Thread: 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 –

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.

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.