Thread: Hone confusion

(originally posted in Hones by mistake)

I am wondering if anyone on the forum has ever experienced something similar with their hones.

I have a 250/1000, 1000/4000, 6000 and 10000, all King/Ice Bear waterstones. I know the progression looks a little funny, they were bought piecemeal for other purposes. I also have a slurry stone which came with the 10000, and I understand it to be 12000 grit.

I'm not an experienced honer, but have been able to get very passable edges with these stones, a pasted strop, and a plain leather strop.

However, I have started noticing something which I can't quite explain. I can get a very smooth polished edge off the 4k, first using a slurry, then using the stone clean. I can pop hairs no problem off the 4k. I started to notice that using a loupe, I couldn't really see any significant improvement in the edge after the 6k and 10k, and in fact, I never quite get back the smooth polished edge I get off the 4k after going to the 6k and 10k.

So, as an experiment, I stropped a razor after the 4k, tested it, and then went back and took it through the 6k and 10k, stropped and tested it again. No appreciable difference. As a further experiment, I took a scrap razor which was warped and has a very wide bevel on one side. I honed it without tape on the 10k, then put two layers of tape on the spine, and created a secondary bevel on the 4k with slurry, then polished the edge on the clean 4k. The idea was to get two bevels side-by-side, from the different stones, to compare them definitively. After seeing the two side-by-side, the 4k certainly does polish better than the 10k.

The question is how to explain this.

Hypothesis 1: Are the grit gradings on the stones inaccurate? They stones are all the same brand, so I don't think this is likely.

Hypothesis 2: Have the higher grits somehow become contaminated? I lap the stones using emery paper on a flat surface, and then minor lapping/cleaning with the 1k.

Hypothesis 3: Are there other variables which matter as much as grit size? I like using the 4k stone, it cuts fairly fast with a slurry, and I find the way to get the polished edge is to hone lightly on the clean damp stone, and let the stone get a little clogged with swarf. Is this clogging partially obscuring the cutting particles, allowing the stone to behave like a much finer stone? The 6k cuts slowly, the 10k more quickly, but neither clog in quite the same way as the 4k.

Hypothesis 4: Is it something to do with the slurry stone? If it was in fact a higher grit than 12000, this might explain why the higher grit stones done't seem to contribute much.

Any thoughts?

There is a chance there are some sand grit particles lodged in the higher grit stones. Or maybe the higher grit stones aren't lapped completely flat. How do the shaves compare. I wouldn't use slurry after the 4k and just make sure stones are flat. I know some 8k stones give higher polish then other ones for example but usually they all around 8k area. I also talked to a guy who had his 6k glass stone finish higher than his 16k and it was something with how the particles were resting, but I think that was sort of an odd case.

Thanks for the ideas!

Originally Posted by Christian1

There is a chance there are some sand grit particles lodged in the higher grit stones.

I did consider this; however, I would expect to see a few big scratches, not an even scratch pattern, which is what I'm getting. In any case, what would I do to eliminate this possibility?

Originally Posted by Christian1

Or maybe the higher grit stones aren't lapped completely flat.

Also possible. How would this affect the smoothness of the bevel?

Originally Posted by Christian1

How do the shaves compare.

I didn't seem to get any noticeable benefit after the 4k in the experiment I did.

Originally Posted by Christian1

I wouldn't use slurry after the 4k

What is the thinking here? I can see that it might just be a good idea to try to further polish the 4k edge. Although the guidance from the maker says don't use slurry on the 4k, only 6k and higher! But I've found that slurry on the 4k works well to hone out the 1k scratches.

I don't think you could see a difference in the bevel from unflat stone but there would be a difference in the shave. If there looks like any of stray scratches then there might be something in the stone. Although I don't think that is your problem. Slurry used to speed up honing progress but going from 4k to 6k and then 6k to 10k I don't think many strokes needed and slurry could be avoided.

I haven't honed my own blades for a while as after the frustration of inconsistency I began to rely on the skills of friends on SRP. I've sent my blades in to a few pros and had inconsistent results as well.
Barring the random inconsistent honing, there must be something that I've been overlooking.
And I'm reading up on posts like this for a while to get a solid understanding before jumping back in.
Thanks for the good info, I'm sorry I don't have any answers..
I know that Outback has excellent skills, and also Sharptonn hones a wicked sharp blade! Perhaps he will give his opinion on this one..

Originally Posted by MikeT

I know that Outback has excellent skills, and also Sharptonn hones a wicked sharp blade! Perhaps he will give his opinion on this one..

Outback did reply to the original post in the wrong thread - https://straightrazorpalace.com/hone...confusion.html
His advice seems very good.

Sometimes I have heard of king stones having inconsistent grit, as well as contaminated binders in the stone fabrication..
Only way to eliminate the variable is to change your media for a trial.
Assuming relapping isn’t an options I’d suggest some time on a friends known stones to compare results.
Personally, I don’t go below 4K unless I’m setting a new bevel, and then I only drop to 1k to get it set.
If you have access to Lee valley, you could try some sanding sheets in Mylar for some comparisons of grit as well as buying a diamond plate slurry stone.
My current progression is usually 4,8,thuri, Strop, done.. quick, efficient and effective.
Key is in the blade pressure more than anything else these days..always fading off to feather pressure at the end of each stones strokes.
Keep trying, and watching your edges. The game never ends..

In your first post, you mention using garnet paper to lap the stones. My experience in using garnet paper (with orange-colored garnet grains) to sand wood is that the abrasive does not stay on the paper very long. Couple this with a dampened stone and I would imagine that the problem would be exacerbated. Wet/dry sandpaper (with grey- or black-colored silicon carbide grains) would work better for lapping the stones and be less inclined to lodge in the stone surface.

As for the sequence used, I've never used a King 10k, or even seen or heard of one, but the 4k and the 6k can be used somewhat interchangeably. I purchased a 4k once from a Canadian seller (Lee Valley) and was sent a 6k instead. In the box, there was a slip of paper declaring that a Canadian national bureau of standards had determined that the two were (more or less) the same.

Allowing a stone to cover over with swarf can lead to a polishing effect.

Originally Posted by Brontosaurus

In your first post, you mention using garnet paper to lap the stones. My experience in using garnet paper (with orange-colored garnet grains) to sand wood is that the abrasive does not stay on the paper very long. Couple this with a dampened stone and I would imagine that the problem would be exacerbated. Wet/dry sandpaper (with grey- or black-colored silicon carbide grains) would work better for lapping the stones and be less inclined to lodge in the stone surface.

Thanks for the information. I use wet and dry for lapping, I have always known this as emery paper.

My experience is also that the 4k and 6k are very similar in grit, but my 6k is a lot slower cutting than the 4k.

Originally Posted by Montgomery

Thanks for the information. I use wet and dry for lapping, I have always known this as emery paper.

My experience is also that the 4k and 6k are very similar in grit, but my 6k is a lot slower cutting than the 4k.

Sorry, I misread "garnet" for "emery." In English, I think we use emery cloth for some of the lower grits, glued to a cloth backing, and wet/dry for the silicon carbide paper (which can also go pretty low in grit). I use emery cloth dry with oil-stones (Crystalons, Indias, and soft Arkansas) and it has worked well there without coming loose.

Sounds like you're doing the right thing, then, in using wet/dry. That said, some synths will clog up with loose silicon carbide powder on glass, but I've never experienced this with the paper. Kings, I don't think I would lap much higher than ~P320.

How long are you soaking the 4k and 6k (and 10k) Kings? Unlike the red "bevel-setters" they may not need much of a soak and may be breaking down if they've been soaked too long.