Thread: naniwa combo vs norton combo

wow! Thanks for all the information guys. Like I said, I've been out of the straight shaving game and I never really did honing prior to that. So there's lots of stuff that I forgot. For instance, I forgot about the glass/sandpaper alternatives for laping stones. Will probably go with one of those alternatives to start out with.

I'm going Norton...though, I could easily see myself switching at the very last minute before ordering.

Originally Posted by gugi

I don't agree. My naniwas tend not to be perfectly flat between honings, when they dry out, and I only lap them every now and then, say every 5 honings primarily to get rid of any swarf glazing, just because I'm too lazy for the extra 20 seconds with the DMTC. I haven't really noticed a difference to the resulting edges.
May be you're exaggerating the effect of 'swelling', or may be I'm not inexperienced enough.

I think it's a well established truism that staying with the same line of hones throughout the honing progression works better than mixing different types of hones.

What I'm saying is that I've made a habit of making pencil grids on the naniwas before lapping just before use. If I lap them without water, or just the water during lapping with a DMT 8C, I can see the grid removed that suggests a concavity, lengthwise. If I lap them after 5-10 minutes of water on the surface that concavity (from the graphite removed early in the lapping process) is reduced, or if it was soaked long enough it looks like I've removed a convex surface, lengthwise. Obviously having a slightly convex hone is better than a concave hone, for its effect on the razor's edge. If one is honing a taped razor this may be a benefit as the end of the x pattern strokes helps remove what may be a messy top end of the bevel (other side from the edge) which may be scratchier to a strop if the secondary bevel was made on a coarser hone.

All I'm saying is that I've noticed the difference. You know how it is, personally owning and using a handful of razors and not under the urgency of using the razor being honed, just observing the hone's surface removal, however slight, with a moderate amount of pressure with the tried and true DMT 8C lapper.

Just as the concept went, the longer the duration of use with a Naniwa super stone, despite diligent lapping during use (to keep the hone as flat as possible during that honing session) the greater the degree of "concavity" was perceived through the diagnostic tool in graphite (pencil) grids with a freshly moistened surface.

If someone has a solid methodology to their honing and remains true to that pattern and the edges are good, than great. I've just noticed that the Naniwas do differ from the Nortons in their tendency to swell more dynamically, from discussions on these forums I was led to scrutinize the Naniwas more and use the pencil grids to monitor their level of deformation. I certainly respect both honing systems and I can see the advantage of these 21st century synthetic waterstones for the slow release of binder along with their own slurry for the purpose of honing something as demanding as the edges we shave our faces with.

While increasing the frequency of lapping with the DMT 8C I've been leaving the slurry from the stones and inadvertently diluting them with a few sprays from the water bottle when honing enough on the same stone to experience that. I just get the work done on the first Norton combo stone (220/1000) until the bevel is properly set, utilizing the slurry as best I can (they are thirsty!) to increase the speed of metal removal. The reason I spend more time than I know is really needed on the mid-level hones (which my Naniwa SS 3k & 5k function as) is because I like to remove the scratch pattern and circumvent the need for stepping back down the grits to remove natural dips in the edge.

What I should explain is that these differences are seen very early on in the initial stage of lapping the Naniwa SSs, I make the effort to monitor it for my own understanding. Since these stones are relatively soft and easy to work with (lappability) they are easily trued before use, I'm quite sure you experienced honers give them a thorough enough lapping without resorting to anal retentive grid marking and monitoring as I have done in this thread. Just something I've noted. Of course, due to the sensitivity of the grid marks it is an easy diagnostic tool, a good beginner may very well remove more of the surface than is needed! Which was another reason why I was making the grid marks.

Mountains out of mole hills, hope not to dissuade any beginners from purchasing Naniwas. What Onimaru said about the Spyderco ultra-fine worries me, but what I recently experienced with a Wapienica in gradually improving an edge off a Norton 8k with the Spyderco UF makes me wonder how it is such a good finisher... 2k from any system couldn't possibly give me the quality of shave I'm experiencing from that hone.

I'm going to experiment with slurries on the non-porous Spydercos from a BBW/coticule combo bout and a barber hone bout and a Chinese 12k bout (PHIG) and look at that with a microscope or two thanks to help from some kind souls in these forums. I'm going to school now and have more important things to do with my time (already got shavers) but this is a personal project.

I don't bother with pencil grid - the swarf on the surface does the exact same thing. They cut quite fast and my jumps between grits are big enough that even one or two razors leave enough metal on the surface to make visible difference.
I think so far I've honed may be 200 razors on mine (from chipped edges, so that's a lot of work on the 1k) and for the last 100 I have lapped as I said roughly every 5 razors. The 12k though gets typically only 5-20 laps per razor, the 5k and the 1k get significantly more. There's no appreciable wear on any of the hones, either.

I'm absolutely certain that perfectly flat hones are ideal for perfectly straight and perfectly ground razors, honed with perfectly even strokes. Perfection has been fairly elusive though, and in my experience the dominating problems have been from the razors, and my strokes automatically compensate for that and I suppose for any problems with the less than perfectly flat hone surface as well.

Originally Posted by AxelH

What Onimaru said about the Spyderco ultra-fine worries me, but what I recently experienced with a Wapienica in gradually improving an edge off a Norton 8k with the Spyderco UF makes me wonder how it is such a good finisher... 2k from any system couldn't possibly give me the quality of shave I'm experiencing from that hone.

The Spydie UF is a baked ceramic & a different animal. It is not equal to 2k waterstones. It is more like a barber hone & as such its surface finish & pressure used is crucial. Particle sizes of Coticules are also quite large yet are also classed as finishers.

Originally Posted by randydance062449

I do not think that is accurate.

Yes it is actually. Confirmed, Norton 8k is equivalent of 5k on the Japanese grit system, thus the naniwa 3k/8k is a much finer stone and better combo if your after a more refined finish.

Originally Posted by Memorael

Yes it is actually. Confirmed, Norton 8k is equivalent of 5k on the Japanese grit system, thus the naniwa 3k/8k is a much finer stone and better combo if your after a more refined finish.

The Norton is rated using the Japanese system, if you want to search it out, right here on SRP you are going to find an e-mail from Norton stating exactly that.. Easier than that is to hone a razor on the 1-3-8 Naniwa then shave,,, dull it and re-hone on the Norton 1-4-8 and shave don't strop either,, Your face will tell you much more than any "Grit Chart"

The difference is in the makeup of the cutting particles and the binder, it gives two different feels, but they are both rated as 8k on the Japanese system...

(This is the last info I have seen, I can only go by that, although I still trust my honing results more than what any piece of paper states)

Originally Posted by onimaru55

There's more to it than grit size. The Spyderco UF is made of 2k grit particles but its used as a finisher. You have to also consider if the makers are quoting max. particle size or average particle size. Another thing is particle friability or how it fractures. IIRC Nortons are made of AlOx so they will break up differently & cut differently to the newer ceramics.

I am aware of the special case in which Spyderco stones fall in. Just for kicks, I thought you would like to know that they aren't even close to being 2k the micron size of the abrasive ranges from 15 to 25 microns, rating on the Japanese system at around 700 to about 1k. Which of course you are well aware is a huge difference. No grit size has been determined by the makers of such stone specifically because they work way different than waterstones (which is what we are talking about).

There is no other sharpening stone that compares to the performance of these in terms of functionality. I would also like to throw in that the abrasive they use are artificial sapphires which I think is kinda neat and I also believe that after the world ends there is going to be a whole lot of these things lying around since they are virtually indestructible and can only be scratched, to my knowledge with a lot of arm grease and a DMT xxc preferably. Which will become a useless piece of metal once all the diamonds fall out in about 1 hour if your lucky. There is also another unique trait of these stones which is that by the way they cut they tend to make really deep grooves in the steel every so often because of steel balling up and if you have used one long enough you will notice that even though they give a comfortable shave every once in a while they will pull one or maybe two hairs which is unacceptable for me.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

The Norton is rated using the Japanese system, if you want to search it out, right here on SRP you are going to find an e-mail from Norton stating exactly that.. Easier than that is to hone a razor on the 1-3-8 Naniwa then shave,,, dull it and re-hone on the Norton 1-4-8 and shave don't strop either,, Your face will tell you much more than any "Grit Chart"

The difference is in the makeup of the cutting particles and the binder, it gives two different feels, but they are both rated as 8k on the Japanese system...

(This is the last info I have seen, I can only go by that, although I still trust my honing results more than what any piece of paper states)

So, I am guessing that what you are saying is that you get a better shave out of the norton system than the Naniwa? BTW the particle size is 3 micron on the 8k and 6 micron on the 4k which if you check on the shapton glass stones you will get around 5k on the 3 micron and around 1.5k on the 6 micron. So something is out of order with the grit ratings.

Man there is a lot of technical jargon flowing today! Both will give great shaves if you let them! good enough for me

lol ok go back to your sword play!

That's why empirical evidence is what one has to go with.
The Norton 8k produces much refined edge than the Naniwa 5k on any razor that I have tried, and comparable to that from Naniwa 8k. If you look at the edge under a microscope it's very easy to note the exact same thing.

Originally Posted by Memorael

Yes it is actually. Confirmed, Norton 8k is equivalent of 5k on the Japanese grit system, thus the naniwa 3k/8k is a much finer stone and better combo if your after a more refined finish.