Printable View
Folks,
I'm in the market for a Belgian Blue and Coticule stone
from Howard, and I've heard a few recommendations on
the different stone widths. Lynn seems to recommend the
wider and longer surface, but I think I recall Josh finding
the 6"/2" to be a better size when using the X-pattern
stroke.
Does an X-pattern stroke give inconsistent honing from
the toe to the heel on a 3" wide stone? If money is not
an object, what's the ideal width for the Belgian stones?
- Scott
That is a very difficult question you ask grasshopper. Its like saying what is the ideal size car for everybody. Hones come in all sizes so its a matter of what size you personally like and feel more comfortable with. Some like barber's hones which are very small and some like very large hones. personally I like larger hones, meaning 3 inch across and 7 or 8 inches long. With a three inch hone you have the flexibility of going straight up and down the hone or doing X honing. You have more surface area to play with and you need to do fewer trips back and forth. I also have smaller hones but my Coticule is a larger one as is my Blue and I always gravitate to the larger ones.
I'm sure the small hone guys will chime in with why they feel smaller hones are better.
I got the small and I am ready to sell to get the large IMHO if money is not the issue on the coticule get the large but if it is get the small they are great stones:bow
As you mentioned, I have the 6x2 size, and I haven't really felt the need for a bigger stone. Bigspendur's right about the bigger stones giving you the option of going straight across, although most vintage blades seem to have some degree of curve to the blade, usually right near the heel and toe. You'd need to do some type of rolling stroke to get these with a straight stroke.
The smaller sizes appeal to me because I like compact things. I like being able to fit all of my honing junk in a small shoe box. :) The smaller hones can be hand-held, which sometimes can be helpful.
Narrower hones can make coping with warped razors a little easier at times, although there are ways you can get them sharp on wider hones, too.
Get whatever appeals to you and fits in your budget. :)
Josh
Lol, Josh - I cannot call my hone arsenal *junk* - not with the prices on some of these puppies :roflmao
Anyway, I guess I prefer to have both small and large hones :D
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 :p
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by heavydutysg135
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
I used to share this same theory, but if you think about it, the middle still has more contact with the stoneQuote:
Originally Posted by Tony Miller
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.
I might as well comment.
I have some smaller barber hones, and I have some larger (norton) hones. The barber hones are great for fitting in the palm of your hand while honing. The larger hones are not as comfortable to hold, but still manageable. The larger hones sit on a table well and allow more surface area to work with.
For faster cutting stones, a shorter length is alright, because they cut fast, but for slower cutting stones, you want a longer length. I think one of the best things to do is get a LONG hone, 6 or 8 inches long to complete your strokes. My barber hones are only 3 or 4 inches long and there are many more strokes I have to do. With a longer hone you can adjust if you want a long stroke, or a short one.
Now for width... tough call here. It's preference really. You can do less strokes on a wider hone. I think the biggest reason to get a smaller hone is cost. You can buy into the narrower stone theories that you're looking to get even edge time, or you can not. You can believe that older hones were made a certain size because that was an ideal size for razors, or because the quarries just found it easier to manufacture that size instead of larger ones.
I think for beginners, the narrower stone works well because you can concentrate on different areas of the blade while keeping it flat. You can focus on the heel, or the toe, while still doing an x-pattern by keeping part of the blade off the hone. For the wider hones, it requires some advanced techniques, as pointed out like slightly lifting part of the blade, or rolling the edge. These can be learned, and certainly a bigger hone can do everything a narrower hone can: you can get a blade just as sharp, but for smiling/frowning/curved/warped blades there is some technique that you need to master besides keeping the edge flat.
And I believe that in the level of progression of learning, learning to keep your edge flat, your stroke pressure even, and and learning when to stop before overhoning should be learned first. Then learn lifting techniques, and rolling techniques. And then you'll appreciate having a larger hone.
I suppose to sum up, a narrower hone will be cheaper, and would be great to learn to practice on, will allow you focus on different parts of the blade to correct for different factors while learning to keep your edge flat. Then you can learn lifting/rolling, but you might appreciate the wider hone at that point. Just my two cents.
Eric,
Good point! Anyone want to buy a bunch of 1 1/2" stones? ......I'm getting a 3" now and forgetting about that pesky X pattern once and for all <g>
Tony
BTW, Eric, you have a package on the way.....quite a nice asortmant if I do say so myself.
Fred,
for a non-smiling straight edge, a 3x8 is much easier to handle as a beginner honer than a narrow stone, imo. I have also talked to a number of people starting into honing who confirm this. It takes a while to develop a nice stroke for a narrow hone.
A narrow hone is going to be cheaper - and sometimes better, as it has been repeatedly said that 1) wider naturals seem to come from lower quality veins 2) most vintage stones weren't wide, and they had the pick for the best quality
Cheers
Ivo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by edk442
Btw, even with a 3" wide pushing straight you may still have different pressure giving you uneven results
Cheers
Ivo
I know you have have a Y/G escher tucked away somewhere I can take off your hands :wQuote:
Originally Posted by Tony Miller
Must...stop...hyperventilating...must...not...get. ..too...excited:yQuote:
Originally Posted by Tony Miller
Ivo,
My explanation is for a standard X-pattern. Of course if you can modify the motion then all the power too you. Of course i don't have near the experience as you do. I can't imagine using 1" stones like you do.
Actually, I would say that (considering a person has the skill, of which i don't) the narrower the stone, the more even the hone-time each part of the blade receives. My general feeling is that, even with special techniques, there will be some amount of unevenness, though it can be lessened to the point where it becomes negligible.
It's a small narrow Y/G (I love them)Quote:
Originally Posted by edk442
Eric,Quote:
Originally Posted by edk442
I agree that there will be some unevenness, one way or another and I just meant that the X can be a weird move so that the heel (or any other part) spends more on a narrow hone - which is not as easy to do on a wide hone, and in some configurations is just impossible.
How well I can do it is another story :) I did not mean to imply that I have substantial experience and expertise over you or other people... I've honed some razors, is all. If we accept that an expert is a person who has made all the possible mistakes in a narrow field - I think I may be getting there :roflmao But yes - I love 1" hones. And I also use bigger hones - especially if I can get away with it and achieve good edges
Cheers
Ivo
It's easy question for me too. I like narrower hone, although I have the monster sized Norton...
Tony, send one of those tiny hones my way <g> :)
Nenad
Whatcha got? :wQuote:
Originally Posted by Tony Miller
Jordan
There's a reason the make large hones. It's because bench stones, as they're called, are a heavier, more stable platform and you don't have to worry about the blade going off of the stone. Fewer variables = better results. My favorite belgian blue is 10" x 4" and that is one beautiful stone. My first time seeing one I thought how beautiful they would be as a backsplash on a kitchen counter top. They are heavy, they stay put, and you can really go to work. A set of 8x3 coticule, blue, and DMT Coarse and Extra fine are a beautiful site on your bench and you'll be set for a life of fruitful honing.
Howard,
That is one monster blue.
The idea of a Belgian blue backsplash cracks me up. If I put one in my new bathroom, whenever my razor needed a touchup, I could just give it a few licks on the ol' countertop. (Slurry or no slurry?) :roflmao :roflmao
Josh