Thread: coticule vs escher

Originally Posted by Yannis

No, in the INFO are photographs of the slurry under microscope and the garnets of the blue (red in color) are 3-12 micron and of the yellow (white-transparent in color) are 2-8 micron

The two stones are identical in the way that cuts and not in the garnet size.
Yannis

The correct is 2-8 micron to yellow coticule
Yiannis

Originally Posted by Yannis

No, in the INFO are photographs of the slurry under microscope and the garnets of the blue (red in color) are 3-12 micron and of the yellow (white-transparent in color) are 1-7 micron

The two stones are identical in the way that cuts and not in the garnet size.
Yannis

Excellent research, Yannis!!

Great,
but lets not throw this thread towards differences between blue & yellow Belgian stones. I'm more interested in differences between yellow Coticules and Eschers.

I read the Escher was quarried in the Thuringen part of Germany. And today there are Thuringen hones more readily available than Eschers. Tony used to sell some. This makes Eschers a lot more pricey, mostly because they are harder to find, not because they are better. Also, Wojtec is selling Hunsruek stones, which are very similar to Eschers, except their inclusion of Pyrite makes them a little more aggressive.

Are there any other differences people care to share in their experience or knowledge of differences between these two stones?

Fred,
Escher was the name of a company selling and/or possibly quarrying the stones. Since the company is gone the stones are simply called by the name of the town they are coming from, Thuringen.

Ther Hunsruecks are similar but from a different region. The Hunsrueck/Eifel regions of Germany are on the Western border adjacent to Belgium. Thise stones are almost black in color or at least a charcoal grey, the Thuringens tend to be medium to darker grey. The Hunsruecks feel a bit harder and are usually mottled in color, the Thuringens are almost always uniforn in color from end to end and not mottled at all.

In my experience and from customer feedback they are of similar grit size to each other but the Hunsrueck seems faster cutting which can be either good or bad depending on whether you can sense what the stone is doing so as to avoid over honing. I know several of my customers quickly overhoned their razors until they cut back to 5-8 passes, 20 or more is far too many if simply refreshing an edge in my experience.

Both are excellent stones if free from hard inclusions. The Hunsruecks I got had both hard and soft inclusions or were nearly clear of any flaws. Quality varies and I threw out a lot of stones. the vintage ones I have are almsot all uniform except a very few with soft, tight seams they do not affect honing. Many Belgians have similar seams that have no effect as well. On my latest lot I even graded perfect from slightly less that perfect so no one is surprised by what they purchase.

Is a Thuringen, Escher or Hunsrueck better than a Coticule? Probably even in my experience. I grab one as readily as the other most times and can't say one is better or worse. Feedback I have received shows about the same, either thay were rated equal or I got as many betters and not quite as good replies.

Tony

Thanks for that clarification, Tony.

It's good to know the differences between these stones. I guess at the end of the day, most people use what they have, and love what they use. The Coticules are readily available in a very usable 6"x2" for $75. Your Thuringens too are still around and sold (once you get more stock in) But the vintage Eschers just carry a pretty picture and come from a by-gone era. They aren't worlds better, just perhaps a little harder composition, and a higher price tag.

Hm, Eschers may or may not be harder than Belgians, depending on the particular stone. (Btw, I know where the hard stones recommendation came from, Eric )

I have Belgians, Eschers (Y/G, B/G), and a top grade Japanese natural (comparable to 40K grit!).

In my experience, the Belgians can give great edges, the Y/G Escher seems to be even better. Haven't used the Japanese hone enough, but one of the edges I tested with it was absolutely great.

For the most part I would use a coticule, and then some Y/G for final polishing. Or - now that I have it - the Japanese hone. Still follow this with Chromium or newspaper for good measure, most of the time.

And wow on those germans finishing on the Blue Belgian! I am more spoiled than them

Totally understand the search for the ultimate natural - but I am a bit sceptical that you can find one for all purposes. It's all in the progression!

Cheers
Ivo

Originally Posted by fredvs79

Great,
but lets not throw this thread towards differences between blue & yellow Belgian stones. I'm more interested in differences between yellow Coticules and Eschers.

I read the Escher was quarried in the Thuringen part of Germany. And today there are Thuringen hones more readily available than Eschers. Tony used to sell some. This makes Eschers a lot more pricey, mostly because they are harder to find, not because they are better. Also, Wojtec is selling Hunsruek stones, which are very similar to Eschers, except their inclusion of Pyrite makes them a little more aggressive.

Are there any other differences people care to share in their experience or knowledge of differences between these two stones?

The Thuringian razor hones I sell on ebay are uniform grey with small pyrite inclusions. Feedback from buyers suggests that grit wise the Thuringians are somewhere between coticules on the lower end of the scale and Eschers and vintage Thuringers on the higher end of the scale. Thuringians feel a bit coarser to the touch than coticules or Eschers though. Like Tony I have to reject 15-25 % of the stones I receive from the quarry because of hard inclusions that might affect honing results.

Originally Posted by fredvs79

I guess at the end of the day, most people use what they have, and love what they use.

That's the ticket.

Belgians are my working hones as well as my finishers. I have a tiny escher that I'm only now getting good enough to use effectively (it's less than an inch wide), and the results are wonderful. I still lust after the big eschers now and then (last time was yesterday), but amid tiny waves of HAD I've basically come to the following realization:

The gap between a coticule and an escher is small and debatable. The gap between my honing skills and those of the real masters here is large and certain. It's cheaper, more efficient, and more to the point to work on closing the latter gap.

Ask not what your stone can do for you - ask what you can do with your stone.

Originally Posted by dylandog

That's the ticket.


The gap between a coticule and an escher is small and debatable. The gap between my honing skills and that of the real masters here is large and certain. It's cheaper, more efficient, and more to the point to work on closing the latter gap.

Well said. I'll have to review this post whenever I feel the itch to add a coticule to go with my Hunsrueck.- I don't really need it and I wouldn't be good enough with either to really tell the difference.

Jordan