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

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.