Thread: Hones and Edges Under the Microscope

Now then, having been shown what an overhoned edge looks like, what does an underhoned edge look like?

Originally Posted by Bruce

Now then, having been shown what an overhoned edge looks like, what does an underhoned edge look like?

It looks like a perfectly even edge with a uniform bevel that does not shave worth a damm. ( No joke)

Originally Posted by Bruce

Now then, having been shown what an overhoned edge looks like, what does an underhoned edge look like?

rem acu tetigisti

An underhoned edge can look like just about anything, including a perfectly honed edge. The most perfect-looking edge I've ever seen under a scope (240x) was so dull it would not cut armhair even by scraping the arm. This is why I've been harping about the risks of reading too much into what a microscope can show you.

Things to look for include:

- double bevel (incompletely formed bevel)

- pits on the bevel (microscopic corrosion, this commonly penetrates through the entire blade and you should hone through them)

- bevels that look kind of flintknapped (indicates microchipping)

- crumbled edges (rotten steel, this is common on ebay razors)

- chipped edge (need to hone them out)

- scratches that aren't parallel (need to be more careful with your technique)

- honing marks on only some parts of the blade (warped blade or bad technique on the hone)

Sharp razors don't show any of these problems. But just because a razor doesn't show any of these problems doesn't mean it's sharp, it could just mean you're hitting the limits of what you can see at these resolutions.

A lot of good arguments and a few assumptions. Many of the thoughts provided are correct, thus the appearance of an argument.

I find that a smooth bevel creates finer teeth and a smoother shave, yet that doesn't mean much in a photo.

Additionally, the appearance of these bevels can be replicated by other hones by adjusting the number of strokes. It should be emphasized that only 10 strokes were done on each. One of the important things I have learned about honing is learning about the variations in the number of strokes needed to acquire smoothness.

What did the edges each look like before the 10 strokes were applied with each hone? My experience makes me question the before appearance of the bevel as some of the after appearances do not match my experience of what should happen with 10 strokes applied to identical bevels from each of these hones.

Great post though, and exciting thread, I love the drama of it all.

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

Great post though, and exciting thread, I love the drama of it all.

Yeah, it's been a real hoot.

At ease guys!

I think that it will never be possible to use scientific methods to say with certainty how to bring about the best shaving edge known to man. The fact is no matter how many pictures of different edges we see for one the are many many media available so we must gather every conceivable media and then once we have done that how do we factor in the honing method each individual uses. While Lynn may have a certain result with media C maybe X man has a better result with media B and I have a better result with media A. Also how does the individual razor factor into the equation? There are just too many variables. Its like saying which is better coke or pepsi? Each has his favorites.

You might be able to say given ideal circumstances and a master honer and a given blade, media F is the best for the job but that has no relevance to the rest of us. Theoretical axioms often have to relevance to the real world but they look good in a professional journal.

And as to the japanese stone how does this look?

http://page4.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/d72065346

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

At ease guys!

I think that it will never be possible to use scientific methods to say with certainty how to bring about the best shaving edge known to man. The fact is no matter how many pictures of different edges we see for one the are many many media available so we must gather every conceivable media and then once we have done that how do we factor in the honing method each individual uses. While Lynn may have a certain result with media C maybe X man has a better result with media B and I have a better result with media A. Also how does the individual razor factor into the equation? There are just too many variables. Its like saying which is better coke or pepsi? Each has his favorites.

You might be able to say given ideal circumstances and a master honer and a given blade, media F is the best for the job but that has no relevance to the rest of us. Theoretical axioms often have to relevance to the real world but they look good in a professional journal.

And as to the japanese stone how does this look?

http://page4.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/d72065346

Everyone KNOWS Coke is better

Originally Posted by mparker762

Too bad you don't have the one credential that actually matters here: you don't know how to hone.

And with that, you're going on my ignore list. buh bye.

Put me on there too. You make the classic mistake of thinking that everyone that is new to a forum is new to the subject. Wrong!

I do know how to hone, too! Been doing it for many years, probably more than you've been alive. It's a science, not an art.

Hey rgdominguez, Illigitimi non carborundum. With all the extraneous noise ignoring us, maybe we can have a good learning session!

Tim, nice pictures. I wish you could have taken them of both sides of the blade, a lot of times a burr can hide on one side and look really clean from the other. Nice work, though, and thanks!

Swede, right on bro!!! I hope that we learn a bunch more from Tim. I've incorporated your advice to me, Illigitimi non carborundum, into my signature. Thanks for reminding me of what my Roman ancestors would say to much of this. Best regards, Rich.

Is it a waterstone for honing bigspender? The picture isn't too clear but it looks like a nagura to me but of course it could just be the stamp looks like nagura as kanji does have so many similar looking characters.