Thread: Barber Hones Under A Microscope

You really got to give Tim Zowada credit for putting up those microscope images up [hones, edges, bevels]. It got me thinking about barber hones, and how they get a less than favorable rap around here from time to time. I don't have a setup like Tim but I do have a 60x - 100x Radio Shack jobber and it hit me to take a look at my hones under the scope. I don't know how looks of smoothness equates to grit size but I used my Norton 4/8k as a reference.
I checked out a couple dual layer ebay specials and found that even the fine sides of the hones looked to be much courser than the Norton 4k. One of them claimed its fine side to be a Swaty knockoff. At 60x and 100x under the microscope I got an idea of the differences. I'm sure a more powerful scope would do better, but I got a round about idea of grit size. If a visual is worth anything, the ebay special's fine (Swaty like) sides looked to be under 4k, maybe 2 or 3k by comparison. Does this sound about right?

No this does not sound correct. Most barber hones are supposed to be in the 6K-8K range and possibly even higher. The Swaty barber hone is a touch up/finishing hone that should be in the 8K ballpark. The problem with barber hones is that it is difficult to find one in the 4K range or lower which means that it can take a long time to cut a bevel with one.

Originally Posted by heavydutysg135

No this does not sound correct. Most barber hones are supposed to be in the 6K-8K range and possibly even higher. The Swaty barber hone is a touch up/finishing hone that should be in the 8K ballpark. The problem with barber hones is that it is difficult to find one in the 4K range or lower which means that it can take a long time to cut a bevel with one.

I'm just telling you what mine look like under a microscope by comparison.

FWIW I am really not a big fan of the Radio Shack microscopes because the resolution is so poor. I really don't think that what you see in the microscope is a good representation of the grit of your barber hone if it looks to be courser that your Norton 4K. Just my .02

Originally Posted by bth88

I'm just telling you what mine look like under a microscope by comparison.

I know that you are telling me what you saw under your microscope. In your post you said it looked to be about 1K and you asked if "that sounds about right?" and I said that it does not sound right based on what I know about barber hones. Just trying to answer your question not argue with you.

Originally Posted by heavydutysg135

I know that you are telling me what you saw under your microscope. In your post you said it looked to be about 1K and you asked if "that sounds about right?" and I said that it does not sound right based on what I know about barber hones. Just trying to answer your question not argue with you.

Hmmm... I guess that's where the confusion might lie. I did not state that it looked to be about 1k. I wrote that it looks more like 2-3k by comparison to a 4k Norton. I'm no grit expert but the barber hones I have in my possession do look to be more course than a 4k Norton under a microscope, that's all I'm saying.

Cheers

I may be mistaken here, but I think not everything in a hone, even an artificial hone, is a cutting agent. In some natural hones it's just the garnets that are hard enough to cut steel, and the surrounding matrix may be coarse or fine and it really doesn't matter.

There may be something analogous going on with barber hones, i.e. something hard enough to cut steel and fine enough to polish it well, set within some softer but potentially coarser matrix.

On the other hand, like I said, this could be B.S.!

Originally Posted by dylandog

I may be mistaken here, but I think not everything in a hone, even an artificial hone, is a cutting agent. In some natural hones it's just the garnets that are hard enough to cut steel, and the surrounding matrix may be coarse or fine and it really doesn't matter.

I think you're right.

Originally Posted by bth88

Hmmm... I guess that's where the confusion might lie. I did not state that it looked to be about 1k. I wrote that it looks more like 2-3k by comparison to a 4k Norton. I'm no grit expert but the barber hones I have in my possession do look to be more course than a 4k Norton under a microscope, that's all I'm saying.

Cheers

That is not where the confusion lies. 2-3K is still less than 4K; a normal barber hone should not be at or below 4K. Definately not a Swaty. It is possible that you have a very course type of barber hone that is below 4K but then it would not be a Swaty or a barber hone that serves the same purpose as a Swaty which is a finishing/touch up hone. FWIW I agree with Dylandog.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by heavydutysg135

That is not where the confusion lies. 2-3K is still less than 4K; a normal barber hone should not be at or below 4K. Definately not a Swaty. It is possible that you have a very course type of barber hone that is below 4K but then it would not be a Swaty or a barber hone that serves the same purpose as a Swaty which is a finishing/touch up hone. FWIW I agree with Dylandog.

Cheers.

I never said it was a Swaty either. I said one of them claimed its fine side to be a Swaty knockoff (they hinted in the hone notes that this side was made of the same method as the great Swaty hones of Austria). They both have a Swaty look abouts their fine grit sides.


Ahhh, you like to argue for the sake of arguing.