Hyperborean said:
Hello Neil,
thank you for your informative thread on various hones. Of honing stones I have only a Naniwa SS 8000. Personally I am not that impressed with it, but I haven't got any experience with others so maybe I am wrong about it. Can you directly compare Naniwa SS 8000 to Shapton glass 8000 (and 16000 also), to Thuringian and to Translucent Arkansas? Which one would you put in the first place among these by polishing capabilities, speed and versatility (eg for finishing knife edges too)? For example, in local hunters store they sell Thuringian for some 25 eur or so. Would it make "worth buying difference" if I finished a razor in Thuringian after honing it on Naniwa 8000? Clearly it would be even better to obtain both 16 k and 30 k Shapton but they are too costly for me.
ps: this is off topic, regarding Spyderco stones, I have their medium and fine ceramic radiused files, I have used predominantly medium file for more than a decade and with it you can put very sharp edge (sharpness with a "bite") on a knife however these hard ceramics are not really appropriate for razor sharpening/ honing. I was thinking of getting their ultra fine benchstone (based on superlative comments about it) which would use for touching up kitchen knives.
pps: I saw commet about linen/canvas strop, while I am at it, my reasoning for use of linen/canvas in strops is that you can apply paste to it somewhat better than could be applied to leather (especially smooth leather), linen/canvas is certainly more absorbing material. I can't see any other logical explanation as for holding it some kind of abrasive. I use chromium oxide paste on the linen side of hanging strop and so far it has worked.
Thanks,
Aleksander
Hello Aleksander and thanks!
The Naniwa SS 8000 is a decent stone - I have had one and for its price I don't think you can complain much about it. It is fast, easy to lap, and leaves a decent edge from which to progress on to the next stone. What more could you want? The shapton GS is harder, harder to lap, and leaves an equally good edge, but costs more. I currently use one - although I have to lap it quite frequently (which is the case with all the Naniwas SS and Shapton GS series which are prone to dimensional changes) I think it will last a very long time, even though it is thin. Longer than a Naniwa SS certainly, which is a much softer stone.
The Shapton GS 1600 is an excellent stone. Some people report it leaving a harsh edge, but a trace of slurry on the stone (not recommended by shapton, BTW) or a good stropping on linen and leather or a few strokes on chrome oxide soon smooth it out. Not that I have ever felt a harsh edge coming off that particular hone - maybe my skin is not so delicate?!
To address your query re: the thuringian and arkansas stones, these of course are much slower than the previously mentioned hones. The arkansas is particularly slow, but the translucent ones that I have used leave a very good edge indeed. Unlike a slurried thuringian they will not remove even a small amount of metal - just enough at a micro-level to qualify as a slow polisher. Obviously, any comparison of the man-made hones to the two latter natural ones would be subjective, and - as natural stones differ so much and can be either good or bad or anything in between for our particular purposes (shaving, not knife wielding) for any one type of natural stone, a direct comparison could also be pretty meaningless.
If you compare finishing stones, then you should seek what qualities appeal to you. The ceramics/synthetics will be fast with a keen edge, decent thuringians will not attain the sharpness level of top-line ceramics/synthetics, will require more laps (and a degree of technique) and will have a smoother edge. A decent translucent arkansas will give a very keen edge, but shares the same properties of other novaculites - it will be very keen and crisp but it will not be so smooth as a thuringian.
As for thuringians, there are many types. Possibly the best ones are vintage ones, of which the Escher was a branded type, and even these fall into different categories broadly indicated by colour - dark grey/blue are fast cutters (according to their type, not other stones - I'm using it as a relative term) but the lighter colours give a more refined edge and a little less cutting speed. Modern thuringians seem to fall into three categories according to perceived grit levels (used as a convenience - you can't really determine an actual grit level for a natural stone): around 5000 grit, around 8000 grit and higher. Unless you know which one you are getting leave them alone - you could, for instance, be taking a retrograde step by using a sub-8000 thuringian after a known man-made 8k. The less pure thuringians also often have a scratchy quality, which is not pleasant. Inclusions that give rise to this scratchiness should not be confused with the other, more common glittery soft inclusions, which have no impact on the edge. Figuring out which are hard inclusions and which are soft ones is difficult, and usually only determined in use - by which time it is too late if they are not benign.
But you may not need another stone in excess of 8000 grit. That grit should give you a decent shaving edge. With chrome-oxide on a strop or paddle it could be all you will ever need (need, as opposed to want!). If it you can't get a shaving edge, you aren't using the stone to its best capabilities.
The UF Spyderco is a great stone - not just for knives - indeed, it was originally envisioned to be a modern replacement for a barber hone by the maker. It shares the same characteristics regarding the edge it leaves as a lot of the higher-grade barber hones - harshness - and to get it to leave a smoother edge requires some finesse or the help of chrome oxide. Which, BTW, can be applied directly to the UF itself if you like to experiment. As far as I can recall, the hone is not that cheap, either.
With regard to strops - for my own purposes, linen is best left unpasted as it is abrasive enough on its own for my needs. I do occasionally use powders, but these are applied to leather - they sink too far into canvas and linen unless the substrate has been prepared by hard-soaping it or some other method. The further an abrasive sinks into a substrate, and the more 'cushioned' that substrate is, the less the cutting effect of the abrasive becomes. A thin dusting of powder adheres very well to leather and once the small pores are filled it is quite a good support. Balsa and Hard Wool Felt are also good. However I would use linen/canvas as my last choice.
I may be wrong, but you seem to be seeing the material component just as a means of holding an abrasive, which it quite clearly is not. There are arguments that its use is to clean the edge of the razor and prevent debris like metal particles embedding in the leather, to warm the blade up (a lot of old barber manuals make a big point of this - some even instruct the learner to warm the razor in hot water prior to honing) or to realign the microfin on the bevel. I use it with no dressing applied prior to leather because - for me - it works best like that. I prefer paddles for dressings, but that's just my preference.
As for knife edges I agree with Arrowhead. For me anything over 4k - 5k is unnecessary and leaves an attenuated edge that is too fragile to serve long, the Spyderco UF is a bit aggressive (but see above), and the 'bite' you feel is due to the tooth-like serrations left at the bevel by a hard abrasive.
Regards,
Neil