Thread: Idahone Ceramic Stone?

I'm completely new to honing, and have been looking to pick up a couple of hones. I found this one in a local cutlery and the guy that worked there(who also hones straight razors) said this one worked well for honing razors. I didn't get a chance to ask him what grit it was. One person told me it was around 10-12k and another person told me it's around 1-2k. It's completely smooth, so I don't think it's 1-2k. Wouldn't a hone of that grit be abrasive to the touch? This hone is very smooth to the touch..

I'm trying to attach a picture but it may or may not work. The hone is 8" x 2" x .5" and it's white.

Turns out the "manage attachments" button hadn't loaded in my original post.

Here's an article comparing it to an Arkansas stone via SEM. It's only for dental curets, not razors...and you have to buy the text...

Amazon.com: A scanning electron microscopy comparison of the effects of the Arkansas stone and the Idahone ceramic stone on curet sharpness and root smoothness. (Poster ... An article from: Journal of Dental Hygiene: M. Gayle Rubino, Deborah B. Bauma



If you buy it, you should post the results here!

both of my spydercos are white one is a fine the other is an ultrafine id give it a try and listen to the sound it makes as you are honing with water, my medium is a dark brown in color and not too course for a straight

I found a blade forum on google that says the medium is 600 grit and the fine 1200 grit. Not fine enough for razors.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

I found a blade forum on google that says the medium is 600 grit and the fine 1200 grit. Not fine enough for razors.

At first, they said the same thing about the Spyderco Fine and UF on the Spyderco forums...

I say try it out and see what it feels like! WHEEE

If I recall correctly that is a private label Spyderco. It may be either a Fine or Ultrafine. These were found by a moderator of another razor forum a couple of years ago.


Hope this helps,

I have access to the Journal of Dental Hygiene and figured I would post the results from the article mentioned above.

The authors conclude that the Arkansas stone and the Idahone ceramic stone are not statistically different in producing a cutting edge on a Gracey curet with few irregularities. Also, the curets sharpened with each stone produced similar root surfaces on extracted human teeth. However, it was mentioned that the Idahone ceramic stone does not require oil, is less expensive, and can be used during client care--thus making it worthwhile to consider in practice.

By using the SEM, the mean edge-widths of the cutting edge were measured after use with one of the two sharpening stones. The Idahone sharpened Gracy curets were 3.5 microns while the Arkansas stone was 1.89 microns. The Idahone stone also had a larger standard deviation. They claim that this difference is not statistically significant. They also counted the number of irregularities along a 10 micron segment and found the Idahone averaged 2.3 and the Arkansas averaged 2.8. This, again, is not statistically significant.

To conduct the test, the authors started with 39 new Gracey curets, sharpened them with one of the two stones, and then used them to root plane a section of root surface. The cutting edge and root surface were measured in and SEM.