Thread: X pattern honing on a 3 inch - inefficient?

different strokes for different folks, I guess

Originally Posted by ProfessorShak

On this I agree.



While this clearly validates the need for X pattern on a 2 inch stone, It still doesn't answer the question for 3" in which the toe, regardless of flatness of the blade, still recieved more hone attention if done using X pattern. This is a fact, on a 3" hone using X pattern strokes, the Toe of the blade is honed throughout the ENTIRE stroke whereas the heel is not, therefore more metal is removed from the toe in that stroke than in the heel. If creating and polishing an even bevel off a 3", I see no reason why an X stroke should be used. On a 2" an X would provide an even bevel. That I agree.

Many have the norton 4/8k and I'm sure that some clarification would be useful. I'm trying to avoid conventional thinking and looking for not just what "works" but what works best.

One of the assumptions here is that the entire surface of the hone must be used. That does not have to be the case. If you angle the blade, an X-pattern can start with the toe off the hone. And it can finish half-way down the hone if you want. Adding the rolling hone motion can also mitigate the "extra toe time" issue.

There was also a theory, a longish time ago now, but it may still have some legs to it, that the pressure differential between toe and heel offsets the X-pattern tendency to keep the toe on longer (ie the scales, and the fact that your hand holds the shank, makes the pressure on the heel a bit larger than on the toe). I don't know about this one, but there might be something in it.

James.

Originally Posted by ProfessorShak

Many have the norton 4/8k and I'm sure that some clarification would be useful. I'm trying to avoid conventional thinking and looking for not just what "works" but what works best.

here's a post from a man who may have honed a few razors, after a while you'll get an idea of which stroke will suit you and your razors best.

The question assumes that the edge is perfectly straight and that the pressure is constant. Both are seldom the case. Our very nature makes us use a different pressure during the honing stroke and that alone will cause the razor to wear unevenly. That of course results in the edge losing it's straightness.

Logically you are correct but the underlying assumptions are not realistic.
The edge on most razors are not straight and the pressure we use will vary during the stroke.

So far the stroke that I use the most is the rolling X stroke. It accomadates the variances in both the razors and the hones.

Just my $.02,

Originally Posted by ProfessorShak

While this clearly validates the need for X pattern on a 2 inch stone, It still doesn't answer the question for 3" in which the toe, regardless of flatness of the blade, still recieved more hone attention if done using X pattern. This is a fact, on a 3" hone using X pattern strokes, the Toe of the blade is honed throughout the ENTIRE stroke whereas the heel is not, therefore more metal is removed from the toe in that stroke than in the heel. If creating and polishing an even bevel off a 3", I see no reason why an X stroke should be used. On a 2" an X would provide an even bevel. That I agree.

Many have the norton 4/8k and I'm sure that some clarification would be useful. I'm trying to avoid conventional thinking and looking for not just what "works" but what works best.

My point about the size of the barber hone was that it was clear when the straight was the only razor option, all barber hones were between 1.5 and 2 inches for a good reason. That reason has been alluded to in the above posts. That is, the x-pattern is the optimal stroke for honing and maintaining a razor, regardless of the width of the hone. If the x-pattern is used, a hone has no need to be wider than 1.5 to 2 inches. In the past couple hundred years of straight razor usage, not a single razor hone that I know of was made wide enough to use a straight stroke.

I absolutely refuse to accept the argument that the x-pattern was developed because only small hones existed. To me it seems clear that the x-pattern was found to be optimal and therefore the narrow hones were made because they were the best match for the x-pattern. If a straight stroke worked so well, then barber hones would have been made wider. The fact that some people are now using wider Norton hones does not change the reality of the x-pattern usually being the optimal stroke.

Keep in mind that the Norton hones are NOT razor hones. By that I mean that they were not made to be razor hones. They simply are usable as razor hones. I don't know how many people are aware of this, but Norton also makes a set of hones that are 1.5 inches wide and I believe they are much more practical for razors.

Well guys, I still believe that the most effective cutting stroke for honing is the X pattern whether on a 1 inch stone or on a 10 inch wide stone. The blade should be flat and there should be virtually no pressure and the stroke should be even for the very best results. I will do circles when I have a lot of work to do to establish a bevel, but always finish them with the X stroke pattern. Now........I've honed a bunch more than 10,000 razors and am still learning, so always open to new thoughts and ways of doing things. This issue has come up a bunch and I experimented with no X pattern on quite a few razors just to end up coming back to it. Interestingly and especially on older razors with a lot of hone wear, meaning the shoulders have been worn down unevenly, it made it more difficult to get an even and consistent stroke with just pulling and pushing straight up and down. The razor tends to jump and slide vs. that even feel across the stone.

I'd be interested in hearing how this method holds up after someone else trying it on a bunch of razors.

Have fun,

Lynn

Originally Posted by Utopian

My point about the size of the barber hone was that it was clear when the straight was the only razor option, all barber hones were between 1.5 and 2 inches for a good reason. That reason has been alluded to in the above posts. That is, the x-pattern is the optimal stroke for honing and maintaining a razor, regardless of the width of the hone. If the x-pattern is used, a hone has no need to be wider than 1.5 to 2 inches. In the past couple hundred years of straight razor usage, not a single razor hone that I know of was made wide enough to use a straight stroke.

Keep in mind that the Norton hones are NOT razor hones. By that I mean that they were not made to be razor hones. They simply are usable as razor hones. I don't know how many people are aware of this, but Norton also makes a set of hones that are 1.5 inches wide and I believe they are much more practical for razors.

An excellent point thatmust remember. But from what I'm reading on this thread the type of stroke is dependant on the medium and it's up to the honer to decide. As a barber there are MANY ways to the same hair the same way using a large variety of instruments and techniques. They're all effective, but some provide quicker and more efficient results and are dependant on the situation. Even sandpaper can be used for honing, but the end result needs to be a shave ready edge. If you use a brick and it gives that edge, then you can't argue that it works, but you can criticize its efficiency (too much work, decrease in durability, etc..) This is just an analogy to explain that whether you use an X or up and down, you will get the results, but just like an up and down on a 2" hone will make getting that edge more difficult, my thinking suggests that doing an up and down on a 3" is just as good if not better than an X, and if you dont need to do an X why do it? The X has been around for long time but doesn't mean its the ONLY and BEST way. I think the technique depends on the hone.

Thought I would try it again...........

In answer to the original question, the X pattern is not an inefficient stoke for honing.

Originally Posted by Lynn

Well guys, I still believe that the most effective cutting stroke for honing is the X pattern whether on a 1 inch stone or on a 10 inch wide stone. The blade should be flat and there should be virtually no pressure and the stroke should be even for the very best results. I will do circles when I have a lot of work to do to establish a bevel, but always finish them with the X stroke pattern. Now........I've honed a bunch more than 10,000 razors and am still learning, so always open to new thoughts and ways of doing things. This issue has come up a bunch and I experimented with no X pattern on quite a few razors just to end up coming back to it. Interestingly and especially on older razors with a lot of hone wear, meaning the shoulders have been worn down unevenly, it made it more difficult to get an even and consistent stroke with just pulling and pushing straight up and down. The razor tends to jump and slide vs. that even feel across the stone.

I'd be interested in hearing how this method holds up after someone else trying it on a bunch of razors.

Have fun,

Lynn

I think if you've got a razor that is as flat as the hone (no warping, even grind, even honing from previously), honing it straight up and back will work. I don't think anyone would argue really that the x-stroke will allow even honing when the razor is no longer perfectly matched to the hone's flat surface.

So why not use whichever stroke is relevant and efficient for the razor at hand? Well, repetitive motion training/skill takes a while to stick -- become "natural." The efficiency is probably lost by someone that is switching between methods, and I suspect there is also a loss of fidelity or consistency if going between methods. So, if you've got imperfect razors or narrow hones, then the x-stroke becomes the best method. Heck, manufacturing quality of yester year may have led to the x-stroke with narrow hones because the razors couldn't be guaranteed to be even or flat on a hone; the same could be said for the hones I suppose too.

Originally Posted by Lynn

Thought I would try it again...........

In answer to the original question, the X pattern is not an inefficient stoke for honing.

Thank you for that answer. I dunno how the thread got out off the topic. All I wanted to know was whether a 3" hone removed more metal on the toe than the heel using an X stroke, the shape of the blade is irrelevant. It either does or doesn't.

But if it does remove more metal (this is my observation), even if slightly more than at the heel, will this effect the edge since the toe had more attention than the heel?