Printable View
How does the Tam O Shanter compare to a Coticule?
I read that the Tams are about 6-8k, and the Coticule is around 8K. The Scotts are a slow cutter, and the Belgian is a medium cutter. The O'Shanter is good against microchipping too I hear.
Any one care to comment on the differences and which might be 'the one' if they could only have one. Also, for what reason.
Usually a little rougher and some people seem to move from the TOS to the coticule to finish.
I don't use mine very often so I couldn't say how much difference there is for sure.
The TOS is more of a medium hone, ~6K. It is very slow and gentle; Mparker recommends it for very hard or brittle steel prone to microchipping. He seems to have swung heavily over to Shaptons so I don't know if he's still using his Tam.
I got one and use it because three honing gurus I tend to listen to use it regularly: Joe Chandler, Randydance, and Mparker. All three follow it with something else: coticule, escher, pasted strops, or some combo thereof.
What I still don't totally understand is what the point of a slow medium hone is (except for w/regards to microchipping). That is, if you're finishing with a coticule or escher, does your face and beard know that you used a Tam before you got to the fine finisher? If not, what did you accomplish using the slow Tam instead of something fast?
These are the doubts running through my mind as I slavishly try to emulate the big guys.
I don't have that particular hone however I can tell you that if you have multiple razors to hone, though there will seem to be redundency in what they do and how they operate you will find that some razors prefer different hones and they will give different results. That's why you always need several hones in your honing artillary. How's that for a reason to endulge in hone purchases eh?
I'm all for redundancy, acquisition pretexts, and other mystification...:D
I'm just not clear on how any consideration other than convenience comes into play before you get to your finisher. I can totally see why guys have a coticule, escher, thuringian, and a pasted strop, and feel a difference between each while shaving, and prefer one or the other according to the razor they're finishing...
But does the hone you used before you get to your finisher make any difference? Assuming there's no microchipping issue, does a razor finished on an escher (after say Norton 4k/8k) feel any different from a razor also finished on an escher but after a 4K–TOS progression?
Dylan,
For me, I like the idea of a slow medium hone because it seems to leave a finer polish. (Slower to me = shallower grooves, which means a more even edge.)
My beard likes a very smooth edge, so I try to use my Belgian blue to get out all of the lower-grit scratches. The Belgian blue leaves a nice, polished edge. Then I try to polish out all the blue scratches on my coticule.
I have no idea, really, if this is what I'm actually doing, but it's my goal. My best shaving razors always look really polished under magnification, so I've tried to emulate that.
The 4K Norton leaves a nice, sharp edge with very pronounced scratches. The Belgian leaves a much finer polish.
That's just how I visualize what's going on; I may be way off, though. :)
Josh
One of the reasons I really like the Tam is that the jump from 4K to 8K is rather large. The second reason is as Josh mentions, a softening of the texture on the bevel, the Norton 4K is very effective for me but the scratch pattern has sharp ridge lines that I want to soften and the Norton 8K does not do that as well as the Tam. BTW, I normally use 50 laps on the Tam with slurry.
The Tams characteristic as being good for microchipping blades was proven again just yesterday. I was honing a 6/8 Puma that was not behaving well and the Tam took care of that problem. What I think is happening is that for some brittle steels the jump from 4K Norton to 8K Norton is simply to much.
I think so much of the Tams that I have two from Simon Coul and a bunch of other pieces that I picked up elswhere.
Of course it is also a natural stone and one that will soon not be available anymore since the mine has been closed.
Just my two cents,:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshEarl
Randy, Josh, this is great. I've always liked the Tam and the Belgian blue even more (it's like honing on velvet) but I've never understood what the hell I was doing and why.Quote:
Originally Posted by randydance062449
I bought the Tam because Randy, Michael, and Joe use it. I was at the point in my honing learning curve – a very slow one, as I've admitted on several occasions – where in wondering why the razors Joe had honed for me were so great, and mine so mediocre, I concluded that it must be an issue of equipment, rather than talent.:o
Just because I sold my norton and coticule doesn't mean I've left the reservation completely :) . For my vintage sheffields I use a 4k Shapton/tam o'shanter/pink translucent/boron carbide progression. For my handful of microchip-prone razors I'll do 50-80 laps on the tam o'shanter instead of the 4k and 8k Shaptons. But for everything else, there's the Shaptons. I don't even use pasted paddles anymore though I've still got a stack of them in the closet.Quote:
Originally Posted by dylandog
Interesting, Michael. Why do you use that TOS – pink translucent progression on Sheffields? – I thought they were fairly soft and not prone to microchipping. And is the pink much finer than the Tam? I don't have a pink, but I had thought from your posts about it that it's ~6K, more or less the same as the Tam.Quote:
Originally Posted by mparker762
I come right off the 8K Norton to an Escher every day and consistently end up with a nice shaving razors. Some may need a minor pasting, some do not. The only problem with micro chipping I have ever had is with very hard Damascus razors.
You can experiment with 50 stones and find that they all do something that you like, but for every day consistency, the Norton 4K/8K is tops followed by either an Escher or Coticule.
Lynn
I generally don't take my sheffields to a very high grit. The sheffields are soft enough that the aggressive lower-grit shaptons leave deep gouges in the steel that take the arkansas forever to get out. The TOS with a thick slurry does this much faster than the pink. Accd to Norton the translucents are around 6k, but my pink cuts noticeably finer than that - it makes an edge a bit sharper than the Norton 8k. Once it leaves the pink then it gets a few laps on the boron carbide (~12k) and I usually call it a day. I've experimented going higher that that but the tradeoffs haven't really been worth it.
Sheffields are generally very easy to hone unless previously honed unevenly or extensively. The Norton 4K/8K Escher or Coticule with some paste if needed is all that is normally needed. If one is really been honed unevenly or ground up, send it to Joe for re-grinding.Quote:
Originally Posted by mparker762
Lynn
I have both stones in my collection and have honed razors on both. I like the Tam for a dull razor and the Coticule for a finishing stone. Microchipping of the blade is not an issue with Coticules or Tams or Eschers. If you're having a problem with microchipping, it may be the steel and not the stone. Steel that isn't heat treated correctly will be brittle and that leads to chipping. Are you using a Damascus steel razor by any chance?