Thread: DMT dilemma

Originally Posted by randydance062449

It is beginning to become apparent that the DMT is effective for waterstones/natural stones and razors but not so practical for ceramics. Just my two cents,

I have no experience with the Shapton ceramic on glass plates, but it's interesting to me that the cornerstone of that system is the Shapton diamond on glass lapping plate at approx 270-325 grit. The Shapton plate, according to their website says the diamonds bonded to the surface are polycrystalline vs. the monocrystalline on the DMTs. Does anyone know, are the Spyderco hones worlds harder than the Shapton ceramic on glass plates? I'm curious about this.

Ted Pella, Inc. site says polycrystalline diamonds are LESS friable yet DMT says they are MORE friable.

DMT's site says the less expensive monocrystalline like DMT uses are much better than polycrystalline diamonds like the Shapton plate which DMT says that the polycrystalline diamond "breaks apart and wears away easily with use." DMT says "sharpeners made with polycrystalline diamonds will wear out and need replacement".

I'm confused!!

Hmmmmm......I just looked at the Shapton site again about the diamond on glass lapping plate and I don't see it specifying mono or poly crystalline diamonds. I swear it mentioned polycrystalline somewhere on that site for that plate!