I picked this up a few years ago a still don't have positive ID
Due to the banding on the side, maybe Hindostan?
Attachment 84032Attachment 84033Attachment 84034
Printable View
I picked this up a few years ago a still don't have positive ID
Due to the banding on the side, maybe Hindostan?
Attachment 84032Attachment 84033Attachment 84034
It looks similar to me but I'm no expert either
Who's to say otherwise? After a lot of searching and comparison to several different stone pics, I "titled" my rock a hindostan, and moved on. Of course, that was before I learned of the acronym PHIG. I decided it wouldn't matter so long as I don't have to sell it. Maybe Neil Miller could tell you what he thinks. He had one for sale at one point.
The layering is characteristic for Hindostans, they seem to be orange / brown mostly with a surface that looks stained. This one looks lighter than usual but I haven't seen that many Hindostans and it does look stained.
PHIG is a name some use for the Chinese stones from Guangxi.
Hmm, I guess I didn't learn what the acronym meant...until just now. Thanks Piet!
i have been meaning to post a pic of the hindostan and some info on the stone . i will do so in the morning
like piet said i never saw a hindostan in a yellowish color before how does the stone feel when you run your finger nail down the stone ? most hindostans i have saw were coffee stained lite to dark brown some where orange
Dry it feels smooth and slightly chalky, wet very smooth and sort of like a Coticule with light slurry. There are definite orange splotches and it looks sort of gray when wet.Quote:
Originally Posted by eleblu05
It certainly has the thick and thin layered banding that you associate with these stones, and the colour is about right. They seem to be greyish/yellow/tan most often with orange/brown splotches and stains, but how much of the staining is due to them having been used with oil and having metal scrapings oxidising on them is debatable. They are sometimes called orange stone, not because of the colour (a forgivable mistake to make) but because of where the vast majority of them came from Orange County.
I suspect the colour of the surface could depend on the colour of the banding - if the surface was smoothed off along a darker banding then obviously the stone would be darker than one smoothed off along a lighter banding. The banding arose due to the stones components being laid down in silty water, the degree of particle deposition being influenced by the tides. It is not unusual to see a thick and thin band side by side, echoing the rise and fall of the tide. During mining operations it was said that the rock could be split very exactly along these lines, so there was a minimum of waste.
Here are some pics of a few of the stones in question:
Attachment 84082Attachment 84083Attachment 84084Attachment 84085Attachment 84086Attachment 84087
It appears that another outcrop was found on an island in a lake between Vermont, USA and Quebec, Canada. A lot of that discolouration is obviously due to staining. Although a large proportion of the stone went into making oilstones, a larger percentage was used to make tombstones. These have weathered and discoloured too, but still show quite a range of colours from orange/brown through yellow, grey, cream tan and off-white. The darker brownish/orange discolouration appears to be some sort of rust stain, so some traces of iron oxide must be present in the rock.
Regards,
Neil
Thanks Mr. Neil the info you provided was great
Thanks Neil for the info and pictures!
The pattern and patches on the honing surface looks a lot like mine. What is the aprox grit on these, other people have said and I think I agree, it's about 6-8k, it does seem finer with oil though and definitely coarser with slurry and water.
well speaking about my hindostan stone it fall's in the novaculite family and in that progression my hindostan falls in-between my translucent or surgical black and my cf. i rate the grit of my hindostan around 12k i've seen them rated around at the low end of 9k to the high end of 12k
here are a few pic's of my hindostan stone .my stone is a darker brown with some tan and a little orange. first pic in natural sunlight second pic indoors without sunlight third pic side view without oil fourth pic side view with oil fifth pic from the top with oil enjoy -craig
Well, just to add some more to the pot. Here's mine to the left of a couple other mystery hones, and two featuring side banding. Mine is like glass on top, which has made me wonder if I didn't glaze it. But the sides are chalky like you mentioned. It slurries at the hint of friction, but I haven't really done anything amazing with it. My skills are somewhat lacking still. After I catch up to the hone, then I'll tell you what it's capable of. :p
It certainly does look similar to mine but I also suppose it could be another sedimentary stone with abrasive qualities.
Grit - the silica xls (abrasive particles) in the Hindostan were, at one time, reported to be approximately .02mm - 20 micron. About double the size of the particles in an Arkansas stone. Because the particles are not as closely packed in (density) the stone was referenced as being 8 times more coarse that an Arkansas.
I just now came back from the kitchen, having put my soft Ark up against my Hindostan with a beat up Torrey.
The scratch pattern from the Hindostan is deep and rough, where the scratches from the soft Ark show a tighter patter, they're not as deep and the bevel was hazier overall. The soft Ark was able to remove all of the scratches from the Hindo with less than 40 half-strokes. The cutting edge from the soft Ark seems to be refined to a higher degree and I would suspect that it would give a better shave if I was going to really give it the acid test. What I think is that my Hindostan is better suited to putting an edge on knives. I don't see it being part of a progression for razors here but if I was going to attempt to do that it would be early on...
I'd be interested to see that report, if you can remember where you found it. I've done a little reading about it, and kinda came to the conclusion that a lot of different ratings were applied. As you could buy the stone for brick laying, or for tool sharpening, or for tombstones, or of the quality useful for a razor. Using my stone on an antique Ontario Cutlery kitchen knife got me nowhere. Ahh you see? I can't accept it. I WANT this stone to be special. hahaha.
The Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Arkansas for 1890 Vol III
You can find it in Google books; there are other volumes, but that's one I saved. Don't know how accurate the data is compared to what would be produced today, but it's interesting reading at any rate. I would assume the information to be close-enough though.
I don't know enough about the Hindostan to say whether or not there were 'grades' available - but I've not seen anything that alludes to that. Variances with natural hones is common - but to what extent with these particular stones, I don't know. I do think I read about some stones being whiter though.
If your stone wouldn't cut the carbon steel on that kitchen knife then I'd suspect that it's glazed or something, Mine cuts pretty well...must use oil or soapy water though.. I used it dry once and it loaded up pretty fast.
If I raise a slurry with a DMT, mine cuts REALLY fast and the slurry turns black, with just water it will start to discolor after about 40 laps, with oil its feels like a Coticule with water and feels like a finisher
According to some of the old data (which may be accurate, or not) the particle size varies: from 0.010mm to0.325mm, so 0.02mm is seen as a theoretical average size only. Actual specimens may be coarser or finer. As Gamma says, 0.02mm converts to 20 microns, and according to what micron/grit conversion chart you consult that converts to somewhere between 800 and 1k, which is not my experience. The ones I have tried have ranged from around 9k to at least 12k.
The problem is probably the same as that encountered with arkansas stones - you cannot use a grit rating system. The cutting particles cut finer or coarser according to how densely they are packed, so the only reliable indicator of fineness in these circumstances is to use specific gravity as a determination of fineness - the more closely packed the particles the finer the cutting action and the denser the stone.
Regards,
Neil
I think Neil is spot-on here.
This is why I try to avoid relating the performance of a natural stone to a grit rating. I see the need for a comparison from one stone to another - but my mind is too linear to accept referencing an Arkansas stone as 12k or higher, when I believe the particles are actually more like 1.4k.
Along with specific gravity, and/or density of abrasive - the shape of the xls, xl friability, and how the basic structure of the stone factors in to the equation must be considered. I would imagine that measuring specific gravity would be for comparing specimen to specimen - not Hindostan to Charnley Forsest though.
Using the average size of the particles seems to be/have been the common method of comparison across the board. The Arkansas was said to have 0.01 mm particles - and I'm convinced (although not 100% positive) that there were a good number of stones that had an average number of larger or smaller particles. My guess is that since honing a razor or sharpening a knife wasn't considered so uber-critical to most people and a declaration of 'average' performance was sufficient.
Proof is in the pudding I suppose - so the only way I'll really know what the best edge this Hindostan of mine will be like is to shave with a razor I finished on it.
I hate sacrificing a known-good edge though... I have to get over that. I can't keep buying razors for the sake of testing stones.
I have done some experiments with mine
I've used it after setting the bevel with a diamond hone using slurry in place of a 1-2k stone, it worked well this way. I've also tried mine with water, Smiths honing solution and 3 in 1 oil as a finishing hone, it likes the oil or honing solution best and will give a passable edge, I'll have to do more trial and error tests to really fine tune this stone
Really glad I found this thread.
I have been trying to identify this hone for some time.
Thanks to Sham as he pointed me in the right direction :D
Attachment 89743Attachment 89744Attachment 89745Attachment 89746
I bought this online not knowing what I was getting other than it was a vintage hone in a wooden box.
The swarf covering the stone was of a very fine grain, dark coloured and thickly coating the stone from its many years of use.
After cleaning it with soap and brush I was surprised to find a beige coloured stone, which quickly oxidised to the colour I have now.
Thanks to another SRP member I now have a DGLP and was able to lap it ready for use.
For its size this stone is really heavy.
The most striking characteristic about this stone was actually the smell.
It really "reeked" of some type of petroleum, possibly kerosene. Even after cleaning and lapping it still smells, although to a lesser extent.
Has anyone heard of using one of these with some form of petroleum?
The link below are the photos after cleaning and lapping:-
PLEASE CLICK PHOTOS to see them in detail :tu:
http://img276.imagevenue.com/gallery...Gravestone.php
Here a pic of my Hindostan color layering this stone was black when i got it and still has a lot of stain from oil, you can see the orange specks all over i was actually thinking of getting this stone cut in half lenghtwise since its so thick at 1 1/2.
.Attachment 89748
