Thread: Dalmore Yellow Hone - Grit Size?

Thanks! that helps enormously. It confirms that the King 6000 is well below 6000, too.

Re: Scotsmen and rounds - you haven't met my wifes relative. He has a good reason for not standing his rounds, though - the poor soul has 2'6" long arms but 3' deep pockets. Sad, isn't it?!

I recently bought a Dalmore yellow and Blue combo, and I can see already that I probably won't be a fan of the yellow. I think it's far coarser than a 6k and coarser than a 4k. That may sound good for bevel setting, but what I don't like about it so far is the grit seems to be varied and easily releases noticeable large sandy grit. Like sandstone. I want to try turning out some bevels on the DY just for kicks but IMO the jury's out on that one for razors.

Chris L

Originally Posted by Chris L

I recently bought a Dalmore yellow and Blue combo, and I can see already that I probably won't be a fan of the yellow. I think it's far coarser than a 6k and coarser than a 4k. That may sound good for bevel setting, but what I don't like about it so far is the grit seems to be varied and easily releases noticeable large sandy grit. Like sandstone. I want to try turning out some bevels on the DY just for kicks but IMO the jury's out on that one for razors.

Chris L

I agree with Chris, except mine doesn't seem to release sandy grit. The Dalmore yellow is a different animal from the other scotch hones. I don't consider it a slurry stone, for one thing. To me the closest equivalent is a hard white arkansas, which is rated around 1200, but a very slow 1200.

It would be interesting if someone with some geological knowledge would take a look at it. To this ignorant eye it's not garnets or quarts suspended in a clay or slate matrix; it's novaculite-type rock, where the rock itself is doing the honing.

It's nice to have if you're a collector and into scotch hones, but I really don't see using it on razors.

Thats very interesting - mine looks kind of like a sandstone too, but although predominantly yellow it has small white flecks, clumps of small balack/grey flecks and loads of small reddish flecks all over it. It took quite a while to lap, and doesn't release any particles at all, although it looks very open-textured.

It doesn't look at all like the translucent white arkansas I have, which is smooth and glassy. It is noticeably finer that the King 1000 I have, and like I said it is not far off the King 6000 - which I believe is more of a 4000 grit in reality. Like Chris and dylandog, I don't think I'll use it much - mainly because I have other stones.

It does polish a bevel quite nicely and quickly (very quickly oddly enough in the light of the above comments), and I have gone from it straight to a coticule and produced a great edge. I'd use it without hesitation if I had no other stones. Perhaps there is a range of variation in the strata, like you read about good and poor coticules, and mine happens to be a bit finer than usual. Who knows?

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

It doesn't look at all like the translucent white arkansas I have,

It does polish a bevel quite nicely and quickly (very quickly oddly enough in the light of the above comments), and I have gone from it straight to a coticule and produced a great edge. I'd use it without hesitation if I had no other stones. Perhaps there is a range of variation in the strata, like you read about good and poor coticules, and mine happens to be a bit finer than usual. Who knows?

I think Dylandog is referring to a was.h.i.t.a arkansas stone and not the translucent.

I'm guessing there is a wide variation in the DY then. Mine does not look like they way you describe yours. Your comments do make me want to try it more completely to actually set a proper bevel and see what happens. I have doubts that it will work well for that, but, who knows.

Chris L

Oh - I see! Its the novaculite reference and the word "hard" that threw me. Novaculite is a type of flint - microcrystalline, hard and dense. I know the Wa****a type is rougher/coarser, though (perhaps porous would be a better description), but I thought it was considered 'soft' rather than hard?

Wa****a grit size is quoted to be something like 400 - 600, hard arkansas at 800 - 1000, black hard (includes white and grey) and translucent at 1200 and over. "Grit size" in relation to arkansas stones is an arbitrary designation of course - they don't vary that much in grain size in reality, being a metamorphic rock.

I could be wrong though - I'm no authority on the subject!

Ha! - that spell-checker thing is a bit fierce, isn't it!