Another whats under the stone post.

[Stewie Simpson]

Received this 2nd hand natural sharpening stone from the U.K this morning.

Under all that old oil and grime there are features that indicate its most likely crystaline novaculite in structure, an oil stone, either Washita or Arkansas.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/new%20stropping%20block/natural%20honing%20stones%20purchased%20from%20the %20uk/_DSC0295_zpsqde2gueo.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/new%20stropping%20block/natural%20honing%20stones%20purchased%20from%20the %20uk/_DSC0295_zpsqde2gueo.jpg.html)

The same stone after being flattened reveals much more of the stones natural features.

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/new%20stropping%20block/natural%20honing%20stones%20purchased%20from%20the %20uk/_DSC0296_zpsfu7jmd0t.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/new%20stropping%20block/natural%20honing%20stones%20purchased%20from%20the %20uk/_DSC0296_zpsfu7jmd0t.jpg.html)

During the flattening process, indications are, its a hard stone, slow slurry releasing, most likely pointing to its identity as being Arkansas.

To validate that fact, requires some mathematics to work out the stones specific gravity. (SG)

Weight of the stone = 515 grams.

Mass ( 20.1 cm x 4.7cm x 2.3cm) = 217.28 cm3

515/ 217.28 = 2.37 g/cm3

SG = 2.37.

Using the following site as a reference; Stone Grades 101 (http://www.danswhetstone.com/stone_grades_101.htm) , It identifies the stone as being within the Hard Arkansas range of 2.30 - 2.45 SG / 800 - 1000 grit.

Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

A few comments on the sharpening box that the stone was made for. Its stamped J.SMITH. The wood chosen looks to be English Rosewood so that was good choice. The mortising out was done to a high standard using a brace and bit, followed by chiseling out of the waste, and further refined by the use of a router plane to true the depth of the mortise floors, (missing the spacer blocks). A beveled edge was then applied to the top lid of the box, as well as the outer edges of the internal mating surfaces. Dowel feet were recessed under the base of the box, and then glued and trimmed off to a 1/8" elevation. The only criticism of J.SMITH, is that he could have taken a little more care to avoid, or address the tear out that's quite evident on the top primary surface of the lid. That being the show piece of the box itself. Was J.SMITH a Carpenter, a Joiner, a Carpenter and Joiner, or a Cabinet Maker. The passing of time will likely suggest we will never find out.

Stewie;

[Jim Koepke]

The only criticism of J.SMITH, is that he could have taken a little more care to avoid, or address the tear out that's quite evident on the top primary surface of the lid.

Was the box actually made by J.Smith?

Was there possibly a label on top of the box? Could it being pulled off caused tear out?

Looks like a nice stone.

jtk

[Stewie Simpson]

Hi Jim; both box halves have the hammer impression stamp of J.SMITH on the end grain. I am assuming from past practice that J.SMITH was the likely person that made the box to house that stone. Noting the type and hardness of the wood used, and the localised tear out, its more than likely some reverse grain was encountered at the time the box was made.

Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

http://www.danswhetstone.com/stone_grades_101.htm

The reference relied upon to ascertain the grit rating of this stone was based on the (ANSI) US. Fed Gov. Standard. Hopefully Patrick can chime in on the equation needed to allow a comparative analysis with (JIS) used for Japanese Natural Stones.

Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

the following is a conversion chart. https://www.fine-tools.com/G10019.html

[Pat Barry]

Stewie, can you please upload the images directly instead of linking through Photobucket? Reason for asking is that, I went to look at some of your old threads / posts regarding saw making and filing and the images have disappeared. It would be so much better if these images were stored on this website directly because they would always be here. Thanks

[Stewie Simpson]

Pat; that's because I deleted all of those saw making photo's from my photobucket account.

Stewie;

[Pat Barry]

Pat; that's because I deleted all of those saw making photo's from my photobucket account.

Stewie;
That's why I'm asking you to not use the bucket and to post them directly here. :)

[Stew Denton]

Stewie,

Nice stone and good post. Thanks for the links, as I learned a bit about stones.

Thanks again and regards,

Stew

[Stewie Simpson]

Thanks Stew; good to hear someone took notice.

Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

Pat; I still have enough saw plate, brass back, and saw bolts in my workshop to make a further 20 backsaws in the future if I so please. But I have to have the question the value in providing future threads including photo's on the critical steps of making your own backsaws. My experience from a previous time, was the vast majority of forum members (not restricted this site only), had little interest in following my lead, and from general feedback received, showed a preference to purchase, rather than make their own saws. If the ongoing interest lies within learning more about how to resharpen and maintain your handsaws, that's something quite different. As far as my personal choice of using photobucket to load my from photo's from, my preference lies within having some control over the storage of my photo's, rather than leave it to the likes of a 2nd entity, or public domain to control their future. It wasn't that long ago, and still is a regular occurrence on some online forums, that any thread over 12 months old, is automatically deleted from the system to manage data storage.

regards Stewie;

[Warren Mickley]

The stone looks more like a soft Arkansas or Washita to me. Oil soaked stones may weigh a little more than raw stones.

A hard Arkansas stone is not really equivalent to an 800 or 1000 grit water stone. If you expect the Arkansas to cut as fast as a 1000 grit stone you could be disappointed. And if you expect the 1000 grit stone to polish as nicely as an Arkansas stone you could be quite disappointed also.

[Mel Fulks]

Some of the info on Washita stones from about 1900 says the ideal ones were About 2.1 SG. Ideal meaning coarse and fast cutting. It took a while for me to realize that was what workmen were looking for. Practical fast edge. Different sources have competing views of what is a hard Ark, but 2.6 SG is what I've seen most often.

[Stewie Simpson]

The stone looks more like a soft Arkansas or Washita to me. Oil soaked stones may weigh a little more than raw stones.

A hard Arkansas stone is not really equivalent to an 800 or 1000 grit water stone. If you expect the Arkansas to cut as fast as a 1000 grit stone you could be disappointed. And if you expect the 1000 grit stone to polish as nicely as an Arkansas stone you could be quite disappointed also.

Warren; appreciate your feedback, but I applied a given process of elimination, above the look of stone to ascertain its real identity. I agree with your comments on comparing 1 stone to the performance of another based on grit rating. That's why I expressed some interest in comparing the ANSI Standard to the JIS Standard. I was rather disappointed with the conversion chart that I posted, as I personally think both ANSI and JIS both fail in comparison to the methodology used by sellers of these natural stones. Japanese nat stones in particular. I haven't had the opportunity to personally test this stone out on steel edge to gain my own impression of the stones working grit, but I would not be surprised if I were to delegate a range much closer to the 8k mark.

regards Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

Some of the info on Washita stones from about 1900 says the ideal ones were About 2.1 SG. Ideal meaning coarse and fast cutting. It took a while for me to realize that was what workmen were looking for. Practical fast edge. Different sources have competing views of what is a hard Ark, but 2.6 SG is what I've seen most often.

Mel; appreciate your feedback. I think it fair to say that the needs of the workmen have changed since that early time period, with much of the work in reshaping and repairing the primary bevel being dedicated to the bench grinder.

Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

Had the opportunity to test this stone out to form a secondary bevel on 1 of my workshop chisels. The stone itself retained a good level of oil on the top surface of the stone, and there was no need to add further oil while working the stone. Fairly impressive given its a rather hot day outside, and a few degrees hotter within the workshop. The stone is a very slow release stone, with little sign of slurry release. The top surface of the stone is what I classify as hard to very hard. As noted within my opening post, using the ANSI Standard, based it suggests the range of grit at 800 - 1000. I have some slight concerns with how the ANSI and JSI Standards vary greatly from that being stated by a lot of natural stone suppliers. Japanese nat stones being a relevant example. Based on what is being declared by these Japanese nat stone suppliers, I would rate this stone equivalent to 8000 grit. This is to large extent based on the level of sheen left on the steel after being worked by the stone. The finer the scratches, the higher the grit, the change in sheen to reflective shine. Some alloy steels such as A2 and PM may vary slightly from this principle. Moving on to the photo's, the 1st photo shows the secondary bevel after being worked by the stone. The 2nd photo shows both the primary and secondary bevels after a dozen strokes on the pure chromium oxide impregnated leather stropping block. The end result is a very sharp cutting edge.

Stewie;

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/new%20stropping%20block/natural%20honing%20stones%20purchased%20from%20the %20uk/_DSC0298_zpspzgr42jf.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/new%20stropping%20block/natural%20honing%20stones%20purchased%20from%20the %20uk/_DSC0298_zpspzgr42jf.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/new%20stropping%20block/natural%20honing%20stones%20purchased%20from%20the %20uk/_DSC0299_zpsytgq8s2j.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/new%20stropping%20block/natural%20honing%20stones%20purchased%20from%20the %20uk/_DSC0299_zpsytgq8s2j.jpg.html)

[Stewie Simpson]

Having had more opportunity to better understand the design of this sharpening box has lead to me to believe that a spacer block may not have been intended within this box design. Bearing in mind that the mortising out within the bottom half of this box is longer than the stone by 3/4s of an inch along its length. The stone itself can only be fitted, starting from 1 end of the mortise, regardless of how you try to orientate the stone. The side walls of the mortise have been cut to a tolerance to allow for the natural expansion of the wood allowing for seasonal movement. But as you get to the approach the last 1/2" of the mortise length, the side walls begin to taper slightly to a locked fit. In practice, you would install the stone from the non tapered end, then push the stone forward so that it locks in place with just under 1/4" of mortise remaining. To then release the stone, the stone is then pushed towards the non tapered end. If that was the intention of the maker, its a rather ingenious design.

Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

Of interest, if I were to reduce the total weight of this stone by 25g (4.8% of its current weight),
it would still be borderline high of a Washita's range of SG. (2.25 or under).

[Chuck Nickerson]

its a hard stone, slow slurry releasing
Stewie;

I'm completely unfamiliar with oil stones so I want to ask: is 'slow slurry releasing' in support of its being a hard stone, or is it somehow a separate characteristic?

[Warren Mickley]

I'm completely unfamiliar with oil stones so I want to ask: is 'slow slurry releasing' in support of its being a hard stone, or is it somehow a separate characteristic?

Oil stones are not constantly releasing grit. We use oil on them so that the steel particles can be suspended rather than clogging the stone. We do not need oil on the slurry stones because the stone is wearing away rather than clogging. My hard Arkansas stone is still 1.000 inches thick after 40 years.

[Stewie Simpson]

I'm completely unfamiliar with oil stones so I want to ask: is 'slow slurry releasing' in support of its being a hard stone, or is it somehow a separate characteristic?

Chuck; your on the right track. Slow release stones are in normally found within the harder range of natural stones, and are normally classified as slower cutting stones, due to there inability to quickly release fresh particles. Washita's, as an example, fall within the softer range of stones, but are in general considered a faster cutting stone, when compared to Arkansas, due to their ability to quickly release fresh particles. I am avoiding talking about synthetic or man made stones, as they can fall within a different ruling.

StewieS.