Thread: Name that hone.

Originally Posted by Utopian

Most critically, coticules are quite delicate and so that's why you always see them bonded to a harder, darker stone which is almost always slate or a belgian blue.

I'm afraid I must disagree. Natural coticule combos are not bonded and manage to survive. While fragile I suspect the slate backing is more a matter of economy.

Originally Posted by beenpickin

I'm afraid I must disagree. Natural coticule combos are not bonded and manage to survive. While fragile I suspect the slate backing is more a matter of economy.

Natural coticule combos ARE bonded. The coticule side is naturally formed next to a layer of blue coticule and the two layers are left intact when cut into pieces. They were cut this way on purpose because the coticule layer was too fragile alone. It was only recently that other extracted pieces of coticule were bonded to slate to support the coticule.
My point was that the fact that the stone in the photo appears to be homogenous, without a backing layer, strongly suggests that it is not a coticule.

not escher 2 one.

That first one looks so much like a coticule, he should contact Rob at the mine and ask whether the coticule vein was known to be thick enough in some cases to afford enough coticule to work with to actually have cut full thickness coticule hones. It's possible I suppose in which case that would be one THICK coticule!

Chris L

For example, this is one thick coticule. Yes it's got backing, but still the coticule layer is a monster.



Look familiar, Ron, you lucky duck?

Chris L

Yeah Chris, I think I remember it!
If you go to the photos and use the magnifier in the upper right corner, see if you still think it's a coticule. To me, it looks too grainy and just doesn't look right.

Those silvery specks are throwing me, but otherwise I would still throw some money in the kitty that it's a coticule. This next shot of one of mine I took a long time ago is much more magnified, but I see similarities.


Chris L