Thread: Belgium vs Norton

Originally Posted by jmorehead

But I am starting to see a group consensus about stones like the Norton’s VS the naturals, esp. the Belgians and that being - the naturals with the naturally embedded garnets cut much faster than the Norton’s.

I don't know if this is true. I've heard the blues are very slow. Plus if the coticule is a 12K like Lynn says, it's not likely to be faster than a fast 8K, like the Norton. But I think it's all besides the point. As I see it the main reason for using the coticule is to get a finer abrasive than the 8K, so it has to be slower, and we expect it.

The answers I got were yes it IS noticeable and in addition, a lot of the older guys who are really into this said that the natural stones [get this] "tend to remove a lot less steel to get the edge" as compared to the man made stones that require more steel to be removed.

I have to take this with a big grain of salt. First of all, how do they know they're removing less metal at the level of fineness of a 12K? You couldn't even tell in a microscope at 200-400x. In fact, if you look in a microscope at a lot higher magnification, every 12K stone will produce 12K scratch lines about 1 micron in depth. The scratch lines are where the material is removed. So, how could two stones with the same scratch pattern remove different amounts of material? A coticule (1 micron grit) will remove a lot less material than an 8K norton (3 micron grit) only because of the difference in scratch size. But if you could get a 12K Norton (or Shapton) they would be the same.

I suppose that this is where the added price justifies the stones. If you are removing less steel to put an edge on your $200.00 Dovo, thus making it last longer, well... herein lies the justification.

Assuming the metal removal were less, It would make no difference for all the guys here who use pyramids and wear down their razors unnecessarily at 4K and 8K.

Let's face it, any 12K barber hone or 1 micron paste will do the same thing. This is just another one of those luxuries that we allow ourselves (me included).

Joe,
I have to agre on the Norton thing. A great stone but more prep time is needed unles you keep it soaking all the time, something I choose not to do. It is a little more of a mess to use.
I did use my barber hones quite often as they were easu to grab and spalsh with water. Now that I sell the Belgians I have had a beter chance to use them and find they are as quick and easy as a barber hone.

I still like the smaller stones myself so don't think JMorehead's chocie of a 2x8 is bad but most of my customers took a 3x8 which seems to be the stone of choice now days.

I have a little 2x4 and a 2x6 I love as they weigh little more than a barber hone. For more serious work I use a 2x8.

I still have a few coticules and blues left and am placing a new order on Tuesday.

Tony Miller

I really enjoys seeing you fellas pontificate......lol. Lynn

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

...every 12K stone will produce 12K scratch lines about 1 micron in depth. The scratch lines are where the material is removed. So, how could two stones with the same scratch pattern remove different amounts of material? A coticule (1 micron grit) will remove a lot less material than an 8K norton (3 micron grit) only because of the difference in scratch size. But if you could get a 12K Norton (or Shapton) they would be the same.

This is not exactly correct,
The identifying characteristic in hones that give them their unique personality is the type, shape and size of abrasive imbedded in the hone. The size, geometry, hardness and foundation (the bedding compound) of the abrasive is what will determine the amount of steel removed during the honing process. This is why some hones like the coticule, and even the Spyderco Ceramic have a larger particle size (the Ultra fine Spyderco uses an abrasive that’s about 3microns in size) but can still offer a finer than expected finish.
Think of a child’s sets Jacks... the Jacks are star shaped with 4 long points and two shorter points (forget about the fact that the long points are blunted the shape is what we're going for), the long points of the jack is approx one half the over all diameter of the jack it's self...
Now assume that jack is embedded in concrete... if one arm of the jack was sticking out of the concrete it could conceivably produce a scratch patter of a full half micron, because the jack would not give or roll as the blade passed over it. There we have the extreme example of size and bedding compound.

Now lets take a facetted bead... same over all diameter, however it has a far less dramatic geometry. They are almost spherical, aside from sharp corners and edges connecting the corners. So already we have the same particle size, 1 micron, and a far less dramatic "cut" in the steel.
Now bed that bead in some clay. The bead is fast, until it comes into contact with the blade. Once the blade "jars" it free, it will roll around in the "slurry" continuously cutting.. but still not as deep as the previous Jack would if it were bedded in the clay. The Jack would still move around in the slurry but will cut much deeper than the bead.
That is how one stone of one grit can be considered "fast" and another stone of the same relative grit can be considered "slow". There is no international standardization of honing grits... if there was we wouldn’t have the variation between man made and natural hones, or between U.S. water hones and Japanese water hones... ceramics Vs. clay binders.. and the such.. You cant say hone "A" with an advertised grit of XXXX will be identical to hone "B" because hone "B" also is advertised as the same grit. If you want a good example of this compare the Norton 8K (3mic) with the Spyderco Ultra fine (also 3mic) with the coticule which is stated on the Belgischer Brocken site as 3-12microns... The largest particle size, here the coticule, produces the finest cut.
All particles are not created equal

Thanks Kelley. That's interesting. I don't claim to know much about the detals of abrasives. I looked at the result (the scratch line), and I don't care about the structure that got it there. As you pointed out the corticule has the biggest size grit but produces a 12K scratch line. To me it is a 12K stone.

The volume of the scratch line is the volume of the material removed, so a given number of scratch lines gives you a fixed removal of metal. Certainly, an abrasive with a higher density of grits will cut faster, because the scratch lines will be placed more quickly, but if the end result is the same "uniform" distribution of scratch lines, the metal removal must be the same.

Joe,

Which stones are you using? Norton 4-8K? Coticule (Agree with the 12K or finer)? Belgium Blue? Kityama 12K? Shapton Pro 12K? Norton 1K? Little Barber Hones? Japanese Awase? DMT? Ceramic?

It would seem that you are also using pastes as well in your honing process vs. finish or polish process.

I love reading the technical details from you guys. Always good stuff. I don't rely on the microscope much still. Typically, I judge the shave alone as I can then tell exactly what the edge needs or doesn't need. I am finding that a lot of new guys are using a significant amount of strokes on the hone when relying on the microscope alone or any of the other non shaving tests.

Thanks.

Lynn

BTW - FYI:

Shaptons evidently are now offered from 8,000 to 15,000 and then up to a 30,000! (In other words, no 12,000) And the price for the 30,000 is $635.99 !!!
Check it out: http://www.shaptonstones.com/stones/...nal-Series.php

The 15,000 is $128.99.

I decided to bite the bullet and go for the 8X3" (after an order change) $175.00 Belgian yellow especially after the Gerber and some other premium knife techs at the factory [after I told them I was not interested in "their" sharpening systems since I needed some universitility] gave the extreme thumbs up on the Belgian Yellows. Now I am ordering the Shapton Pro 15,000 as my "finisher" hoping 15,000 is not "too" gentle.

Thoughts? Comments? Ideas? Suggestions?

Originally Posted by adjustme69

Joe,

Which stones are you using? Norton 4-8K? Coticule (Agree with the 12K or finer)? Belgium Blue? Kityama 12K? Shapton Pro 12K? Norton 1K? Little Barber Hones? Japanese Awase? DMT? Ceramic?

I don't use the Norton 4/8 much anymore because lately I'm getting single razors at at trickling rate.

For maintenance or a quick fix on an Ebay razor that's in good shape I use baber hones and pastes. I use a Swaty for a quick touch up (I keep it at my sink). For actual work I use mostly the Ahconite (coarse side), Amalgamate, and Swaty. I usually finish on a corticule and then a .5 micron paste. I don't use the .25 micron paste much anymore. I found that it took too much work to really make a difference. Instead, I started using the corticule before the .5, which actually reduced the amount of work I did on the .5.

For real work I have fine and ultrafine DMTs, fine and ultrafine Spyderco ceramics and the corticule. Recently I also got an Idahone ceramic which is supposed to be 12K (I've used it once). I use the DMTs for quick removal of large chips or evenning out a bad edge. I use the Spydercos like I used to use the Norton 4/8. I use the corticule and pastes as I've already explained. I'm trying to get to a setup I can use in my office. The corticule is still a little messy, so I thought the 12K ceramic might work instead. I use the ceramics dry and just mist them from a small bottle.

It would seem that you are also using pastes as well in your honing process vs. finish or polish process.

I'm set up to do the following sequence of pastes: 6, 3, 1, .5 and .25. I found that hones were easier to use than the 6, 3, and 1, so I rarely use them anymore. As I explained, I don't use the .25 much anymore, so I really only use the .5 now.

I don't rely on the microscope much still. Typically, I judge the shave alone as I can then tell exactly what the edge needs or doesn't need.

I wish I could do that. I find I need to go back and forth between the shave and stones too much. The microscope and thumb test give me the information you get from the shave. Then I only need to go to the shave once.

I am finding that a lot of new guys are using a significant amount of strokes on the hone when relying on the microscope alone or any of the other non shaving tests.

That's certainly true. But I think it has to do with the fact that they don't spend the time to analyze the razor first, or they haven't learned reliable tests. Instead, they tend to jump into a large pyramid that does eventually get them there, while they might only need a few swipes on a hone.

I really agree with this statement. It would be a very good idea to purchase a small "rubbing stone" that matches the hone to generate a slurry. My grandfathers old hone, a "Little Frictionite 00" came with a rubbing stone.

I am going to buy another Norton 4/8 to use for lapping and for generating a slurry on the my main Norton 4/8 hones.

Like with like, [Randy Tuttle]

What about the Norton flattening stone? http://www.craftsmanstudio.com/html_p/N!LWS.htm (It is the right-most picture of the four thumbnails) Is there a reason I should not go this route? It is much cheaper than buying another waterstone...

Thanks

Originally Posted by jmorehead

BTW - FYI:

Shaptons evidently are now offered from 8,000 to 15,000 and then up to a 30,000! (In other words, no 12,000) And the price for the 30,000 is $635.99 !!!
Check it out: http://www.shaptonstones.com/stones/...nal-Series.php

The 15,000 is $128.99.

I decided to bite the bullet and go for the 8X3" (after an order change) $175.00 Belgian yellow especially after the Gerber and some other premium knife techs at the factory [after I told them I was not interested in "their" sharpening systems since I needed some universitility] gave the extreme thumbs up on the Belgian Yellows. Now I am ordering the Shapton Pro 15,000 as my "finisher" hoping 15,000 is not "too" gentle.

Thoughts? Comments? Ideas? Suggestions?

I'm happy with my Shapton 15K stone. I've been using it to finish off my razors after the Norton 8K. I just bought a coticule, but haven't had it long enough to know how it compares.

E