A reason for narrow hones and strops?

I was thinking about this one and am sure we may have discussed it in the past but here goes again.

Wide hones and straight passes won't have this issue as it relates to using an X pattern and the full length of the blade never leaves the stone in this case. But, using an X, even on a wide stone, part of the blade extends off of the hone during each pass. On a 2" stone for example the tip is off at the start of a stroke, the heel is off at the end. Same on the return pass. With a 3" long blade which is typical, and a 2" hone. the middle of the blade never leaves the hone. This may account for the frown seen on so many vintage razors as the center is getting twice the hone time as each end.

But what about all those narrow Belgians and Eschers on eBay, most are only 1 1/2" in width, just about half of the length of the blade. In theory, doing an X on one of these the very middle of the blade will just leave the surface of the stone on each pass giving every part of the blade equal time. I wonder if the 1 1/2" or 1 1/4" of vintage stones as well as pasted paddles or loom strops was intentional.
There are plenty of 1 3/4" and 2" strops, mostly from Europe, out there too. The wide 2 1/2" strops seem to be more of an American thing.

I was hoping for a discussion here more as to why things were designed the way they were as opposed to the intracacies of honing.

Any thoughts from the honemeisters and stropmeisters. I'm sure AF Davis and Puffah could come up with some good ideas as well as EL, Lynn, Joe and Randy.

Tony

For starters, I don't think you can discuss this issue, without discussing honing technique..
They made them narrow to save on materials and for portability. In any case, barber texts recommend honing using a toe stroke, a heel stroke and an x stroke to compensate for this.

The x stroke, is the proper stroke. I think, Tony, your right. The width of the stone and strop is thin for a reason. Here is my opinion. And since this will be wildly controversial I'll say that again . . . IMHO:

A 3 inch stone is great if your willing to apply accurate and continuous lapping to insure it remains flat.

A hone that is a little thinner is better, it has nothing to do with the x pattern, but that pattern is required (in my opinion its better regardless).

1. When you use a 3 inch wide hone you find that, without perfect lapping, the stone gets in the way of the honing a little. This is hard to feel unless you have time on a thinner hone but, again its my opinion.

2. When you hone on a 2 inch hone you have extra give off the stone for the razor itself to lay off the stone and get better depth into the bevel with the contact zone.

3. You can focus the weight of the blade better on a thinner contacting hone. Less contact area, more contact weight. Since the blade is supposed to rest with the weight on the hone, its critical that it rests without any impediment at the top of the blade.

4. You do not want a hone that is less than about 1 1/2 inches wide either. You want the blade to rest mostly on the hone at all points on the stroke. You never want a greater percentage of blade hanging off. This ensures balance and flatness on the hone. If more of the blade rested off, it would lift from the leverage. I think 1.5 inches would work well for a 3 inch long blade. I use an x pattern and heel leading stroke so its not simple math, but you get the idea.

5. The thinner hone is easier to manipulate the blade on a little at higher grits. It doesn't build up suction as much (which I think is a good thing from the results stand point, but does indicate your getting the bevel smoother). It allows free, easy movement of the razor with less contact, and it allows easier access all the way into the stabilizing piece on the hone for flat contact because they don't dish out the way a wider hone does. The lack of dishing and lack of complete contact create less suction. I believe, but am not at all sure, that the suction occurs within the hollow and not so much into the edge.

6. The reason I think they made the strops the same width was for the exact same reasons. They aren't as important with a strop but they knew the same weight and balance issues occur with stropping, so they made them the same.

Thats what I think anyway.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that the ONLY reason hones and stones were made thinner was to conserve material. With proper technique gained through guidance and experience, one shouldn't need anything wider. The spare material can be used for another tool.

X

Interesting and informative answer Alan.

I'm struck by #3 –

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

3. You can focus the weight of the blade better on a thinner contacting hone. Less contact area, more contact weight. Since the blade is supposed to rest with the weight on the hone, its critical that it rests without any impediment at the top of the blade.

---

– which is something that's crossed my mind lately. Less contact area, more contact weight indeed. But don't many of the honemeisters here stress the importance of feather-light final passes? Everyone talks about applying "just the weight of the razor" in these final passes. But the "weight" of the razor on a 1 1/2" hone is twice the weight it would be on a 3" inch hone!

As I write this, though, I seem to recall that you're not big on the "no-pressure" approach to honing and stropping...

I'm not a big proponent of only the weight of the blade while honing, because I have other things to do in life.

For final polishing I'm a big (but a little late) proponent of only the weight of the blade.

The big difference being in what I'm trying to do at that moment. Without a series of grits initial honing is faster with pressure.

Once you get the width of the hone out of the way though, the weight is more effective on a thinner hone. No extra contact. The weight then gets focused better. You don't need any corrections to get proper contact. What I want is good contact without adding pressure. Its the pressure thats bad, not the weight, because pressure can not be added equally.

Remember that the concept of honing with only the weight of the blade was created when they only had thinner hones. Maybe guys have a hard time honing on new wider hones because the concept doesn't apply as easily as it did then. You have to put every rule into context from when it was written.

How many guys have noted that only the weight of the blade is more difficult on a 3 inch wide hone and not really thought about just how different a Norton is than older hones.

I'd love to have a thinner Norton to try that out.

Additionally, don't forget the addage that also followed: "sometimes you need twice the weight of the blade, let your experience be your guide"

Alan,
I'm with you on this one. There is a reason for the width and not just to conserve materials. I do suspect that they looked at the narrowest width that was effective but doubt they sacrificed utility simply to reduce materials.

The narrower stone works better on smiling blades too. (Next weeks discussion will be "were smiling blades made so it took a longer time before they developed a frown than a straight ground blade?" <g>)

Interesting points so far.

Tony

I particularly disagree with the resource argument with barber hones which were essentially a recipe from very inexpensive compounds. Its interesting to note though that hones seemed to get a little wider at that point, yet still not 3 inches.

For natural stones its a pretty good argument, yet I get better results with thinner hones. Problem is the time it takes to have that skill level.

Hi Tony,

What has not been mentioned yet is the fact that with some razors, you can only start with the heel already near the bottom of the honing surface because the shoulder is in the way.

As soon as you start the downwards motion, the heel leaves the stone.
With those razors, I find the standard X problematic as the heel receives very little time on the stone.

I work around that by
a) angling the blade so that I need very little downwards motion, or
b) doing 2 straight passes and then an X pass.

depending on what feels best at that moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

I particularly disagree with the resource argument with barber hones which were essentially a recipe from very inexpensive compounds. Its interesting to note though that hones seemed to get a little wider at that point, yet still not 3 inches.

For natural stones its a pretty good argument, yet I get better results with thinner hones. Problem is the time it takes to have that skill level.

---

I would submit that that barber hones are only wider than the average period bench hone because that would protect the hand better from slips as these are held flat on the palm.

By the way I agree with the thinner being better theory, but only for rigid sharpening surfaces. A hanger can be wider as it has built in give resulting in the same type of honing precision. On a different note I think hangers rarely got up past about 2 3/4 is because a three inch strop is quite a handful unless you add hardware or a specially crafted handle.

Regarding this topic....

I don´t know why I have to do an X motion if the stone is 3" wide

Or the X move is not needed, or the 3" stones are not needed in razor sharpening....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vulcano

or the 3" stones are not needed in razor sharpening....

---

that's it.

I guessed that....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vulcano

I don´t know why I have to do an X motion if the stone is 3" wide

---

To even out the action on the blade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vulcano

Or the X move is not needed, or the 3" stones are not needed in razor sharpening....

---

Larger stones provide more stability, especially for the inexperienced hand.

X

Have you ever thought that 3" hone requires a precise gind on a razor compared to a 1.25"- 1.5" Hone?? :) Perhaps having a thin hone made the task of honing poorly ground razors easier, (I have found this to be the case and can only hone a couple of my razors on thin hones due to thier bow or swelling spines). I belive you get far greater control over the process on a thin hone. As mentioned, the contact area being decreased also makes for an easier passage over the hone thus giving better control. I look as the X pattern as a Razors equivelant to the Knife sharpening steel in its motion and being that you can't hone a razor on a Steel, then a thin hone does the same job. If using a 3" hone you can X hone but if the razor is well ground and straight edged then a straight up down stroke is OK and with ba slight heal leading all the better.
As to strops, I think the theorys will translate as well. I find I get better control over the process on a 2" strop due to the easier passage of the blade over the strop but still getting the same amount of draw. I can concentrate on needed areas of the blade better on a thinner strop the same as the hone, this is best noted on full hollows. A wedge razor is a forgiving beast when it comes to hones and strops and I find the wider strops as good as the thinner when it comes to wedges. A thin blade like a full hollow will match a strops cross sectional profile while traveling oiver it. So I suspect that unless your strop is dead flat you will be applying uneven stropping to the surface. This is why I think that the Xpattern is needed for stropping on wider strops, you are effectivly only stropping on a part of the strop and even then it is decreasing as the stroke progresses so that all points of the balde will recieve even attention. With a 2" strop this becomes even more controled by way of the fact that less blade is in contact with it and it is not unreasonable to do W stropping to get the same effect as X but gaining the ability to apply more action to areas requiring it.
Arguments that material costs were the factor in hone and strop manufacture do not stand up IMO, the argument that inconsistancies in manufacture promoted hone and strop development I think is a valid argument.
I posted my most used hone the other day that was passed down to me by my father. This hone is 1 1/4" wide and has no problem honing any shape of razor. My Norton I find I'm using just a half of the surface and I must appologise to Tony too, I cut the Thurigen I got off him down the middle to make it 2" and also in half. I now have two Thuringens of barber hone size and rubbing stones.

Sorry guys, I "waffled" a bit there :)

PuFF

If I had to choose between a wide hone, 2.5-3.0 inches, or a narrow hone, 1.0-1.5, I would choose the narrow hone.
The reason is that the narrow hones can accomadate the differences in bevel angles that exist with razors that have even the slightest "smile" or curve in the edge or slight warping.

Only a razor with a perfectly straight edge will lay flat on the hone for the full length of the razor. All others will not. Thus a person will need to do something in either their technique or tools to accomadate the differences in angles.

For some razors with a pronounced "smile" or "taper" I will use the side of a 1" thick single grit hone like the Norton 1-4-8k.
As has been said by others in this thread the narrow hones allow for more contact in a given portion of the blade and I also agree that the pressure is increased so one must be mindful of that.

If I had to do it all over again I would select hones that were 1.25 inches wide. In fact, I just may cut my Nortons right down the middle with a metal cutting band saw.

Just my two cents,:)

Hi Randy, does that mean that you don't use the rolling hone method?

I recently honed those Joseph Rodgers 6/8 wedges for Nick that were as curved as a banana.
They honed up excellent on the Norton by rolling the edge from heel to toe with each pass.

In fact, the blade never left the surface of the stone. I never drew the heel across the edge of the stone because the rolling motion did not require it.

Since you are way more experienced than I am, I figured you hone differently, or not?

What I've done is make my paddles very slightly convex. For the razors that are a little off I can get them very close by using light pressure on the concave side with an X pattern on the convex side. Then I finish the job on the convex boron carbide paddle.

I suspect that you could do the same thing with the hones. Give them enough of a belly when you lap them that you can barely feel them rock on a flat surface, and that would probably be enough to handle most of the razors that are worth saving.

Last year I found a large bench strop in an antique shop. While wider than we are discussing here it too was convex. It was leather over felt with about an 1/8" crown. It was a factory made strop too. So maybe narrow abd crowned have soe advanatges.

Tony

You guys might find it interesting to do a search under Google patents with the key words "razor" "strop" and "convex."

Apparently a strop with a convex shape had some desireable property. If you read the description of the invention, you get some insight from the inventor as to why.


Scott

I think this is the design in mention, it's raison d'etre wel articulated in ll. 29-39.
Gets one thinking.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randydance062449

If I had to do it all over again I would select hones that were 1.25 inches wide. In fact, I just may cut my Nortons right down the middle with a metal cutting band saw.

---

Even your low-grit hones for creating the bevel?

Just curious.

Seems to be a common thought at the time and after because all paddle strops seems to have a "convex" or rounded sectional profile. I suppose this creates sigle point contact on the razors edge to a degree. This I suppose allows for razor edge profiles better than a flat sectional profile.
Nothings new just reinvented it seems :) Oh yeh, they all seem to be 1 1/4" or a bit more in width too.

PuFF

Facinating discussion, gentlemen. Confirms some things I have found more or less accidentally recently. As with the great spirit of this thread, these are IMHO (especially since I'm olnly a few months old in the str8 family).

My best, most predictable and repeatable stropping results have been on a very narrow old pasteless loom strop (I think that's what it is) that is only about 1.25 wide and about 11" long. For me it seems that the x-pattern gives me a better feel for the razor/strop and razor/stone contact, allowing me better control with better contact. It also covers the full length of the blade better. I'm sure there are other variables, but I consistently had more trouble getting/keeping the toe of the blade sharp when I was stropping x-less on a wide hanging strop. Variables aside, that is just to say that the narrow surface + x-pattern can put a great edge on a razor, even for a relative newbie. Even when I occassionaly use a wider strop, I'm x-ing more now and have much less of the dull-toe problems I consistently had before.

On the hone front, I had an old Hess razor with broken scales and a severe frown that a barber gave me when I bought his hones and text book. Wanting something to practice with on my barber hone, I took it to 1k/2k ceramic stones to get the frown out first. Then I took it to the small barber hones. Didn't really expect to make it shave as it was broken out of the scales. Just did it to get a feel for the hones without over-analysing the procedural details. In pretty short order it seemed pretty good and passed the thumbnail test. So I stropped it, first on a home-made paddle strop with buffing compound, finishing it with x's on a hanging, unpasted Illinois 127. WOW! Sharpest razor in my small collection! HHT never dropped so cleanly, heel to toe! So I took my other small tribe of razors back to the barber hones with an x-pattern, and just "feeling it". Same stroppign and in short order (minutes, not days!) I had the same results on those. The x-pattern and feeling the edge/spine contact really makes a difference for me. (BTW, I have since mounted that Hess in home-made scales and have great shaves with it!). I've been stropping my daily shavers on the little loom strop with great results every day with much less time/effort than I was putting into non-X'd wider strops.

-- Dale

As a newb, I like the feel of holding a narrow hone because my hands aren't very good and I can watch the edge better. I feel more certain the distribution from heel to toe is even as well, as opposed to worry I may be lifting the heel a bit. I like having the weight from the toe side over the end as I start for that reason.
I won't bother with another higher-grit stone, because after 1000/4000/6000/8000 I am gonna finish on the tiny mystery barber hone.

On "banana" razors I still use the X pattern but with a rolling motion. However, as soon as I can I use a narrow hone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Hi Randy, does that mean that you don't use the rolling hone method?

I recently honed those Joseph Rodgers 6/8 wedges for Nick that were as curved as a banana.
They honed up excellent on the Norton by rolling the edge from heel to toe with each pass.

In fact, the blade never left the surface of the stone. I never drew the heel across the edge of the stone because the rolling motion did not require it.

Since you are way more experienced than I am, I figured you hone differently, or not?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

You guys might find it interesting to do a search under Google patents with the key words "razor" "strop" and "convex."

Apparently a strop with a convex shape had some desireable property. If you read the description of the invention, you get some insight from the inventor as to why.


Scott

---

I have some hones and paddle strops that are convex. I have also used a tube wrapped in sandpaper with the same effect. What I had to watch out for was the amount of pressure I used. They work well but slower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dylandog

Even your low-grit hones for creating the bevel?

Just curious.

---

Yes. The narrow size is simply easier to use and can accomadate the different blade shapes. However, this is just my personal preference. X has a method that works just as well. There is more than one way to hone a razor!:) Try them all. It is fun.

Very good thread guys!:)