If anyone finds an earlier reference though, make sure to let Glen know so he can delete it. We can't have him being wrong twice ;)
Printable View
If anyone finds an earlier reference though, make sure to let Glen know so he can delete it. We can't have him being wrong twice ;)
It's difficult to talk about grits of all natural stones. I have 3K, 12K (two stones with different grit) and 15K Chinese stones. All different. The same story with Belgian stones. And I don't want even to discuss unpredictable and changing grits of Japanese stones. I have Nakayama kiita, that's something.
Sweet, my Harvard referencing was correct! (Holli4pirating, 2009)
Oh Glen, I've been wrong before as well!
Talking grit sizes on naturals is indeed a very difficult task. At least to any kind of exact level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zelenbakh
Now, even if the community(this or any other) were to give those estimates in grit rating, what grit scale should we all use. ANSI? the Japanese counterpart(s)? Some German standard?
Nah, rough estimates related to known, name-given, synthetic counterparts is the only viable option for this, in my opinion that is:)
And even then, this will be a quite subjective kind of evaluation of grit.
Grit, quite simply, isn't necessary grit, so to speak:)
I once had a Nakiitta Kruzchef, but it rubbed me the wrong way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zelenbakh
Some of my wife's relatives in South Carolina really take their grits seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Birnando
How about we call all natural finishers..........bazillion K. Problem solved.
It has been said so many times before and I completely agree with what Birnando said above. I heard someone the other day rate a Jnat at 'well over 40K.' There are no synthetics above 30K that I know of, so to rate a stone at 10K higher would be quite an achievement with a level of accuracy that would be superhuman. To further my point, it is not proportional, as 1k will (as per Glen) provide 90% of sharpness, 8k 99% and so on. Therefore if one were to plot on a curve of grit v. shaprness, it would rise quickly in the 100 - 1000 grit range and become relatively flat beyond 12K. The increment in sharpness (even though the grit triples) between 10K and 30K is tiny. How does one measure the grit of an Escher or any particular natural without having a corresponding synthetic?
In order to really rate the grit equivalent of a natural, you also need a microscope and an artificial hone. Compare the scratch patterns under the microscope and that is as close as you will get. To increase accuracy, a measuring system in order to actually measure the scratch patterns would be required, or something that corresponds to each artificial grit, on say a Shapton or a Naniwa system, the Shapton being preferable as it extends to 30K.
Then you could really rate the 'grit' of any hone based on an artificial system.
And that my friends, is the true way. Otherwise it is a guess, and humans can not accurately measure grit, period. Smoothness can give a superior shave to sharpness and some may confuse this as being a 'higher grit.'
If anyone ever has or were to actually put together a system similar to what I have described, the results would be of great interest. Then the variances in Eschers, coticules and PHIGs etc could be seen scientifically. Furthermore with enough samples one may be able to conclude if there is a relationship between colour of Escher or coticule and 'grit.'
I am with ya Maurice,,,
I wrote this the other day on here,,, "It seems that the "Grit" of natural stones jumped on this forum (and the others that follows us soon after) when the Shapton stones became popular with us razor guys...
I remember when most everyone figured the "Grit" of a Fine Selected Grade Coticule at 8k, maybe, there abouts, and Escher's were considered very very fine at 10k :)
Then came the Shapton 30k and all of a sudden everyone started guessing "grit" way way higher :p :p
Edit: That Microscope would have to measure the depth of those scratches to hehehe and really the smoothness of the sides of those scratches, let's really get technical :hmmm:
I doubt measuring the depth would be possible, in fact I'm certain it would be beyond the competence of many to do so without engaging some highly advanced equipment that exceeds my knowledge in order to even name; however the latter would certainly be possible provided one had a microscope and all the shaptons....Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun