Thread: coticule vs escher

Hey folks,
I have been pursuing information on natural stones - Japanese stones, Chinese stones, Belgian stones, German stones... I have always been a fan of natural stones. Call me old-fashioned (even though I'm only 28), or maybe just a lover of nature and what she offers, but I prefer something that was dug out of the ground to something created in a factory.

Having said that, aside from my one double-grit barber hone which I started off with, I do own a norton 4k/8k as it is recommended as a very reliable and predictable performer for taking a restored/dull blade off 2000 grit sand paper to near-shaving comfort. I do use it sometimes, but I think one day I may replace it with a Belgian blue. Upon recommendations and raves on this forum, I also invested in a Belgian Coticule, and am quite happy with it so far. It does do a very good job bringing my razors to a comfortable shave level. I was originally under the impression that the Belgian Coticule was the be-all-end-all stone. Even though it was rated as ~8000 grit, it's rhomboid garnets polished the edge of a blade to what some people liken as a 10,000 - 12,000 grit finish.

Most people who have a coticule use it and love it. But I think I've got some sort of sickness, because I'm always wondering if the grass is greener somewhere else. I know there are Chinese 12,000 grit stones to chase the coticule. There are Japanese stones which are rated even higher. There are 15K shaptons, even 30K shaptons, but now we're out of natural stones. There is chromium oxide & pasted paddles, but now we're out of stones... It's hilarious, and my girlfriend doesn't understand my obsession (sometimes, neither do I). Even though my shaves are better than my gillette mach3, even though my soaps smell better than the goo-in-a-can, even though I look forward to shaving now as opposed to skipping a day or three here and there - I'm still in a pursuit of something... And right now it's not about more razors, or a softer brushes, or a sweeter-smelling soaps or aftershaves, it's about a better sharpener.

Now I've been hearing more information, and it seems there is a contender against the Belgian Coticule - the German Escher. The escher (and also Droescher/Thuringens/Boker) hones seem to also use rhomboid garnets to cut the steel like the coticule, but it has been suggested that the density of the garnets is a little greater than the coticule. Since the belgian blue has a lower garnet content than the yellow coticule and is rated as a lower grit, I only assume the escher is rated as higher grit than the coticule if it has a higher density of garnets.

Also, the substrate that the garnets are imbedded in is softer in the coticule I hear. Some people say that softer stones are good for harder steel to prevent microchipping, but I think this is debatable, and Lynn has said that the only steel he had trouble with microchipping was damascus. The slurry (which acts as a lubricant making the blade slide easier to the side across the stone) comes out easier in a softer stone without any kind of dressing from a prep/rubbing stone, and will polish the blade to a very keen edge, but create a cloudy look, instead of a mirror finish. This is because new particles keep emerging from the stone, the particles don't get ground down into smaller size. It also means that the stone needs more care to not have it become concaved or convexed, so more attention to flattening it is needed.

For these reasons, I wonder if a harder stone might be better suited for a razor, and maybe the Escher produces a finer edge than a coticule? Now you might ask why bother, why not finish up after a norton 8k with a coticule and maybe move on to a chinese 12k, or chromium oxide, or something else... and I say, why would I, if one stone could finish it for me?

Fred,

I'm a happy coticule user, as you probably know.

If you're looking for the ultimate in sharpness from a hone, you might want to consider the Shapton 15K and 30K stones. I haven't used them myself, but from the reports of several experienced straight shavers, you can get a level of sharpness that approaches or even equals that of Feather disposable blades.

These hones seem to be a little tricky to use, but produce good results once you develop the touch.

I haven't used an esher or the Chinese 12K, but I don't know that the improvement will be noticeable enough to justify the expense in the case of the esher. At least I've been able to convince myself of that.

Josh

wow talk about coincidence, i just got an email from a guy who told me just about the exact thing you said. this is the email:

Q. What hardness would you say is preferable for a stone that will be used to sharpen razors.

A. Depending on your familiarity with natural stones and your skill,
the harder the better.

The reason hard stones are finer is because the slurry will get ground
to finer size before the new surface arises, whereas if the stone is
soft, new surface will keep arising before the slurry gets finer. Do you
see what I mean?

So a good stone specifically cut for razor polishing is usually super
hard, basically impossible to use without the aid of diamond sharpener
to raise the slurry or with Nagura (I don't recommend Nagura over hard
stones.)

I'd also make note that the escher probably isn't all that big of an advancement over the coticule etc. Stones that cut upwards of 15000 grit are easy to find and relatively inexpensive. The problem is that anything finer is almost prohibitively expensive. Consider that the shapton 30k and high-grade japanese stones can run several hundred dollars. If a sharp razor is all you want, then it is much more practical to go with a pasted paddle strop

Originally Posted by fredvs79

The escher (and also Droescher/Thuringens/Boker) hones seem to also use rhomboid garnets to cut the steel like the coticule, but it has been suggested that the density of the garnets is a little greater than the coticule. Since the belgian blue has a lower garnet content than the yellow coticule and is rated as a lower grit, I only assume the escher is rated as higher grit than the coticule if it has a higher density of garnets.

The belgian blue is not rated lower than the coticule because of the lower garnet content. It is rated as a courser stone because the garnet particles in the blue are significantly larger than those in the yellow and thus they cut faster and leave a larger scratch pattern in the edge.

Originally Posted by heavydutysg135

The belgian blue is not rated lower than the coticule because of the lower garnet content. It is rated as a courser stone because the garnet particles in the blue are significantly larger than those in the yellow and thus they cut faster and leave a larger scratch pattern in the edge.

From http://www.timbertools.com/Products/...ingStones.html

"The garnet crystals are only 10-15 microns in diameter, and penetrate about 2-3 microns into the metal... The blue whetstone, 20-30% garnet by weight, is available in many sizes, even large bench stone sizes, and produces a 4000 grit polish...The yellow sharpening stone, "Ardennes Coticule" ...contains about 30-42% garnets of about 10 microns in diameter, for an 8000 grit polish."

From http://pacifi.ca/Temp/BBHistory.html

"The smooth yellow-grey ... sedimentary rock of volcanic ashes and clays, contains a large concentration of small rounded garnets (5 - 20 micron)....The traditional yellow stone ... contains 35-40% garnets...
In 1996/1997 the new management of the last remaining mine ordered ... an examination of the geological layers of the traditional yellow Coticule. This resulted in the surprising discovery of a stone with identical qualities but blue-coloured because of its iron oxide content. It consists of about 30% garnets and is therefore a bit less agressive than the yellow stone but, on the other hand, more durable."

I really thought it only had to do with the garnet content, not the size, as everywhere I look there is no reference to the blue having larger garnets than the yellow.

Originally Posted by fredvs79

From http://www.timbertools.com/Products/...ingStones.html

"The garnet crystals are only 10-15 microns in diameter, and penetrate about 2-3 microns into the metal... The blue whetstone, 20-30% garnet by weight, is available in many sizes, even large bench stone sizes, and produces a 4000 grit polish...The yellow sharpening stone, "Ardennes Coticule" ...contains about 30-42% garnets of about 10 microns in diameter, for an 8000 grit polish."

From http://pacifi.ca/Temp/BBHistory.html

"The smooth yellow-grey ... sedimentary rock of volcanic ashes and clays, contains a large concentration of small rounded garnets (5 - 20 micron)....The traditional yellow stone ... contains 35-40% garnets...
In 1996/1997 the new management of the last remaining mine ordered ... an examination of the geological layers of the traditional yellow Coticule. This resulted in the surprising discovery of a stone with identical qualities but blue-coloured because of its iron oxide content. It consists of about 30% garnets and is therefore a bit less agressive than the yellow stone but, on the other hand, more durable."

I really thought it only had to do with the garnet content, not the size, as everywhere I look there is no reference to the blue having larger garnets than the yellow.

Check with Howard. He'll set you right!

The Belgian blue is used by many on Nassrasur.com (German site) as a finishing hone. It is said to be only 6K although I never heard the garnets are bigger in the blue compared to the coticule.

Belgischer Brocken (coticule and BB distributor in Germany) also recommend it for sharpening staights. When I visited Ardennes Coticule's quarry the owner told me there's not much difference grit wise between the blue and the yellow.

Maybe one of the honemeisters could explain the grit differences?

I heard somewhere that during formation, the layers that ended up as the belgian blue stones cooled more slowly allowing them to form larger particles. I'll be damned if I can remember where I read it though!

Originally Posted by Dead Ed

I heard somewhere that during formation, the layers that ended up as the belgian blue stones cooled more slowly allowing them to form larger particles. I'll be damned if I can remember where I read it though!

If you have both you can check under the microscope.

This is the info by Belgischer Brocken: http://www.belgischerbrocken.com/

They say the blues and yellow are identical with exception or garnet content and iron deposits which cause the blue colour.

Originally Posted by Kees

If you have both you can check under the microscope.

This is the info by Belgischer Brocken: http://www.belgischerbrocken.com/

They say the blues and yellow are identical with exception or garnet content and iron deposits which cause the blue colour.

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