Thread: The wrong question with no right answer; stroke count.

You might like this video -

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AJqy49-yHXw

Originally Posted by aa1192

I would love to get a microscope and see what visually looks harsh or smooth to my skin. I wonder if there is a very clear visible difference you can see.

Nope, a microscope will tell you diddly about how the edge will feel on your face. Only your face will tell you that. A scope will show chips, wires & other anomalies but 2 nice shavers can appear radically different, edge wise under a scope. Aiming for highly polished bevels as in the above video can be a great step to a harsh edge.

Originally Posted by onimaru55

Nope, a microscope will tell you diddly about how the edge will feel on your face. Only your face will tell you that. A scope will show chips, wires & other anomalies but 2 nice shavers can appear radically different, edge wise under a scope. Aiming for highly polished bevels as in the above video can be a great step to a harsh edge.

Onimaru55, I have to respectfully disagree. Your implication is that science cannot quantify a smooth shave. I believe it can. In fact, in Ken's video it was not the highly polished edge he was discussing, but rather the very modeled edge of a JNat. We know what makes a harsh shave. Microchips, wire edges, unevenly honed edges, under-honed edges and fragile edges which develop microchips during the shave. This is why we strive to achieve a keen edge from toe to heel, and as durable an edge as can be achieved with a specific formulation and heat treatment of steel. It is not difficult to look at an edge that is proven harsh with a microscope and identify the problem. Smooth shaves can be achieved with various honing tools, from synthetics to naturals, cloths, pastes and particle micron sprays. The result is quantifiable. Honing an edge is not magic, it is science. Scalpels are made by the hundreds of thousands in a factory with quantifiable repeatable results. Our quest as SR enthusiasts is to achieve these results in our homes with humble stones and strops. But we do not depart from science simply because we are using inconsistent stones of variable grit, speed, pressure and count. Our results are quantifiable; and a microscope under the purview of a skilled observer can predict what will be smooth and what will be harsh. The biggest challenge of my premise would be the fragile edge which will vary with the steel. But, with experience on a specific razor, and with practice, this challenge can be overcome, and a predictable result can be achieved with the aid of a microscope.

Originally Posted by Avenolpey

Onimaru55, I have to respectfully disagree. Your implication is that science cannot quantify a smooth shave. I believe it can. In fact, in Ken's video it was not the highly polished edge he was discussing, but rather the very modeled edge of a JNat. We know what makes a harsh shave. Microchips, wire edges, unevenly honed edges, under-honed edges and fragile edges which develop microchips during the shave. This is why we strive to achieve a keen edge from toe to heel, and as durable an edge as can be achieved with a specific formulation and heat treatment of steel. It is not difficult to look at an edge that is proven harsh with a microscope and identify the problem. Smooth shaves can be achieved with various honing tools, from synthetics to naturals, cloths, pastes and particle micron sprays. The result is quantifiable. Honing an edge is not magic, it is science. Scalpels are made by the hundreds of thousands in a factory with quantifiable repeatable results. Our quest as SR enthusiasts is to achieve these results in our homes with humble stones and strops. But we do not depart from science simply because we are using inconsistent stones of variable grit, speed, pressure and count. Our results are quantifiable; and a microscope under the purview of a skilled observer can predict what will be smooth and what will be harsh. The biggest challenge of my premise would be the fragile edge which will vary with the steel. But, with experience on a specific razor, and with practice, this challenge can be overcome, and a predictable result can be achieved with the aid of a microscope.

My 2 cents,,,,
I understand this statement, but I see one very important thing left out here,,,the "Human Element" and the term that you have chosen to use,,,that of a "smooth shave". Without the human element, the face, there is no smooth shave. There is only a well honed edge, either by the mechanics that you have stated above or the simple application of a barber hone in the hands of a skilled shaver. You may have achieved the most scientifically uniformed cutting edge, but that edge will perform differently on a group of shavers,,,,, lets not overlook the all the other elements that produce a "smooth shave" , other than an exceptional edge. Just my thoughts.

Originally Posted by Hirlau

My 2 cents,,,,
I understand this statement, but I see one very important thing left out here,,,the "Human Element" and the term that you have chosen to use,,,that of a "smooth shave". Without the human element, the face, there is no smooth shave. There is only a well honed edge, either by the mechanics that you have stated above or the simple application of a barber hone in the hands of a skilled shaver. You may have achieved the most scientifically uniformed cutting edge, but that edge will perform differently on a group of shavers,,,,, lets not overlook the all the other elements that produce a "smooth shave" , other than an exceptional edge. Just my thoughts.

Well stated. I could not agree more that the definition of a "smooth shave" comes from the test shave and not the observation under the microscope. Once that "smooth shave" has been defined, the edge that produced said "smooth shave" can be evaluated and repeated on a given razor with the use of visual inspection. And, as Hirlau implies, what is smooth will vary with skin type, whisker type and technique.

Aa1192's original quest was to use a microscope to observe the edges that were smooth versus harsh to his skin. My argument is that his quest is achievable. And Hirlau correctly emphasizes that the "test shave" is the determinant of success. and the microscope simply provides a visual representation of that edge that we attempt to repeat.

Originally Posted by aa1192
I would love to get a microscope and see what visually looks harsh or smooth to my skin. I wonder if there is a very clear visible difference you can see.

Originally Posted by Avenolpey

Well stated. I could not agree more that the definition of a "smooth shave" comes from the test shave and not the observation under the microscope. Once that "smooth shave" has been defined, the edge that produced said "smooth shave" can be evaluated and repeated on a given razor with the use of visual inspection. And, as Hirlau implies, what is smooth will vary with skin type, whisker type and technique.

Aa1192's original quest was to use a microscope to observe the edges that were smooth versus harsh to his skin. My argument is that his quest is achievable. And Hirlau correctly emphasizes that the "test shave" is the determinant of success. and the microscope simply provides a visual representation of that edge that we attempt to repeat.

Originally Posted by aa1192
I would love to get a microscope and see what visually looks harsh or smooth to my skin. I wonder if there is a very clear visible difference you can see.

What concerns me about the OP is that will become dependant on the visual aid to determine his success in honing, then frustration sets in when the edge does not perform as well as it looks. I use 5 or 6 different visual aids (would love to have a digital scope, maybe in February),,, to guide my evaluation of a blade. So I'm not against them,, they spot the blades problems & set the course for the first stone.

I think the OP would do well with a loop & a small handheld to evaluate his blades, just keeping in mind that what looks good under the glass, may not feel good on the face.

I am actually way too cool for a regular old loupe Hirlau! That's why I bought these bad boys:


I'm pretty sure I look awesome like this guy except without facial hair. They are so rad my gf gets all giddy and laughs really hard due to my overwhelming coolness/attractiveness with them on I think. For right now I feel pretty good using the TPT and shave test for my final edges. The loupe is a bevel set/ moving stone to stone tool for me. I just wonder if under the scope there is a stand out for what I consider an ideal or harsh blade. I didn't mean like it would be the end all be all of whats a good blade for me. "Sure it took off the skin all the way to the hypodermis, but man it looks good on the scope!" It would just be a cool experiment to me, but perhaps it may not work. I like coti edges, but from pics i have seen they actually look pretty darn rough.

For proper blades(with no chips or warping etc.) using a Norton 1k stone, I find it close to golden ratio, ie. I spend 5x strokes on the bevel setter stone, 3x strokes on the mid-level (4k) stone, and 2x strokes on the finer stones. In this formula total number of strokes is decided by the number of strokes to set the bevel. So if you have to make total 100 strokes for bevel setting, approximately 60 strokes for 4k hone and approximately 40 strokes total for the finer hones works for me.

If your bevel setter stone leaves deep scratches(dmt 1200 plate etc.) more strokes on the higher grit stones will be needed. If you have a chosera 1k or similar bevel setter stone that does not leave deep scratches less strokes on the higher grit stones will be needed.

Originally Posted by Avenolpey

Onimaru55, I have to respectfully disagree.
No problemo. I would've disagreed with me too a few years ago but I've honed enough razors & seen enough crazy things under the scope to have changed my mind. When you shave test & find a great shave that looks like rubbish under the scope you may change your mind too.
Your implication is that science cannot quantify a smooth shave.
Not implying anything. Stating for a fact that what you see under a microscope will not guarantee a bad or good shave test . It is but a guide to the next step, like the infamous HHT.
I believe it can. In fact, in Ken's video it was not the highly polished edge he was discussing, but rather the very modeled edge of a JNat. We know what makes a harsh shave. Microchips, wire edges, unevenly honed edges, under-honed edges and fragile edges which develop microchips during the shave. This is why we strive to achieve a keen edge from toe to heel, and as durable an edge as can be achieved with a specific formulation and heat treatment of steel. It is not difficult to look at an edge that is proven harsh with a microscope and identify the problem.
It is the shave test that proves the edge harsh or otherwise not how it looks. The scope may show changes made with corrections but you will hone past an ideal edge looking for idealistic cosmetics.
Smooth shaves can be achieved with various honing tools, from synthetics to naturals, cloths, pastes and particle micron sprays. The result is quantifiable. Honing an edge is not magic, it is science. Scalpels are made by the hundreds of thousands in a factory with quantifiable repeatable results. Our quest as SR enthusiasts is to achieve these results in our homes with humble stones and strops. "Nope, I want much better than a scalpel for my shaves."
But we do not depart from science simply because we are using inconsistent stones of variable grit, speed, pressure and count. Our results are quantifiable; and a microscope under the purview of a skilled observer can predict what will be smooth and what will be harsh. The biggest challenge of my premise would be the fragile edge which will vary with the steel. But, with experience on a specific razor, and with practice, this challenge can be overcome, and a predictable result can be achieved with the aid of a microscope.
You can predict all you want but all you are predicting is that the razor is ready for a shavetest. When 4 more featherlight strokes on the finisher might make all the difference to the shave I'd bet you'll have a hard time seeing much difference with the scope. Please post your pics if you can demonstrate such a slight visual change.

Below are some pictures I hope may shake up people's belief systems.

First is a wide & wobbly bevel on a Cattaraugus wedge. Superb shaver.

The next 3 pics are different edges . Even with some obvious microchipping all were superb shavers.

The last pic is an edge that shaved equally to the others but simply looks prettier. Pretty sure the last 2 were Pumas so would be a surprise if they were bad shaves.

Originally Posted by ferroburak

For proper blades(with no chips or warping etc.) using a Norton 1k stone, I find it close to golden ratio, ie. I spend 5x strokes on the bevel setter stone, 3x strokes on the mid-level (4k) stone, and 2x strokes on the finer stones. In this formula total number of strokes is decided by the number of strokes to set the bevel. So if you have to make total 100 strokes for bevel setting, approximately 60 strokes for 4k hone and approximately 40 strokes total for the finer hones works for me.

If your bevel setter stone leaves deep scratches(dmt 1200 plate etc.) more strokes on the higher grit stones will be needed. If you have a chosera 1k or similar bevel setter stone that does not leave deep scratches less strokes on the higher grit stones will be needed.

I like the idea of using a ratio, but there have been some eBay purchases that need crazy amounts of 1k strokes. Using a ratio in those cases would be overkill. I can see how it could be a great general rule for a razor just needing an easy reset. After asking here though it seems 40 may be a little north on an 8k as well. Lynn says far less as well as The other big guns here so I'm gonna pull back the throttle.