Thread: Natural bevel setter 1000 grit

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

I may have got a duff sample, but mine was incredibly slow, so slow that I would never use it, least of all as a bevel setter.

I did try it as it came, lapped to 325 grit, and lapped so as to open up the surface of the stone, but this made little or no difference.

Regards,
Neil

The stone was more like 3-4k level and pretty slow. I think it had two characteristics that made it unusable, way too slow and medium grit.

In a bevel setter I would want to have fast stone that also does not leave too deep scratch pattern. On intermediate stone one would want to have medium speed to slow stone to be sure all bevel setting scratches are removed but the edge is not damaged by speed of honing. This stone lacked either of the qualities.
I am grateful to Bushdoctor for taking the time to find and cut the stone and also send it out for evaluataion. I hope he finds more suitable stone soon.

Originally Posted by mainaman

The stone was more like 3-4k level and pretty slow. I think it had two characteristics that made it unusable, way too slow and medium grit.

In a bevel setter I would want to have fast stone that also does not leave too deep scratch pattern. On intermediate stone one would want to have medium speed to slow stone to be sure all bevel setting scratches are removed but the edge is not damaged by speed of honing. This stone lacked either of the qualities.
I am grateful to Bushdoctor for taking the time to find and cut the stone and also send it out for evaluataion. I hope he finds more suitable stone soon.

That's pretty much the conclusion I came to, Stefan. I did PM Lyn about it at the time to see what his findings were. I did try to fit it into a progression, but it didn't really belong, and I came to the reluctant conclusion that it was a stone, not a useful hone.

I echo your thanks to Bushdoctor for going to all the trouble to send out the samples. I am sad that he didn't have a winner on his hands.

Regards,
Neil

There are no natural coarse-medium grit stones that are fast, or come close to what we define as fast. Man made stones are made to be fast, with harder abrasives, and binders with specific characteristics. Silicon oxide can't compare to AlOx, SiC or diamond. It's much softer.

I have seen that, this stone works much faster on softer steels, like classic kitchen knives or inexpensive woodworking tools. But razors are just too hard.

There are many naturals in the range of this stone that are as slow if not slower, and people pay 100-150$ for a piece, just because those stones became famous. I wouldn't go as far to say that, it isn't a hone, just a stone, for this reason alone. Until a few decades ago, pietra serena was a famous sharpening stone.
Nobody is going to compare the speed of a Belgian Blue with that of a norton 4k. And, comparing the speed of this stone against the Chosera, it's obvious who is the winner. I knew when I bought the stone, that it couldn't be even close to the speed of man made ones. But, I still find it a nice addition to my collection.

Is it possible to rate a natural stones grit?
Mike

Originally Posted by MODINE

Is it possible to rate a natural stones grit?
Mike

Not really, but I have seen quite a few posts rating Eschers, Jnats, and Coticules grit.

I thank you all the Honemeister that have tested the stone, I'm sorry that don't works like you want, and also thanks to Vasilis, that he appreciate this stone.

I'm still looking around the mountains, when I have free time, to pick up samples to lapping at home and test to look if are suitable for razors, maybe one day.......................

I know that feeling. A lot of hard work for that special hobby.
Remember one likes the synthetic speed and the other natural beauty.

Originally Posted by MODINE

Is it possible to rate a natural stones grit?
Mike

Not that old chestnut again.

I think that most everyone here knows that it is just a loose way of making a comparison between stones. What would you suggest we use otherwise?

We want to know a bit, however sketchy, about hone stones and how they perform. Comparing them to other hones gives us some ball-park idea. It may not be scientific, it may be wildly skewed by each individuals perceptions, but what else have we got?

Technical details like specific gravity, mass, particle shape, hardness of the matrix, sedimentary, metamorphic, etc, etc, are far more meaningless than saying a particular natural hone "...leaves an edge a bit like a 12k naniwa hone I own..." At least that gives us more of clue about the natural hones ability. Saying "...it cuts fairly fast and leaves a decent edge..." is far less useful in my opinion.

We use 'slow', 'moderate' and 'fast' to describe how hones perform, and that's pretty loose if you ask me. At least comparing the edge they produce with hones of a known and unvarying grit - ie man-made hones - will tell us what end of the scale we are talking about - bevel-setters, mid-range or finishers.

A bit OT perhaps, but the very language we use is loose, too - unless we happen to be pedants though we usually let it go because we get the jist. Take a few examples:

"New and Improved" - how can something brand new already be improved? It's either new or its old and improved.
"Free Gift Included" - never mind the fact that you have to buy something to get the gift, technically a 'gift' is 'free' or it isn't a gift
"It's Not just Oil - It's Liquid Engineering" - really? Clever old oil.

You don't get the usual suspects whingeing when any of those terms - and many others like them - are used: because we 'get it', just like some of us 'get' what we mean when we try to describe hones in terms of grit rating.

Regards,
Neil (comparable to a 600 grit hone today).

Several members over the years have suggested that by observing the very apex of the cutting edge with magnification, 100x or more, that the abundance or absence of "tooth" can help to determine approximate grit rating. Or at least the fineness of the stone.

I remember one post that stated someone with much honing experience should be able to put a grit # on a stone simply by noting the performance of the blade after being honed on a particular stone. The nearer to shave ready the edge, the finer the grit # of that stone.

At any rate, edge performance is probably a good enough factor for determining approximate grit #. Opinions abound as usual.

I have to agree with both of you and can only say that to me it looks like learning curve. When you start with hones quantification is so important for you but as you progress and have more experience this need for numbers is replaced with quality and personal preference.