Thread: May I over-analyze honing?

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have been using the Half-X honing pattern because I didn’t think there would be any difference between it and the Full-X. And now, after reading the Treatise on sharpening mentioned in another post, I don’t think either pattern is sufficient. First, I’ll explain why then discuss the new pattern, the 4-X.

Let's establish some terminology:

Let's assume conventional honing is used, NOT back-honing.

If the blade is drawn across the hone from heel to toe, the scratches will start at the edge and slant forward toward the toe - let's call this toe-leaning.

If the blade is drawn from across the hone from toe to heel, the scratches will start at the edge and slant backward toward the heel - let's call this heel-leaning.

Considering each side of the blade separately, since we may shave with the heel leading or the toe leading or anywhere in between, I don't see what difference it would make if the scratches are toe-leaning or heel-leaning.

I think the only significant difference between the Full-X and Half-X must be at the edge itself in how the scratches come together at the edge.

In the Full-X, the scratches on both sides will be toe-leaning and look like this:

(toe-leaning)
////////////////////////////////////////////////////// toe of blade
-------------------------------------------------------edge
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\
(toe-leaning)


In the Half-X, the scratches will approach the edge from opposite directions and look like this:

(toe-leaning)
////////////////////////////////////////////////////// toe of blade
------------------------------------------------------edge
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////
(heel-leaning)

The question is, do either of these patterns produce an optimum edge?


The treatise on sharpening mentioned in another post discusses a 4-stroke X pattern, consisting of both toe-to-heel and heel-to-toe strokes on both sides of the blade, resulting in this:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX toe of blade
---------------------------------------------------------edge
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


This stroke eliminates any grooves by honing each side in both directions and will result in the most uniform and smoothest edge.

I’m going re-hone one of my shavers with the 4-X, using my usual 8000 waterstone, coticule, .5 pasted strop and .25 pasted strop, and try it tomorrow. I’ll post the results.

Tom

I've heard of guys who use no x-pattern whatsoever. They use a simple back-and-forth stroke. I hope others weigh in on this too but regardless of the x-pattern or straight stroke, the bevel/edge will still be created.

Maybe someone like Alan could weigh in about the striations - he's done a lot of research about that topic (it always causes controversy).

-Rob

I'm one of those guys who do not use the x pattern. In reality if you hone straight with the heel leading slightly the result will be the same and it works just fine for me. I guess you could use the opposite with the toe leading, I haven't tried it but it would just reverse the striations. I don't know if that pattern would have any deleterious effect on the bevel or not. Thats a question for Lynn or one of the real Honemeisters here.

It's an interesting experiment you're conducting. I remember reading that one of the regulars (urleebird?) hones with an alternating pattern that would be somewhat like the 4-X pattern. You hone one direction, and as you change grits you go the other direction until the scratches are polished out, then reverse directions and hone until the scratches are polished out, etc.

I think its worth a try and see what you get. If your using too low a grit as a finishing stone or too much pressure on the finishing laps you'll likely get a better edge.

I think you should read the 1961 barbers manual in the help files if you haven't all ready.

Once you start throwing the pastes in like .5 and .25 I get worried about your conclusion on striations. I think they get a little oversmooth and "crisscrossy". Yet the edge in general remains sharp. You almost lose the need for striations (assuming you have a light not heavy beard).

One word of caution though on your conclusion. Many, many have found that each blade needs a differing technique to get ultra sharp (I'm talking wowzer sharp, not just shaving sharp). My most recent conclusion on this is that the main variable in each razor is the precise angle needed on the X pattern in order to striate and then finish each edge. Each edge seems to respond differently (either break microscopically or become hyper fine) in response to a varied angle. Therefore, your new pattern could easily replicate the better angle for an indvidual razor, rather than the best overall pattern. I'd suggest trying your ideas on two razors from two companies with differing grinding techniques over the steel blank.

In general though, especially if your using pastes at the end, you'll probably get some improvement. If you were using high grit stones alone and have a heavy beard you might be heading in the wrong direction (no pun intended).

Let us know how it goes!

Alan,

You make several comments that imply a need for striations with a heavy coarse beard.

Since I have what my wife describes as a "wire brush" beard you caught my interest. Could you please elaborate.

Dave

Originally Posted by robertlampo

I've heard of guys who use no x-pattern whatsoever. They use a simple back-and-forth stroke. I hope others weigh in on this too but regardless of the x-pattern or straight stroke, the bevel/edge will still be created.

Maybe someone like Alan could weigh in about the striations - he's done a lot of research about that topic (it always causes controversy).

-Rob

Toe leading would be like honing the x-pattern from heel to toe, reversing the slant of the scratch lines. I don't know anyone that does that.

THe best information I was able to get on the benefit of the x-pattern came from the barber manual, but not explicitly. It came from observing the magnified razor edge diagram.

First of all, every abrasive produces scratch lines they just get finer with finer abrasive, but they don't diaappear. using the x-pattern produces scratch lines that go back and toward the tip, but where they intersect the edge they produce a tooth that has a steep leading edge and a shallow trailing edge. If you use the blade in a push fashion or tip leading, the trailing edge is at an angle to the hairs and cuts them with a slicing motion. If you had pushed straight across, you would get a tooth with a even leading and tailing edges, and if you shave with the tip leading (as the manual teaches) the leading edge pushes into the hair and the trailing edge is at sucha sharp angle that it doesn't reall slide across the hair. This is the reason the manual advances the x-pattern: it maximizes cutting when you use the tip leading pattern they teach. Your half-x has different scratch directions on each side (as oppose to having them parallel) so I don't know what it gives you, but it doesn't seem like it could be good.

The treatises choice of that honing pattern seemed to be fairly arbitrary in an effort to eliminate the effect of scratch lines, yet the barber manual specifically ponts out the benefit of those lines.

Even with a 4K stone you have about 12 scratch lines per hair, so I wouldn't expect the effect of the teeth to be a major one, but I also don't see how the half x or double x patterns could be of any benefit. BTW, the scratch lines produced by a strop cross those produced by a hone, so you actually do get a double x pattern if you use hones and pasted strops.

I look forward to the results of your experiment, but I wonder how it could result in meaningful conclusions without testing a lot of blades honed the different ways and then blind tested by different shavers.