What's in a picture?

I have been maintaining my own razors and a few local guys for over a year with a set of Naniwas 1/5/8/12. I bought a Phig a while back but didn't mess with it much. Lately, I came into the possession of a German water hone, along with quite a few other stones, strops, and razors. I started playing with the natural hones.

I found that I preferred the edge off either of the naturals over the 12K. Not necessarily sharper but at least as sharp and less irritating. Today, I decided to break out the USB microscope and take pictures of a razor as I stepped through the stones. I was amazed to see that the "natural" edges have far coarser scratch patterns than the 12K. All easily pass the various sharpness tests.

Attachment 185972Attachment 185973Attachment 185974Attachment 185975Attachment 185976Attachment 185977Attachment 185978Attachment 185979Attachment 185980

The order of the pictures was 1K, 5K, 8K,12K, Water hone, Phig 50 laps, 50 more with soapy water, CrOx 10 laps, stropped. Thoughts?

An interesting note is the creation of a micro bevel due to my use of tape while the previous owner did not.

That is very interesting. One would think the opposite would be true. Maybe some of the experts could shed some light on the subject.

It's hard to compare as the light angle changes in the photos. The third and fourth are especially dark.

Also, did you make a double bevel?

2 cents from my notes:
I stayed at 8k for a long time and then went to the 12k Nani. Wow very sharp. Then I got a Zulu grey. Wow very sharp and smoooooth.

another 1 1/2 cents:
Just my thoughts on why ???? The natural doesn't have any binder therefore no space between the abrasives, hence no jagged ( or less jagged) edge.

My thoughts are "Thank-you ":chapeau Its cool to see, I just may be a knuckle dragging Cretan but I could not see that much difference after the water hone, till stropped.
Double thank-you for purchasing the microscope with the USB capabilities.:chapeau:chapeau I was going to purchase to find out if I could see a difference. Only have that 60x loupe and it all looks shiny after bevel setting. You saved me a ton of money and frustration. After seeing all that I am confused. :confused::confused:
I do know that I have tried to shave after 3K ,6K, 8K.... all alleged because they are natural's. higher grit smoother shave, sharp good no cut better.(insert grunt)
I understand the science, but I still cant see it, I want to see the difference ,I do. I appreciate your efforts and sharing I am left more befuddled than clear sighted after this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utopian

It's hard to compare as the light angle changes in the photos. The third and fourth are especially dark.

Also, did you make a double bevel?

---

From my original post "An interesting note is the creation of a micro bevel due to my use of tape while the previous owner did not."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splashone

[/URL] The order of the pictures was 1K, 5K, 8K,12K, Water hone, Phig 50 laps, 50 more with soapy water, CrOx 10 laps, stropped. Thoughts?

---

Bo Didley sums up my thoughts: :)

Bo Diddley - You Can't Judge A Book By The Cover - YouTube

[QUOTE=onimaru55;1423119]Bo Didley sums up my thoughts: :)


The little guy loved the music

Attachment 185865

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splashone

From my original post "An interesting note is the creation of a micro bevel due to my use of tape while the previous owner did not."

---

Yup, I missed it.
Reading is fundamental.

Splashone are you honing using circles? It would explain the lack of discreet linear scratch pattern. I tried to duplicate your experiment with wood and metal using varying grits. No luck using a linear method.
Circles changed the clarity of scratch pattern in my case.
Best answer I got so far.

No, the scratch pattern is bi-directional, Both perpendicular to the edge and at an angle. That is consistent with a combination of straight and cross strokes on the hone. There are only a couple significant scratch marks on the diagonal the group is to the left of the reference mark on the blade and they appear after using the German water hone. They do not exist in the SS 12K picture just prior.

I guess is it is time to take a good look at that hone and find out what is gouging out that metal!

2 things.
1. Polishing steel can reveal earlier scratches.
2. Using a slurry can result in large particles in the mix which may scratch the bevel.
Hard part is working out which is happening.

Actually, this is a pretty common "phenomenon" if you will from what I've read. The fine natural hones will leave a lot scratchier looking bevels, but the scratches are very shallow with a fine natural hone. If you change the angle of the lighting or camera they can disappear like magic. I have read some explanations for why synth stones always appear to leave a shinier surface that say the synth stone scratches are very narrow and (relative to a fine natural stone) deep, which causes stray light to basically reflect back out in a unidirectional way - all the scattered light gets "caught" in the groove. Thus they look shinier. The fine natural stones almost always leave wider, shallower scratches, so all the reflected light gets bounced back and scattered every which way.