Results 11 to 13 of 13
Thread: confused about honing stones
-
04-19-2007, 07:15 PM #11
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- St. Paul, MN, USA
- Posts
- 2,401
Thanked: 335Novaculite stones?
All the conversation here seems to be on the relative merit of Belgian and German natual stones used with water, some Japanese water stones, and the newer Norton artificial water stones. Can some of the cognoscenti here tell this tyro why there is so little dicussion about what I thought were the marvelous razor hones from Arkansas? And if it's a case of the old stones worked so well but the new stones aren't worth a pinch, what is the difference and how significant is it?
Much obliged
-
04-19-2007, 07:43 PM #12
-
04-24-2007, 12:23 AM #13
Confuse you not!
The Eschers are Eschers, thuringians are thuringians, and Hunsruecks are Hunsruecks. They are not the same stones and will give different results on different razors. Tony Miller has written about this on his website as I have on mine about the Belgian Blues and Coticules. I have the above stones in my collection and have used them all at one time or another on different razors. At the risk of sounding self-serving, people eventually end up buying a coticule and become happy people. They've been "the standard" for a long time. A Norton 4k/8k doesn't need to be beveled but I like a bevel on all of my personal stones so I bevel them by holding them on edge on a DMT Coarse continuous diamond stone in the kitchen sink and just rub the long way and rock a bit side to side to help round. The reason one finds natural stones almost always beveled (or chamfered as I prefer to say) is that it reduces pressure flaking. Artificial stones aren't usually chamfered as it's an additional manufacturing process (translate "adds cost").