What stones?

Belgian Yellow Coticule at the www.theperfectedge.com is an 8k stone.
why would you use this after the norton 8k?



"The Belgian quarry yields two types of stone in two grades. We ONLY buy the Selected Grade. The Blue Stone is a 4000 grit and the Yellow Coticule Stone is an 8000 grit. The Belgian Stones will cut all types of steel since garnet is harder than steel. Use these stones for all kinds of woodworking tools, knives, and straight razors. We recommend only water spritzed on top of the stone to make the slurry."

OK - I deleted my post since it seems to have been foolish information. I had recommended the poster look into a Belgian Yellow Coticule as referenced by Heliguy's post which I quote below. Based on his post, my post seemed idiotic so..it went bye-bye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heliguy

Belgian Yellow Coticule at the www.theperfectedge.com is an 8k stone.
why would you use this after the norton 8k?



"The Belgian quarry yields two types of stone in two grades. We ONLY buy the Selected Grade. The Blue Stone is a 4000 grit and the Yellow Coticule Stone is an 8000 grit. The Belgian Stones will cut all types of steel since garnet is harder than steel. Use these stones for all kinds of woodworking tools, knives, and straight razors. We recommend only water spritzed on top of the stone to make the slurry."

---

That said, to give an explanation, heliguy:

1. I've heard differing views on the grit (I also didn't read that part on the website and went off others recommendations of a finishing stone)

2. Maybe Lynn could answer that because I thought in his video he mentions going from the 8k Norton to a yellow coticule. I'll rewatch the video though.

In the meantime. Ignore me.

Man that was taken up wrong.:o I was not disagreeing with you, on the contrary it seems to be quite common to use the yellow coticule after the Norton. There several references to the coticule being 12k equivalent on this site. I find that I am confused by what seems to me to be conflicting information but is most likely just an ignorance of the subject on my part.

That's an important point. I'm going to start a new thread to discuss this so this one isn't hijacked.

Howard works directly with the quarry and both his site and the quarrie's indicate 8K as well. They should know and these are the figures used by everyone whos sells them.

I think the finer effect comes from the slurry, and possibly fractured garnet crystals depending on who's theory one believes. Most who have used these extensively will say they "cut" like a 10k or 12k stone.

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony Miller

Howard works directly with the quarry and both his site and the quarrie's indicate 8K as well. They should know and these are the figures used by everyone whos sells them.

I think the finer effect comes from the slurry, and possibly fractured garnet crystals depending on who's theory one believes. Most who have used these extensively will say they "cut" like a 10k or 12k stone.

Tony

---

Tony,

Thanks for the info. I did PM Howard to get a clarification. In no way do I doubt his statements or question his reliability. I hope I'm not coming across as doing so.

The natural stones especially seem to cut finer than their grit rating would indicate. Arkansas stones are like this as well, as are the Tam O'Shanter stones.

From what I understand, the natural stones, particularly garnet based ones (coticules and tams) have a much larger grit size then the actual cut it gives. This is because the garnet has irregular sharp edges.

Hence with the synthetic stones, the particle itself is wholly abrasive, whereas with the natural stones, its the sharp edges of the particles that do the cutting. The natural stones therefore cut at 8000, the garnets cut up much much smaller for the same size particle.

Si

Does anyone have photomicrographs of synthetic hones and natural hones so that we can compare them with hard data?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rgdominguez

Does anyone have photomicrographs of synthetic hones and natural hones so that we can compare them with hard data?

---

Rich,

Hmmm, good question.....now which of us has access to an electron microscope?? <g>

Tony