Thread: Advice on hones required

Originally Posted by jnich67

This is something that I have not for the life of me been able to figure out. I know a number of guys here get good results with the Blue in place of the Norton 4K, but I cannot seem to get benefit from it. It seems to be as fine as my 8K or Yellow - and slooow. I'm frustrated with it.

Jordan

I'm glad you said that because that is why I asked. There does seem to be an absence of hype about the blue coticule compared to the yellow coticule, and absence of hype on these boards always seems more damning than criticism becasue if someone is getting good results from something we all hear about it.

So are people getting 4k like results from a blue coticule?

The blue is technically 4k like the Norton 4k, but the similarity stops there. And I'll add that the frustration begins there as well, if you treat the blue like a Norton 4k substitute.

The blue will not – at least not if you don't have the patience of Job – cut a bevel for you. Nor is it efficient at removing chips, unless you're talking tiny microchips.

What it will do is make short work of the scratch patterns left from DMTs, and if you've got a good bevel it'll keen up the edge to the point of popping hairs, and the coticule or similar will take it from there.

Those who use it for these purposes usually find it to be a very nice hone and a useful one. But a Norton 4k it ain't.

Hone width??

3" wide is more expensive, but allows you to hone the full edge of the razor without the X movement.

2" wide better allows you to hone blades that don't set evenly. Is there also a risk of the central area of the edge wearing more quickly as it will be in contact with the hone more than the heel or toe?

Does the price of hones dictate more people choose 2" wide hones?

I have used the blue stone on razors, as a mediator between the DMT 1200 and the coticule, but I have moved away from that practice. I now use a DMT 1200 for bevel-settting (if neeed), a coticule with slurry as a go-between and the same coticule with water to finish. It's faster and very consistent for superb results.
I use my blue stones quite a lot... in my woodshop. The blue excels in smoothing out the scratch pattern from coarser stones. I often jump from a DMT 600 right to the blue. (for chisels and plane bades) It's actually quite fast in polishing that 600 grit scratch pattern. But as soon as it has eaten the scratches it stops doing much of anything. I have an unconfirmed theory about that. I think that as soon as the granates, that do the cutting action, stop being caught by the previous scratch pattern, they just start rolling like microscopical billard balls between the stones surface and the metal. That's just a hunge, of course.
Anyway, as much as I like the blue, I don't really see the advantage of it, if you already have a coticule, which is absolutely faster and finer.

Never, ever think of the blue as of a Norton 4000, even though they are often rated the same grit.
I think of it as a great and cost-effective replacement for a coticule, as long as you only need a polishing hone.
One of the big things I like about the DMT - Belgians approach, is that none of those hones needs to be soaked in water. You can keep them nice and dry in a drawer, put on a little splah of water and start honing right away.

Originally Posted by Smalleyboy

Hone width??

3" wide is more expensive, but allows you to hone the full edge of the razor without the X movement.

2" wide better allows you to hone blades that don't set evenly. Is there also a risk of the central area of the edge wearing more quickly as it will be in contact with the hone more than the heel or toe?

Does the price of hones dictate more people choose 2" wide hones?

I'm sorry if I've sidetracked your thread.

Many prefer the 3" stone (the popularity of the Norton may be a major factor in this). I prefer 2" myself - my OCD-ishness has trouble dealing with the fact that the toe is on the hone more than the heel with the 3 inchers. I think width is more a preference thing.

Jordan

Originally Posted by Smalleyboy

Hone width??

3" wide is more expensive, but allows you to hone the full edge of the razor without the X movement.

2" wide better allows you to hone blades that don't set evenly. Is there also a risk of the central area of the edge wearing more quickly as it will be in contact with the hone more than the heel or toe?

Does the price of hones dictate more people choose 2" wide hones?

In reference to your earlier question I finish with a barbers hone (swaty brand) most often after the 8000 grit but I have also tried a pasted paddle. Some use the Chinese 12000 grit for this and other guys use shapton really fine hones, or the spyderco UF some even go for the Belgian Yellow as a fine finisher after the 8000 Norton just to throw another monkey wrench out there.


As far as hone width, it doesn't really matter you should use the x pattern anyway. So feel free to save a few bucks. Of course this is whole nother kettle of fish.

If you want to get things done fast, or want to hone a lot of razors, then the Norton 4/8K plus a finishing stone is what you need.
I you don't mind expending the extra time, then all you need is a yellow coticule and a slurry stone

Originally Posted by Navaja

I you don't mind expending the extra time, then all you need is a yellow coticule and a slurry stone

ME! I hope?

Originally Posted by Smalleyboy

Hone width??

3" wide is more expensive, but allows you to hone the full edge of the razor without the X movement.

2" wide better allows you to hone blades that don't set evenly. Is there also a risk of the central area of the edge wearing more quickly as it will be in contact with the hone more than the heel or toe?

Does the price of hones dictate more people choose 2" wide hones?

This is something that I would like some feedback on too, as I am also new to this game.
I have a 2" 1000grit waterstone and a 2.5" 6000grit waterstone, both Japanese. With a slightly smiling blade I have no issues, as a rolling X-pattern hits the same spots on both stones.
On a straight blade however, the middle portion definitely seems to get more action on the 2" with an X-pattern. When I move to the 2.5" I hone the blade on an angle (so the entire length is on the hone for the entire stroke) and it seems to polish both ends first, and takes heavy slurry to get the polising to the middle of the blade. Is this standard, or something that you can mitigate with advanced trickery or experience?

On the main topic of this thread, I would like to emphasize how much difference slurry has made on my 6K stone. This has been the single most important piece of honing advise I have received so far. A heavy slurry cuts so fast, that nicks in the edge that are just visible to the naked eye can be removed relatively quickly. With just water, it is slow cutting, but doesn't get to a mirror finish under magnification (48x for the detail orientated amongst you!!!).
As it sounds like the belgian yellow can be used in the same way but at the finishing stage, I am thniking that this could be an excellent option for me.

Hope this is useful.

Originally Posted by Gluegun

This is something that I would like some feedback on too, as I am also new to this game.
I have a 2" 1000grit waterstone and a 2.5" 6000grit waterstone, both Japanese. With a slightly smiling blade I have no issues, as a rolling X-pattern hits the same spots on both stones.
On a straight blade however, the middle portion definitely seems to get more action on the 2" with an X-pattern. When I move to the 2.5" I hone the blade on an angle (so the entire length is on the hone for the entire stroke) and it seems to polish both ends first, and takes heavy slurry to get the polising to the middle of the blade. Is this standard, or something that you can mitigate with advanced trickery or experience?

Here's my hunch:
It could be possible that you 're honing an ever so slight (as good as invisible) frown in that straight blade, while honing on the 1000 grit stone. Then you use a different technique on your polishing stone, and the middle can't be polished until you've removed that hint of a frown. Does that make any sense to you?
Try very light and even pressure with your X-stroke, and pay very careful attention not to drop the angle when the heel leaves the stone.
You could do X's on the polisher as well. I think that would clear up the problem too, but if I'm right with assuming there you stroke is a little off, then you straight edges might develop frowns over the years of honing them.

Good luck,

Bart.