Thread: Stone Widths: 8"/3" vs. 6"/2"

Lol, Josh - I cannot call my hone arsenal *junk* - not with the prices on some of these puppies

Anyway, I guess I prefer to have both small and large hones

If I had to have just one - I would choose a small because it's more versatile for me, and easier to hold in hand. However, I certainly see how a large hone can be more convenient and faster for some razors.

When I say small - I actually mean width less than 2" - 1 or 1.5 works better for me. Short was never a preference for me but I would work with as short as 3" - if I have to.

Cheers
Ivo

I prefer the narrow hones, 1"-2", because they are more versatile. They can handle straight edges, smile edges and slightly warped/badly ground blades easier than a wider stone. Historically, they are the norm and I think that is for a good reason. The 3" x 8" size is a recent format. That being said I do like my Norton single grit 3x8's. Sometimes I will use the 3" side and when necessary the 1" side comes in handy.

Just my two cents,

I picked up a couple 2"x6" "mud" stones a while back to play with, turned out they are kind of nice for a blade with some smile to it. I'm still trying to get used to a smile edged razor and I'm not quite there. I may just sell them to be rid of the issue

I find the 2" wide handy but really like the 3".

The trouble with coticules is that the finest grits come from veins that do not allow cutting large bench hones acoording to Ardennes Coticule's proprietor.

I started a thread on this a while back...wide vs. narrow on both hones and strops and why. Most European made strops top out at 2" wide. Jemico and Dovo both have many models 1 3/4" to 2" with a single 3 1/4" version. Most of the early Coticules and Eschers found are 1 1/4" to 1 3/4" wide with few even reaching a full 2". Even tradional Barber Hones and natural sold specifically for straight razor use are 2" to 2 1/2".
Back then ther X pattern was the norm and since in doing this pattern part of the edge is off the stone on every stroke there are advantages to narrower stones.
The example I brought up was a standard 3" blade. If doing an X on a wide stone like a 3" Norton the entire blade is on the stone at the start with the heel leaving the stone on every stroke so part of the blade is getting more time on the stone than others. On a 2" or 2 1/2" stone it changes a little. At the start of a stroke the tip is off, the heel is on. At the end of the stoke the heel is off the tip is on, but the center never leaves. Over time this may contribute to the frowning blade issue often seen on old razors.
Now, 1 3/8" to 1 1/2" seems to be a very common width to many vintage Escher and Coticule stones found on eBay. In theory a 1 3/8" to 1 1/2" stone lets every part of a 3" blade have equal stone time when doing an X pattern because it's width is 1/2 the blade's length.
Just theory here guys from my earlier thread on this.

Tony

Heavyduty's words on a different thread sum the situation up pretty well. Someone asked, the X-pattern is the recommended honing stroke, but doesn't X'ing on a wide stone cause unequal wear on a blade?

Originally Posted by heavydutysg135

This is a very common question here, and a very good one; in fact I remember asking this same question J. In theory you are right; however, in practice it does not really matter. One theory as to why this is not an issue is that the heal receives more pressure because it is closer to where the weight of your hand is. The heal of the blade gets slightly more pressure and the toe gets slightly more contact with the hone but the least amount of pressure so it roughly evens out in the end. Of course this theory only holds up if you are a one handed honer which to my knowledge all of the honemeisters are. In my experience thick and thin hones work equally well and will produce the same edge. It really comes down to what feel you prefer, what sizes the stone is available in, and how much you are willing to spend.

With the exception of warped blades as Randy and Josh have pointed out, I think Heavyduty's point holds. Randy uses narrow stones, Lynn uses wide ones, and I have never heard anyone complain about the edge on a razor from one of those two. Get what you like.

One more point: When I use wide stones or hone a razor with any curve to the blade, I tend to use the edge of the stone--the outermost 1/2 inch or so. I let the toe of the razor come up off the hone the tiniest fraction of an inch, so the razor is making only a little contact at any given point. Randy also uses this technique on occasion. It's a variation of the rolling hone technique.

I think this accounts for a couple of things. I tend to use more than the "recommended" number of strokes when honing, and I think it's because I'm essentially using a very small contact point. Making full contact during a stroke on a 3" wide hone removes a lot more metal than making contact with 1/2" of blade at a time.

Also, I've found slower and harder hones work better for this approach. Softer hones like the Norton 4K wear more quickly and lose their flatness when you're using just a sliver of the hone. And slower hones seem less likely to damage the edge with such a small contact zone.

Just thought I'd mention this, since for me it makes the width less of an issue.

Josh

Originally Posted by Tony Miller

Now, 1 3/8" to 1 1/2" seems to be a very common width to many vintage Escher and Coticule stones found on eBay. In theory a 1 3/8" to 1 1/2" stone lets every part of a 3" blade have equal stone time when doing an X pattern because it's width is 1/2 the blade's length.
Just theory here guys from my earlier thread on this.

I used to share this same theory, but if you think about it, the middle still has more contact with the stone

You have a 3" blade and a 1.5" stone. You start with 1.5" (heel section) of the blade on the stone and 1.5" (toe section) of the blade off the stone. You do an X motion so that this reverses. ie: You end with 1.5" (heel section) of the blade off the stone and 1.5" (toe section) of the blade on the stone.

There is a point in the middle of the blade that travels the full width of the stone, whereas the toe and heel receive almost no time (the heel immediately leaves the stone and the toe only gets on the stone when the motion is done)

I'd say that if you were to graph out the amount of time spent on the stone vs the point on the blade, you'd end up with something like a Bell Curve.

The only way to make sure all parts on the edge receive equal time would be to start with the blade COMPLETELY off one side of the stone, and to do an X motion resulting in the blade ending COMPLETELY off the other side.

Since no one in there right mind would hone like this, and it's possible to get good even edges with many different techniques that should in THEORY create uneven wear, something is happening to compensate. I'd say the pressure theory is most convincing.

I, on the other hand, belive that we are actually creating (to some extent) uneven wear that isn't immediately visible. You see all these frowning blades or blades with excessive toe hone wear, but I'd bet dollars for donuts that when the person first started honing, it looked like they had pretty even hone wear.

It's like your hair. It gets a tiny bit longer eveyday, but you don't notice and then it just hits you like "damn my hair is long!"

Same with a razor. Every honing session takes a tiny bit off and eventually you look at it and say "Shit, look at that uneven hone wear!"

I really like the control I get with more narrow hones.

Originally Posted by edk442

I used to share this same theory, but if you think about it, the middle still has more contact with the stone

I have to disagree: with a narrow hone you can modify the X so that the parts of the blade spend equal amount on the surface.

Btw, even with a 3" wide pushing straight you may still have different pressure giving you uneven results

Cheers
Ivo