Waterstone Comparison please

[Ken Casser]

For a mid-range waterstone, would I be better off getting a Sigma Power Select II in 3000 grit or a Shapton Pro in 2000 grit? I'm sharpening LN plane irons and misc chisels. I've been using a soft old 800/4000 combo that ain't gettin' it done so I want to trade up. Thank you!

[David Weaver]

They probably cut similar fineness when all is said and done, even if the particles in the two are a bit different in size.

the SP select II is a very soft stone that cuts fast because it's soft. It's softness is similar to the king 800 type of softness, maybe even a little more so.

The shapton will feel like honing on gritty plastic compared to the kings - it's much harder.

I've not had a shapton 2k, but I did have a SP II 3k, which made a great replacement for a tanba aoto (more capable and no more expensive than a decent tanba aoto). I wouldn't use it where I wanted a hard stone, though.

[Ken Casser]

Thanks, David. I think I'll opt for speed.

[Winton Applegate]

Yah, I bought the Shapton Pro 2000 (my first Shapton ) to fill in [my old system; I have since gone all Shapton] between my 1000 (or is it a 1200) red King stone and my Norton USA made 4000.
I like the Shapton OK but the Norton 4000 is quite a good and agressive stone for being as fine as it is.
The Shapton 2000, as David said is pretty hard.
I am a big fan of coarse fairly hard stones because I don't power grind much at all unless I got something unusuall, for me, to do.
So I can't imagine giving up the 800 you have unless you start power grinding.
I even use a Shapton white 120. Before that the diamond plates in ~200 and 330 were my coarsest and then a kind of generic, medium hard, 700 stone.

Man that 2000 really stays flat though.

[Jay Park]

the SP select II is a very soft stone that cuts fast because it's soft. It's softness is similar to the king 800 type of softness, maybe even a little more so.


the softness of the stone does not have anything to do with how fast it cuts. Its more to do with the abrasive and the binder holding the stone together.

I used own the King stone. It's very soft and cuts very slow. The softness is a problem because it creates a dish/convexness on the stone which you have to flatten often ( hard to get a sharp edge on a dished stone).

I haven't tried the SP II but my current set is 1k, 2k, 6k,and 10k of the SP Ceramic stone. Cuts pretty fast and dishes relatively slow.

The Shapton Pro stones are very hard and dishes very slow. It cuts a bit slower then my SP Ceramic. As David said the feedback when sharpening on it is like sliding the edge on plastic. This was a big minus for me because I free hand sharpen.

Jay

[Ken Casser]

Thank you for the information. Things are getting clearer!

So, if I can boil it down, what I'm hearing is - Sigma - needs soaking, is softer so it needs flattening more frequently (I don't know if that means flattening it every ten strokes or once a month), cuts faster (not because it's soft, but because of its composition). Shapton - no soak, infrequent flattening, slower cutting, unusual, slicker feel when sharpening due to its hardness.

I'd like to spend less time honing and don't mind soaking and flattening, so I guess Sigma is my best bet?

[Harold Burrell]

Thank you for the information. Things are getting clearer!

So, if I can boil it down, what I'm hearing is - Sigma - needs soaking, is softer so it needs flattening more frequently (I don't know if that means flattening it every ten strokes or once a month), cuts faster (not because it's soft, but because of its composition). Shapton - no soak, infrequent flattening, slower cutting, unusual, slicker feel when sharpening due to its hardness.

I'd like to spend less time honing and don't mind soaking and flattening, so I guess Sigma is my best bet?

Yet another perspective...

You sound like me. Not a whole lot of sharpening/waterstone experience, yet you want something that will get the job done well, etc. Well...I'll tell you...the guys here that have responded to your post up to this point are stone MONSTERS. They are like experts. Seriously. They have used various and sundry types of stones WAY more than I probably EVER will, so they have a real feel for what they are talking about.

So, the info they are giving you is invaluable.

On the other hand...here's my take...from a guy who doesn't have much experience at all...

I own a set of Kings. I also own a set of SP's as well as a set of Shaptons. I notice a big difference in the feel (and performance) of the SP's and Shaptons over the Kings. The Kings are obviously softer, messier and don't cut so well. Both the SP's and Shaptons are (1) bigger (2) harder and (3) quicker. So I notice a pretty big difference between the Kings and the others.

HOWEVER, being the not-so-experienced-user that I am, I don't notice much of a difference at all between the SP's and the Shaptons. They are both VERY good stones. I am sure you would be happy with either (or both ;) ).

If I was pressed to choose though...I would choose the SP's.

[David Weaver]

the softness of the stone does not have anything to do with how fast it cuts. Its more to do with the abrasive and the binder holding the stone together.

I used own the King stone. It's very soft and cuts very slow. The softness is a problem because it creates a dish/convexness on the stone which you have to flatten often ( hard to get a sharp edge on a dished stone).

I haven't tried the SP II but my current set is 1k, 2k, 6k,and 10k of the SP Ceramic stone. Cuts pretty fast and dishes relatively slow.

The Shapton Pro stones are very hard and dishes very slow. It cuts a bit slower then my SP Ceramic. As David said the feedback when sharpening on it is like sliding the edge on plastic. This was a big minus for me because I free hand sharpen.

Jay

Softness of a stone has to do a lot with how fast it cuts, especially in the context of sharpening something. So does particle size, abrasive density and abrasive type.

The reason softness has a lot to do with how fast a stone cuts is because a stone that holds a particle long enough for it to dull or substantially break down will end up cutting slower than it does when it's refreshed. That doesn't matter on the first or 5th stroke, but on the 15th, it does, and if you don't refresh the surface before you sharpen next, those strokes keep adding up. A softer stone will also flush all metal particles with the abrasive swarf.

Softness does make for a problem with dishing.

The earliest favored soft stone that I can recall is the turkish oilstone, which is nearly impossible to find now. It was a fine novaculite stone that fractured easily and needed to be flattened fairly regulary, but it had a good reputation for cutting fast for its fineness and for cutting the hardest of carbon steels. A set of attributes that is very familiar to the SPIIs, which cut extremely fast, and the harder the steel, the bigger the difference. If you were taking a nick out of a knife where the dishing isn't much of an issue, they would be very favorable.

And one other example - old crystolon stones that have hardened are just about worthless for grinding. The abrasives break down and the only way to refresh them would be to get something more coarse and hard to clean them off. That's a tall order for them. A newer crystolon stone (which is as good at hand grinding as any stone that I'm aware of) is soft and will break down. The same thing happens with older india stones, but there is some virtue to them being harder if you want them to cut finer and slower.

[Ken Casser]

Thank you all for the education! I am now confident that I'm going in the right direction. I can't say how many stones, wheels, grinders, etc, I've purchased over the past forty years, usually to be disappointed in my performance. I would have been wise to spend the money for quality from the beginning. But then again, I didn't know how much I would enjoy doing what I'm doing. :D

[Noah Wagener]

the softness of the stone does not have anything to do with how fast it cuts. Its more to do with the abrasive and the binder holding the stone together.Jay

Now I am confused. I thought "the binder holding the stone together" was what made a stone soft or hard?