Thread: Name that hone.

Anyone know what these hones are? the light colored one I believe it to be a coticule the second one I am totally clueless. At first I thought it was a escher but now doubt it. The light one leaves a nice mirror like finish I use it as a finish hone. The other one leaves a hazy finish but is also good after a good stropping. Anyway any thought highly appreciated.

This is the link to the pictures:
http://picasaweb.google.com/rael.ptacnik/NewHones#

The photos are quite sharp enough to give an adequate assessment, but the surface of the first one does not appear to be a coticule. 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. Thus I highly doubt the first one to be a coticule.

Regarding the second one, the grain looks to be too coarse to be an escher but I can't see it well enough to be sure.

One thing you can do to test both of them: Try to make a slurry with each of them with, if nothing else, some sandpaper. Both a coticule and an escher will make a milky slurry. If it makes such a slurry, it's not proof that it is a coticule or escher, but if it doesn't make a slurry, then it's not.

Sorry to only offer the negative point of view of what I think they aren't, but I have no idea what they actually are,

Don't worry, you'll get a lot more opinions and speculations soon. These type of posts seem to be popular!

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

One thing I forgot to mention is that I lapped the stone with a dmt xxc since it was basically black when I got it, the slurry that forms is milky and also makes that grinding noise when honing that I think is particular to coticules. I believe the grainy look is because of the dmt xxc texture it leaves behind. Anyone know what the second one might be? Could it be that the silvery specs are diamonds from the dmt? I haven't noticed those before.