Thread: Scratch Patterns

Originally Posted by KindestCutOfAll

You can pick up an inexpensive microscope if you want to look closer to your edge, but when it is all said and done it is the shave that counts.

Experiment with your finishing process, but always go with the satisfying shave.

Good call! I have one. But now that I am looking at it more often - I am not sure I understand what I am looking at. The Phig seemed to have way more striations than the ten k, but it buffed out and shaved better than the ten k.

I guess its good to see if one has progressed properly, but I am not sure if it tells you much more.

When I started honing I was an observer,
I did on the stones and observed what happened, both through my loupe and through all of the tests.
I recorded what I saw. When I went to touch up a blade I looked at it and tested it before I touched it to the 8k stone.
I looked at it again after the 8k and compared notes.

I knew what I saw but did not understand what it meant for a while.
Now looking at a bevel tells me a little but not as much as testing it with the TPT.
I use the visual for the glaringly obvious and when getting that last tiny micro piece of a chip out.
Worry less about what you see until you are able to say "that is not what this should look like at this point"
What it looks like can tell some things but not near as much as testing and shaving.

I am finding it hard to explain what I want to convey,
but anymore once I leave the 1k and maybe a quick look during my 5k I don't look at the bevel.

Originally Posted by pfries

When I started honing I was an observer,
I did on the stones and observed what happened, both through my loupe and through all of the tests.
I recorded what I saw. When I went to touch up a blade I looked at it and tested it before I touched it to the 8k stone.
I looked at it again after the 8k and compared notes.

I knew what I saw but did not understand what it meant for a while.
Now looking at a bevel tells me a little but not as much as testing it with the TPT.
I use the visual for the glaringly obvious and when getting that last tiny micro piece of a chip out.
Worry less about what you see until you are able to say "that is not what this should look like at this point"
What it looks like can tell some things but not near as much as testing and shaving.

I am finding it hard to explain what I want to convey,
but anymore once I leave the 1k and maybe a quick look during my 5k I don't look at the bevel.

I think you did a Good job of explaining Pfries...

After you have a bit of experience and you have developed a 'feel' for the stones and the blade edge as it progresses you'll rely less and less on the magnification tests and more on the TPT and shave test. It's all about 'how it feels' both with honing and shaving. I look at the edge with a 30x jewelers loup on the bevel set and then once more after the final finishing stone, but I rely on the TPT throughout as an indicator of edge refinement.

JMHO...

WP34

Originally Posted by earcutter

I guess its good to see if one has progressed properly, but I am not sure if it tells you much more.

I find that no matter how much polish I may have put on a bevel, once it hits a natural for the finish I'm going to see a scratchy surface. But the depth of the scratches should not be significant enough to affect the shave. I lean on a microscope quite a bit during my honing. I know many say that looking at the edge doesn't tell you how it shaves so its meaningless. The HHT? Meaningless. Cutting standing arm hair? Meaningless. Scratch patterns? Meaningless. I don't feel that way. While none of these tests are conclusive, they are clues. As I get to know my stones and razors more, I am slowly being able to predict what will happen next and what needs to happen based on the way the edge looks and performs during these tests. Then when everything seems right with the world, I shave with it to confirm that its ready. And the vast majority of the time when it looks right under a microscope and passes a HHT and so on, it delivers a good shave.

Jimbo is right - the contrast that you see may not be reflective of the surface irregularity.
You are seeing light that scatters off something, but less contrast doesn't mean that the surface is smoother.

A smoother bevel surface, however, does have lower friction when the razor cuts through the hair, i.e. a razor with the objectively more polished bevel (not with the bevel that looks more polished) is sharper.

You should think about what the bevel/edge looks like as a 'test' - you need to correlate the results of such test to the goal you are trying to achieve. If you get consistent pass/fail from the test (how the bevel looks from that hone) correlating with pass/fail of the goal (how the razor shaves), then you can use that test as a guidance of whether you have achieved your goal or not.

I know this is a bit abstract, but that's because you understand the abstraction

Like OCDshaver posted before me a microscope could be a very valuable tool once you learn to use it properly. I have a very high quality one and spent quite a bit of time with it, so I can hone a razor to its optimum by only looking through the microscope and never touching the edge. But the feedback from the way the razor interacts with the hone and the water, how it interacts with hair and my thumbpad are faster than putting it in the microscope, so I primarily use these tests.

Originally Posted by earcutter

Good call! I have one. But now that I am looking at it more often - I am not sure I understand what I am looking at. The Phig seemed to have way more striations than the ten k, but it buffed out and shaved better than the ten k.

I guess its good to see if one has progressed properly, but I am not sure if it tells you much more.

I noticed the same. When I used a coticule & PHIG, the stria appeared 'bigger' from the PHIG yet the PHIG always improved the shave.
I assumed then that the stria from the PHIG were wider but less deep . I have no proof, just the shave test was always better off the PHIG.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

There is a technical relationship between scratch depth and the edge: other things being equal, if you have deep scratches on the bevel chances are you have a "fat" edge to support the thickness of those scratches or a "ragged" edge as a result of those scratches, or both; though the converse is not necessarily true of course (think polished turd).

But as others have said, it's a pretty poor diagnostic and lots of things can cloud the issue - things like the type of abrasive particulate and the shape of the scratch it leaves, and how that shape reflects light back to your eye. A sharp particulate like diamond chip may leave a "V" shaped scratch, whereas a more obtuse particulate might leave a flatter "U" shaped scratch, both at the same depth say. One may well look worse than the other under reflected light.

I dunno, that's just random thoughts. Sounds pretty good though, right?

James.

Originally Posted by earcutter

Thanks man... that helps.

I dunno Dave, I was about to ask him what the h*ll he was talking about Just that I didn't quite get it, not that James is full of it.

I kindof stop looking at the loupe after my last stone... I'm also guessing that the higher the magnification, the greater the temptation to "overthink" it. I've got a basic 30x. When I got it, I was doing two steps forward and one step back for a little while there.

Did you decide what to do with the 3/8k?

Originally Posted by Siguy

I dunno Dave, I was about to ask him what the h*ll he was talking about Just that I didn't quite get it, not that James is full of it.


Well note this sentence in gugi's post: "I know this is a bit abstract, but that's because you understand the abstraction"



I kindof stop looking at the loupe after my last stone... I'm also guessing that the higher the magnification, the greater the temptation to "overthink" it. I've got a basic 30x. When I got it, I was doing two steps forward and one step back for a little while there.

Did you decide what to do with the 3/8k?

I know exactly what you are saying. I have had a great loup for some time but never really used it much until recently. Being unemployed will do that lol. But more importantly, I really think my honing skills have made a leap. I have been reading a ton and practicing. So much so I am getting razors to shave that I never could before. All truth be told - I also gave up on some preconceived notions I have held for a long time - it made a huge difference approaching it as a trial and error rather than I know this has worked therefore...

Anyway, I digress. Looking through the loup has helped me a great deal to see what each stone is doing and when to move on.... and what pressures to use etc etc.

Originally Posted by onimaru55

I noticed the same. When I used a coticule & PHIG, the stria appeared 'bigger' from the PHIG yet the PHIG always improved the shave.
I assumed then that the stria from the PHIG were wider but less deep . I have no proof, just the shave test was always better off the PHIG.

I have always said that there is voodoo in honing. I am trying hard to remove said voodoo now that I have the time. I am finding it to be great fun! And crazy relaxing lol. But the PHIG has me scratching my head.

I'll say this - I am glad I have "discovered" my PHIG!! It's become a great asset! Sadly, I think I have also "discovered" my one coti is of no use other than a knife sharpener. I could be wrong - I was about the PHIG.

Originally Posted by gugi

Jimbo is right - the contrast that you see may not be reflective of the surface irregularity.
You are seeing light that scatters off something, but less contrast doesn't mean that the surface is smoother.

A smoother bevel surface, however, does have lower friction when the razor cuts through the hair, i.e. a razor with the objectively more polished bevel (not with the bevel that looks more polished) is sharper.

You should think about what the bevel/edge looks like as a 'test' - you need to correlate the results of such test to the goal you are trying to achieve. If you get consistent pass/fail from the test (how the bevel looks from that hone) correlating with pass/fail of the goal (how the razor shaves), then you can use that test as a guidance of whether you have achieved your goal or not.

I know this is a bit abstract, but that's because you understand the abstraction

Like OCDshaver posted before me a microscope could be a very valuable tool once you learn to use it properly. I have a very high quality one and spent quite a bit of time with it, so I can hone a razor to its optimum by only looking through the microscope and never touching the edge. But the feedback from the way the razor interacts with the hone and the water, how it interacts with hair and my thumbpad are faster than putting it in the microscope, so I primarily use these tests.

Thanks! I only wish now that I had used the loup more in my past so I would have a data bank to fall back on if even only mental.

Asking is the first step to learning - thanks for all the reply's!!