Thread: Dalmore Yellow Hone - Grit Size?

Hi - as a point of interest, does anyone know the approximate grit size of this natural hone? The label on it says

"The Celebrated Scotch Dalmore Yellow Hone For Carpenters and Joiners. SDY stone - Smooth, Fast Cutting. For coarser tool edges or preliminary to finer honing."

I have a man-made King 6000 and the Dalmore Yellow seems to be somewhere around this grit size.

Cheers,
Neil.

Looks like you found the answer yourself.

Yes - I can see how you might think that, but a lot of people say that the King stones stated grit size isn't as stated, so I'm still a bit in the dark failing any good point of reference. Make more sense now?

What I'm really after is a definitive (if there is such a thing) grit size so that I can place a valid rating on both hones. It's only as a point of interest after all - I know where each stone fits into my honing sequence, I'm just curious really! I know that the King is rated by some as above 7000 and by many more below 6000. If I knew what the Dalmore was, I'd be in a better position to assess the true grit size of the King.

I have spent a lot of time online looking for anything that might quote a value for the Dalmore - even phoned the mine (getting an answer out of them is like batting your head against a wall - still awaiting the return call) and haven't turned up anything. I know some members here are in Scotland and one or two even sell the stones from said mine, so I was hoping that one of them could add something (constructive). It would also help me see where the Dalmore Yellow fits in with the other regional stones like the Dalmore Blue (said to be 4-5000), Tam O'Shanter (said to be 6-8000) and Water of Ayr.

I've used the one up from a DY, a DB and it is quite a coarse hone. the DB is far coarser than say a Belgian Blue.
I'd say the DB is at least 4k, but as slow as a Scotsman buying a round

sorry had to use one of these new little people...

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!