Originally Posted by
pjrage
I was under the impression that the objectives were actually two fold - that you can shave off of it, and, further, that it COULD be the only stone you need (if you like the shaving edge it offers). I think all would agree that maybe it's not the most efficient, but it's also not so ridiculously inefficient that it's impractical to use as your only stone, from bevel setting through final edge. IMHO, it's impractical for a honemeister to use as their only stone, but for average joe who hones a razor a week if that, he can afford an extra couple hundred strokes or so, and some fiddling time, if needed.
The problem, as I understand it, and maybe I'm grossly misunderstanding what I've been reading lately on the subject and if so please forgive me, is that some people feel that it's a very overrated stone. It's not the fastest or cheapest stone in it's grit ranges, so why bother? I think this point of view comes from the fact that the coticule has been getting this rep lately as almost a magic stone.. that it can "do it all" and the shaves off of it are great. Everyone (newbies in particular) sees this and they instantly want a coticule without considering if there might be some other, more efficient, if not better, hones that might suit them just as well at a similar price point. I think the people in the second camp define better primarily with efficiency and reliability/consistency (how long / how many strokes it takes to complete each honing stage, and how repeatable the results are on different razors).
Anyway, that's my impression of the two sides of it, from what I can tell.