
used to flatten other low grit stones. You need at least 3 same grit stones
to get true flat surfaces on the stones.

So you have 3(minimum) unflat stones, by rubbing them in a particular order you create 3 perfectly flat surfaces. One stone can be used to sharpen, the other two to flatten the intermediate stone and the finishing stone.

Let's try this 32 stone method:

-For example let me pick the shapton pro 1000. If you are going
to buy three of them, you are spending about 3 times 50 dollars=150
dollars. That is a 100 dollars more on the 1000 grit stone than you would have spent if you bought a diamond flattening plate because then you
would not need the additional two stones. But the diamond plate
itself costs somewhere between 80-120 dollars(as far as I know). Not
to mention the expensive shapton diamond plate.
Anyway, so costwise(initial expenses), they are the same.

-Convenience wise, the diamond plate wins.

-Flattness wise the 3 stone method wins. Remember the three object
method is used to create surface plates and straight edges. But as you
use the 1000 grit stone to flatten other stones, the 1000 grit loses its
flatness whilst the diamond plate remains the same. So I am not sure
which method produces flatter waterstones.

-grit contamination. I would have thought the diamond stone would have
been worse in this aspect, but I am told by some members here, they don't have any ill effects. The 1000 grit stone could actually be worse.

-How long would the 3 1000 grit stones last this way compared to the diamond plate? I have read quite on some forums on this subject. I read
that on average the diamond plates(only used on waterstones) last about
2-4 years. They continue cutting, but very slowly and flattness becomes
an issue. Some say the diamonds just disappear on the plate, very little diamond particles remain.

I think the 3 1000 grit stones would definitely outlast the diamond stones
in this regard.

Just some thoughts.

Sharpman