Thread: Grit diameter vs grit number vs scale

Most of us take grit size with a grain of salt. Besides all of the permormance variable, friability, sintered, type of resin etc. Then the grit size itself is a moot point altogether depending on how the manufactures seperate the particles. i.e a 5 micron particle can pass through a sieve and be 10 mcrons long. As long as manufactures use their own methods of grading, there will never be truthful standard and realistically as long as the particles are bound in stone it would be misleading anyway.
All part the fun of trying out new hones.

Am I the only one wondering "why is this important?" I mean, is there some practical application? I would think people's first hand experiences and direct comparisons of hones would be more important than raw numbers about grit size. Or am I missing something?

The main application is in mixing stones from different manufacturers. I know it's not recommended, but sometimes you can find better deals by going this route.

While the raw grit size is not everything, it is a good starting point. Otherwise, why even have it at all? We can just call them stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, etc.

Originally Posted by time2shave

The main application is in mixing stones from different manufacturers. I know it's not recommended, but sometimes you can find better deals by going this route.

That explains why you have such a hard time. Unfortunately going this route you will spend more money than you need to on worse honing system than you can get if you just stick to a standard recommendations. But it's your money and your time figuring it out.

Originally Posted by time2shave

While the raw grit size is not everything, it is a good starting point. Otherwise, why even have it at all? We can just call them stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, etc.

Actually, since you can't get even the 'starting point' you'll never be able to get any further even if you could go to the more complex issues beyond grit size.

Incidentally efficiently honing straight razors is a stage1 (removing of chips and establishing a bevel), stage2 (sharpening the bevel), and stage3 (polishing the bevel) process. You can pick any hone from a number of possibiulities for each stage, but if you stick to a single system you will have much better results than by mixing and matching.

But don't take my word for it - try it yourself and a year and few hundred dollars later you can tell us if you found something different from what the rest of us did.

Originally Posted by time2shave

know it's not recommended, but sometimes you can find better deals by going this route.

When something is not recommended, that recommendation is based on someone's experience or the experience of several people. As Gugi said, please do feel free to experiment, and please do share your experiences. But, as he also said, you will have to actually use the hones instead of just reading about one of the numerous factors (grit size) that makes them what they are.

Ok, so why have grit sizes at all? We can just switch to color coding.

If there is no common reference between "stage 2" stones from different manufacturers, and the stones are all different, how do you know which is a better deal, unless you buy them all and compare.

If someone wants to add to the stones they already have, and there is no common reference, they might have a hard time finding a right stone or have to pay a top dollar to go with a specific manufacturer, if that manufacturer is still in business.

Originally Posted by time2shave

Ok, so why have grit sizes at all? We can just switch to color coding.

May be because there's a lot of honers that are too insecure in their masculinity to use the pink hone?

Originally Posted by time2shave

If there is no common reference between "stage 2" stones from different manufacturers, and the stones are all different, how do you know which is a better deal, unless you buy them all and compare.

'Better deal' is highly subjective so the only way to determine this is to buy them and compare. Yes, lack of transferability is a royal pain.
For most people the norton set is the best deal. For me the naniwa set is the best deal.

Originally Posted by time2shave

If someone wants to add to the stones they already have, and there is no common reference, they might have a hard time finding a right stone or have to pay a top dollar to go with a specific manufacturer, if that manufacturer is still in business.

I agree. Some people pay hundreds of dollars for a hone that Norton made years ago but it no longer produces. Others pay hundreds of dollars for hones that were mined and sold by a german company called Escher when they existed over 60 years ago. Yet others pay hundreds of dollars for hones that are being mined by Ardennes in belgium... And some use a couple of $5 slipstones and a barber hone or two to hone the $3 razors they've bought at garage sales to shave with them.

There are plenty of choices in all kinds of price ranges. Generally trying to go as cheap as possible means that you pay the price in learning effort and some time in end results too.

How do you know? You come somewhere like SRP and read up on what people use and what results they get.

The modern synthetics are so good you can't really go wrong with any of them - Norton, Shapton or Naniwa. Take your pick and learn how to use them.

I have the Shaptons and the Naniwas and I have definitely found they work better as a set. Mixing and matching just doesn't work as well.

In terms of why have grit sizes at all, it's so you can tell the stones apart. But the 8k shapton and naniwa edges are pretty comparable IMO. I think you may be making this more complex than it needs to be and you're not going to save any money approaching things this way.

If you want to mix and match, it's your money I guess. But most likely you'll end up spending more money than you need to and still coming back to one complete set that you really like.

I seem to be using the Shaptons more than anything at the moment, but I went through a stage a few months back of using the naniwas pretty much exclusively. Just depends on the blades I'm honing really!

Originally Posted by gugi

May be because there's a lot of honers that are too insecure in their masculinity to use the pink hone?

Surely not in the straight razor community!

yes it would be fine if we used micron ratings instead of these more bizarre 'grit' scales. but even if we were talking about the same abrasive material, of the same shape, in the same binder material, one would still have to consider the distribution of particle sizes, as they wont all be magically the same size.

hopefully they wouldnt vary too much, but by saying something is 5 micron you would hope that what you are saying is that it is 5 micron or smaller. more realistically you are saying that say 95% of particles are 5 micron or smaller. how large is the largest particle, what percentage makes it above 10 microns, what percentage makes it below 1 micron?

take a look at statistics, and distribution curves and get a sense for how even after all other variables/differences are removed (abrasive material, shape, binder material,...), providing a single micron measurement for what is actually a distribution is STILL only so useful. and i wouldn't necessarily assume a Normal Distribution for particle sizes, with the same variance.

i'm pretty sure that these other standards like JIS or the standard provided by ANSI have something to say on the subject of particle size distributions, maximum particle sizes etc. so while the two standards differ, it may be more useful to have our manufacturers use them than for them to all come up with their own idea of what "micron" their abrasive mix is.

like everyone has said before: there are lots and lots of variables here, and the ONLY measure that matters is the use of the product in the real world.