Looking for a Finishing Stone

[Philipp Jaindl]

Short Version: Looking for a slow wearing Stone to finish off after 3µm that can handle small narrow tools.

So yeah has probably been asked and answered often enough and if you ask 5 people how they sharpen you get 10 answers, i know been there done that. Most Info i could find was either somewhat old or not for the Grit range im after.

Now that we got that out of the way I'm looking for a Finishing/Honing Stone. I sharpen pretty much anything on Diamond plates, i got a full range from 150 up to 3µm,
some old Waterstones 120, 220, 400 and 1000 Grit FEPA, and a couple strops with different pastes to finish off.

I'm looking for a, slow wearing, Stone to finish off after the 3µm especially for things like small narrow tools or some carving knives since those tend to dig into softer stones and especially Strops. The grit number doesnt matter too much as long as i get a proper Edge right off the stone. Oh and it shouldnt break the bank im not gonna spend 200€ on one stone. Ceramic is probably the best bet right?

I have used a Belgischer Brocken/Belgian Chunk/Coticule at work before and really like it its a great stone however small tools can and do tend to "dig in" a little and the other problem with them is the good ones are ludicrously expensive for a proper sized benchstone. Theres also a German "Thüringer Wasserstein" i could get thats supposedly somewhere about 2500 FEPA i think thats about 10000 JIS grit, alot of people seem to really like that one for Razors but i have no clue if that one would work for what i need it .

So Spyderco ceramic, Shapton, Sigma? and in which Grit would you recommend.

[Jim Koepke]

if you ask 5 people how they sharpen you get 10 answers

That is likely because someone like me might have 3 or 4 answers. :D

So a stone that small carving tools will not dig in to the surface. You want a good edge right off the stone. Finally it shouldn't break the bank.

For my oilstone set up when a little more polish is wanted than a translucent Arkansas stone will provide there are a couple of jasper stones on my bench. This can often be found in a lapidary supply store. (gem and mineral supply)

A quick search on jasper stone hones found this:


WHAT GRIT DO JASPER NATURAL STONES HAVE?
Grit terminology is not applicable to natural sharpening stones, including Jasper. The behavior of a natural stone depends on its density and how good it was lapped. However, experts estimate Jasper as 8000 - 10000 JIS.

My two pieces about 2"X5" were less than $20. The ones processed specifically for sharpening will be a bit more. One of the interesting aspects of having a wife who is into gems and minerals is often finding some exotic stones useful for sharpening at found at a yard sale prices.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

So Spyderco ceramic, Shapton, Sigma? and in which Grit would you recommend.

Given your stated preferences I'd lean towards the Spyderco.

Waterstone finishers tend to be soft, with the Sigmas being softer than the Shaptons in the very high grits. If you find that you have trouble with tools "digging into" a Coticule then any waterstone finisher will probably require an adjustment to your technique. The Spyderco is rock-hard by comparison, and the UF will cut more finely than 3 um diamond.

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

I have a Spyderco ceramic that I've come around to like quite a bit. At first I was a bit annoyed by how slowly it cut. I had been using it dry as per the instructions but a little birdie told me to try using it with water or soap and water. That helped a decent amount. I had also been jumping from a 9 micron diamond stone straight to the 1 micron ceramic stone which is quite a jump. After adding a 4 micron diamond paste to the routine I found that the Spyderco stone leaves a fantastic polish.

[brian zawatsky]

I have Shapton pro stones, and I do not like the 12000 grit stone. I usually go 1k, 5k, 8k. I can get a mirror polish off of the 8k and an edge where the hairs literally jump off my forearm. So anyway, if you go Shapton, I’d go with an 8k. It’s possible I’m just missing something on the 12k, but so far I find it pretty unnecessary.

[Warren West]

Given your requirements. Forget water stones.

Having been there and done that. Here is what I suggest.

In order of speed slowest to fastest
1. Translucent Arkansas
2. Spyderco Ultra Fine
3. Degussit Ruby Stone

In order of cost (cheapest first)
1 Spyderco Ultra Fine
2. Translucent Arkansas
3. Degussit Ruby Stone

The Degussit is the fastest, the finest and cleans easier than the Spyderco. Its 100% sinterered ruby. Many will pooh pooh it due to cost, but honestly if you start talking about 15k or 30k water stones which are in the consumables category vs a ruby stone which you will never wear out. You will wear a groove in the Spyderco if you can imagine that long before you will the Ruby stone. In normal use you won't even wear a groove in the Spyderco.

[Patrick Chase]

The Degussit is the fastest, the finest and cleans easier than the Spyderco. Its 100% sinterered ruby. Many will pooh pooh it due to cost, but honestly if you start talking about 15k or 30k water stones which are in the consumables category vs a ruby stone which you will never wear out. You will wear a groove in the Spyderco if you can imagine that long before you will the Ruby stone. In normal use you won't even wear a groove in the Spyderco.

Ruby is simply alumina with an impurity (Chromium) that make it red. Unfortunately for Degussit, that impurity does absolutely nothing for its hardness or abrasive properties. It's Mohs 9, just like bulk Alumina. In other words, it's the same abrasive as in the Spydercos and in most synthetic oil- and waterstones.

IMO the Degussit is mostly unique in terms of marketing and appearance. The notion that any Alumina stone could be used to sharpen carbide as they claim is risible, when you consider that commonly used carbides are quite a bit harder than Alumina (including Ruby).

It sure is pretty, though not several hundred dollars' worth of pretty IMO.

Of the stones you listed the "odd one out" is the Ark. That one is comprised of silicate, which is quite a bit softer, slower, and more limited in the steels that it can handle than either of the Alumina options.

[Stanley Covington]

Ruby is simply alumina with an impurity (Chromium) that make it red. Unfortunately for Degussit, that impurity does absolutely nothing for its hardness or abrasive properties. It's Mohs 9, just like bulk Alumina. In other words, it's the same abrasive as in the Spydercos and in most synthetic oil- and waterstones.

IMO the Degussit is mostly unique in terms of marketing and appearance. The notion that any Alumina stone could be used to sharpen carbide as they claim is risible, when you consider that commonly used carbides are quite a bit harder than Alumina (including Ruby).

It sure is pretty, though not several hundred dollars' worth of pretty IMO.

Of the stones you listed the "odd one out" is the Ark. That one is comprised of silicate, which is quite a bit softer, slower, and more limited in the steels that it can handle than either of the Alumina options.

Thanks for the insight, Patrick. Very enlightening.

Stan

[Warren Mickley]

I have used Arkansas stones for sharpening carving gouges for 40 years. It takes about 25 seconds to hone and strop a gouge. All of the other professional carvers I know use Arkansas stones also. We never grind a carving gouge.

[Philipp Jaindl]

For my oilstone set up when a little more polish is wanted than a translucent Arkansas stone will provide there are a couple of jasper stones on my bench. This can often be found in a lapidary supply store. (gem and mineral supply)

A quick search on jasper stone hones found this:



My two pieces about 2"X5" were less than $20. The ones processed specifically for sharpening will be a bit more. One of the interesting aspects of having a wife who is into gems and minerals is often finding some exotic stones useful for sharpening at found at a yard sale prices.

jtk

hm Jasper does sound interessting, even if its maybe a bit more unorthodox but i dont care as long as it works. Sometimes good tools dont have to be expensive after all.


Ruby is simply alumina with an impurity (Chromium) that make it red. Unfortunately for Degussit, that impurity does absolutely nothing for its hardness or abrasive properties. It's Mohs 9, just like bulk Alumina. In other words, it's the same abrasive as in the Spydercos and in most synthetic oil- and waterstones.

IMO the Degussit is mostly unique in terms of marketing and appearance. The notion that any Alumina stone could be used to sharpen carbide as they claim is risible, when you consider that commonly used carbides are quite a bit harder than Alumina (including Ruby).

It sure is pretty, though not several hundred dollars' worth of pretty IMO.

Of the stones you listed the "odd one out" is the Ark. That one is comprised of silicate, which is quite a bit softer, slower, and more limited in the steels that it can handle than either of the Alumina options.

So i suppose the Spyderco is in the lead for now, just gonna wait a bit longer maybe someone else has some suggestions.

[Patrick Chase]

I have used Arkansas stones for sharpening carving gouges for 40 years. It takes about 25 seconds to hone and strop a gouge. All of the other professional carvers I know use Arkansas stones also. We never grind a carving gouge.

Same here. All of my carving tools are Pfeil, and sharpen very nicely on Arks.

[Pat Barry]

Ruby is simply alumina with an impurity (Chromium) that make it red. Unfortunately for Degussit, that impurity does absolutely nothing for its hardness or abrasive properties. It's Mohs 9, just like bulk Alumina. In other words, it's the same abrasive as in the Spydercos and in most synthetic oil- and waterstones.

IMO the Degussit is mostly unique in terms of marketing and appearance. The notion that any Alumina stone could be used to sharpen carbide as they claim is risible, when you consider that commonly used carbides are quite a bit harder than Alumina (including Ruby).

It sure is pretty, though not several hundred dollars' worth of pretty IMO.

Of the stones you listed the "odd one out" is the Ark. That one is comprised of silicate, which is quite a bit softer, slower, and more limited in the steels that it can handle than either of the Alumina options.
As I recall there are lots of grades of Alumina (ie: 85% pure to 99.8% pure) and correspondingly there are lots of variation in hardness. Commercially available sapphire / ruby are specific grades containing alumina that might be on the higher end of the hardness scale. You'd have to know the sources for both to know for sure what grades they use. I don't know what grades are being used with the Spyderco versus the Degussit examples mentioned but if the Spyderco used 85% pure alumina for example, and the degussit used 99.5% pure alumina there will be a huge difference in hardness.

[Patrick Chase]

As I recall there are lots of grades of Alumina (ie: 85% pure to 99.8% pure) and correspondingly there are lots of variation in hardness. Commercially available sapphire / ruby are specific grades containing alumina that might be on the higher end of the hardness scale. You'd have to know the sources for both to know for sure what grades they use. I don't know what grades are being used with the Spyderco versus the Degussit examples mentioned but if the Spyderco used 85% pure alumina for example, and the degussit used 99.5% pure alumina there will be a huge difference in hardness.

It's easy to tell that isn't the case by color alone. Impurities change the color of Alumina, with Degussit's stones being "exhibit A". They're red because they're doped with Chromium, which does nothing for the material properties.

Spyderco's fine stones are (very obviously) made of white Alumina, which is the highest purity grade used in abrasives (>99%). Ditto for most of the better waterstone makers like Naniwa, Shapton, Imanishi, and Sigma.

[Pat Barry]

It's easy to tell that isn't the case by color alone. Impurities change the color of Alumina, with Degussit's stones being "exhibit A". They're red because they're doped with Chromium, which does nothing for the material properties.

Spyderco's fine stones are (very obviously) made of white Alumina, which is the highest purity grade used in abrasives (>99%). Ditto for most of the better waterstone makers like Naniwa, Shapton, Imanishi, and Sigma.
Sure

How do you KNOW what actual grades of alumina are being used? You can't tell just by color for example because there are lots of grades of whiteness in the alumina if you didn't have some known material to compare to.

[Patrick Chase]

Sure

How do you KNOW what actual grades of alumina are being used? You can't tell just by color for example because there are lots of grades of whiteness in the alumina if you didn't have some known material to compare to.

Yes, but at some point it doesn't matter for a simple abrasive like this. AFAIK all white alumina are >99% purity, and the hardness/toughness differences become very small as you go beyond that IIRC. You're right that we don't know if Spyderco's WA is 99.8% pure or 99.5% pure, though it's likely of higher purity than the Degussit stone :-).

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Shapton Pro 8000 or higher is what first comes to mind. Naniwa Professional 5000 is a very nice stone, and fairly hard for a water stone. The 10k is very soft, so is not what you are looking for. The Naniwa Lilly White 8k is a great finisher. Also as many have said, the Spyderco ceramics are about as hard as you will find.

I try to base my reply on my experience, and this is what I have experience with. I always say, “If it gets your tools sharp enough it was the right stone for you.”

[Patrick Chase]

Shapton Pro 8000 or higher is what first comes to mind. Naniwa Professional 5000 is a very nice stone, and fairly hard for a water stone. The 10k is very soft, so is not what you are looking for. The Naniwa Lilly White 8k is a great finisher. Also as many have said, the Spyderco ceramics are about as hard as you will find.

I try to base my reply on my experience, and this is what I have experience with. I always say, “If it gets your tools sharp enough it was the right stone for you.”

Naniwa Snow White is a very nice, hard stone. It isn't as hard as the Spyderco and therefore requires periodic flattening, but it leaves a better edge and feels nicer in use (both IMO).

The Chosera/Professional 10K is right up there with the Degussit in terms of cost per unit mass of Alumina.

[Warren West]

Ruby is simply alumina with an impurity (Chromium) that make it red. Unfortunately for Degussit, that impurity does absolutely nothing for its hardness or abrasive properties. It's Mohs 9, just like bulk Alumina. In other words, it's the same abrasive as in the Spydercos and in most synthetic oil- and waterstones.

IMO the Degussit is mostly unique in terms of marketing and appearance. The notion that any Alumina stone could be used to sharpen carbide as they claim is risible, when you consider that commonly used carbides are quite a bit harder than Alumina (including Ruby).

It sure is pretty, though not several hundred dollars' worth of pretty IMO.

Of the stones you listed the "odd one out" is the Ark. That one is comprised of silicate, which is quite a bit softer, slower, and more limited in the steels that it can handle than either of the Alumina options.

True about the Arkansas stone, but it's going to be dish resistant compared to any waterstone. In use the ruby is nicer than the spyderco. Worth it or not is in the eye of the beholder. While it may be the same abrasive as the Spyderco, it's not the same finished product. Everything I've ran across in industrial use indicates it has superior wear resistance. Irregardless probably no one here will buy one, they'd rather own a $400 diamond lapping plate for their dish prone water stones.

[Patrick Chase]

True about the Arkansas stone, but it's going to be dish resistant compared to any waterstone. In use the ruby is nicer than the spyderco. Worth it or not is in the eye of the beholder. While it may be the same abrasive as the Spyderco, it's not the same finished product. Everything I've ran across in industrial use indicates it has superior wear resistance. Irregardless probably no one here will buy one, they'd rather own a $400 diamond lapping plate for their dish prone water stones.

A $50 DMT DiaSharp or $75 Atoma plate does nicely for flattening. Spending $400 on a flattening plate is about as sane as spending hundreds on a certain 10000# Alumina waterstone or a "ruby" bench stone. Also, the current Shapton "diamond flattening plate" is more like $700.

w.r.t. hardness and dish resistance, there's a 3-way tradeoff between that, sharpening feel and speed. Alumina dulls with use, and exposing fresh points is advantageous if you're sharpening hard, abrasion-resistant steels.

Don't get me wrong: I think that basic concept behind the Degussit of a hard, low-maintenance Alumina-ceramic stone is entirely reasonable. That's why I recommended the Spyderco to the OP :-).

[John C Cox]

Even then - they still benefit considerably from an occasional refresh/flatten...

I have a Case Moonstone - one of the earlier ceramics that came out when nobody I knew used anything but Arkansas stones.. And when new - it was fantastic... Magically fast cutting and yet quite fine.. It would put an amazingly fine and keen edge on a knife in a jiffy....

But it is a harder ceramic... Over time - it's performance declined till I did not enjoy using it and it was relegated to the Sharpening Box 'O Shame... Then - I read about flattening stones with diamond plates.. Gave it a go and it was rejuvenated back to it's original glory... And all is right in the world...

[steven c newman]

"Finishing Stone" ? back in the day...I would have used either Pumice or Rottenstone. to rub out a finish......

[Philipp Jaindl]

Over time Diamond plates also get less aggressive, speaking of it i do need a new coarse one my old ones are pretty worn down. Well then i suppose im gonna get the finest Spyderco + Atoma 400 or the DMT equivalent and pick up an Arkansas or some others down the road to experiment with.

Didnt think there would be that much of a discussion about Aluminium Oxide but it is very interessting to read.

[John C Cox]

Phillipp - absolutely diamond plates do get less aggressive over time.... They are not magic.... And I can personally attest that using diamond plates to flatten other sharpening stones does make them considerably less aggressive. Probably why traditionally - there was a separate dedicated flattening stone/lap... Using them to do significant work to High Speed Steel also knocks the aggressiveness out of them..

For me - it seems like the best compromise is to use PSA backed sandpaper and a surface plate for the heavy grinding, flattening, prep, and chip removal work, and then switch to your favorite stones for ongoing maintenance...

[Stewie Simpson]

Phillipp - absolutely diamond plates do get less aggressive over time.... They are not magic.... And I can personally attest that using diamond plates to flatten other sharpening stones does make them considerably less aggressive. Probably why traditionally - there was a separate dedicated flattening stone/lap... Using them to do significant work to High Speed Steel also knocks the aggressiveness out of them..

For me - it seems like the best compromise is to use PSA backed sandpaper and a surface plate for the heavy grinding, flattening, prep, and chip removal work, and then switch to your favorite stones for ongoing maintenance...

John; to be honest I have some major doubts that earlier western craftsmen bothered with flattening their sharpening stones. The vast majority of natural sharpening stones that I have received 2nd hand from the U.K all showed signs of longitudinal dishing (hollowing) on at least 1 primary face. Contentious at it may sound, those wear patterns do in part validate Paul Sellers claim that convex bevels on both chisels and plane irons were historic practice. https://paulsellers.com/2011/12/going-against-the-gods-myth-busting/

[Jason Lester]

The book, "The Joiner and Cabinet Maker", first published in 1839 (I think) mentions flattening the stones after sharpening using a rough sandstone piece. I think they called it a "rub stone" and would also use it instead of a grinder sometimes (when an apprentice wasn't available to turn it.) One of the no-nos it discusses was to sharpen your tools and leave the stones without flattening for the next person. This was mostly prior to Arkansas-style stones though.

[Stew Hagerty]

Black Arkansas. It'll take multiple generations to wear out. Super hard, super fine, easy care.

And you can't beat Dan's: https://www.danswhetstone.com/product/bench-stones/

[Warren Mickley]

The book, "The Joiner and Cabinet Maker", first published in 1839 (I think) mentions flattening the stones after sharpening using a rough sandstone piece. I think they called it a "rub stone" and would also use it instead of a grinder sometimes (when an apprentice wasn't available to turn it.) One of the no-nos it discusses was to sharpen your tools and leave the stones without flattening for the next person. This was mostly prior to Arkansas-style stones though.

We have used oil stones similar to Arkansas stones for millennia. They are used for polishing. Rub stones are coarse flat water stones like sandstone.

There is no 18th century evidence that craftsmen used sloppy stones. The historical texts and the quality of their work suggests otherwise. The chisels in the Seaton chest have flat bevels.

380792

[Patrick Chase]

Over time Diamond plates also get less aggressive, speaking of it i do need a new coarse one my old ones are pretty worn down. Well then i suppose im gonna get the finest Spyderco + Atoma 400 or the DMT equivalent and pick up an Arkansas or some others down the road to experiment with.

Didnt think there would be that much of a discussion about Aluminium Oxide but it is very interessting to read.

Aluminum Oxide is cheap, hard enough for the vast majority of steels that we actually use, and reasonably fast-cutting. I do almost all of my "in-shop" honing on AlOx stones for those reasons (though I use CBN wheels for grinding).

[Patrick Chase]

Phillipp - absolutely diamond plates do get less aggressive over time.... They are not magic.... And I can personally attest that using diamond plates to flatten other sharpening stones does make them considerably less aggressive. Probably why traditionally - there was a separate dedicated flattening stone/lap... Using them to do significant work to High Speed Steel also knocks the aggressiveness out of them..

You should try diamond lapping films and compounds. The reason plates slow down is because they have a single set of exposed points, that inevitably dull. Also, plates that rely on electroplated nickel binder tend to start out with prominent "rogue particles" (DMTs are notorious for this), and the plate slows down noticeably as those become dislodged.

For the cost of a single lapping plate you can get about 10x the area (10 times as many fresh points) of lapping films, and much more area coverage still with compounds. As an added bonus neither the films nor the compounds have "rogue particle" problems to the same degree as the plates, and they cut more uniformly as a consequence.

[Philipp Jaindl]

Alright i did some read up on the Spydercos, seems that the Fine and UF are the same just different surface grind and the UF seems to be only 3µm so basically the same Grit size as the 2 stones i already have. Also read quite a few times that they didnt come flat and if you do have to flatten them then buying the UF is kinda pointless.

Those of you that have or have used both how does the Spyderco UF stack up against the Arkansas, Naniwas, Shaptons etc. in terms of the finished Edge they produce? They are all about the same price (~80 to 100 €) and I was expecting having to flatten them periodically anyways so as long as they can handle narrow tools without gouging or wearing too easily i can make do

I just want the best edge i can get since im not gonna be stropping afterwards, so which of the Stones in which Grit should i look at ?

[Patrick Chase]

We have used oil stones similar to Arkansas stones for millennia. They are used for polishing. Rub stones are coarse flat water stones like sandstone.

There is no 18th century evidence that craftsmen used sloppy stones. The historical texts and the quality of their work suggests otherwise. The chisels in the Seaton chest have flat bevels.


I think that the operative word is "craftsmen". There are certainly a lot of old oilstones floating about with grotesque concavities, but what is lacking is any evidence that those stones were actually owned by skilled woodworkers.

Bear in mind that bench stones had/have an extremely broad range of uses beyond fine woodworking, so the likelihood that any given used stone was actually used for such is probably much lower than most people think.

[Patrick Chase]

Alright i did some read up on the Spydercos, seems that the Fine and UF are the same just different surface grind and the UF seems to be only 3µm so basically the same Grit size as the 2 stones i already have. Also read quite a few times that they didnt come flat and if you do have to flatten them then buying the UF is kinda pointless.

Where did you get that information? Also what sort of stone is your current "3 um"? If it's a diamond stone (which what I thought I read earlier in the thread) then be aware that that is going to cut a LOT more aggressively/roughly than a 3 um Alumina-ceramic stone like the Spyderco.

More broadly, abrasive particle size is useful for roughly estimating "fineness" but isn't the only consideration. Both the nature of the abrasive and of the binder come into play. 3 um diamond isn't the same as 3 um alumina, and a rigid nickel-electroplated binder isn't the same as a friable stone. For example, the Norton "8000#" waterstone uses 3 um abrasive particles, and while it's rough-cutting relative to some other 8000# stones it isn't nearly as bad as the particle geometry would suggest (and much smoother than the "3 um" DMT XXF plate). The same goes for the Naniwa Chosera stones.

For a very hard binder as in the Spyderco the surface grind matters a lot BTW, because it determines how "prominent" individual abrasive particles will be. The same goes for Arks, for the same reason.

IMO the Spyderco UF leaves a similar finish to a JIS-compliant 6000# waterstone, i.e. in the same ballpark as a very well-lapped Ark.

[Philipp Jaindl]

Where did you get that information? Also what sort of stone is your current "3 um"? If it's a diamond stone (which what I thought I read earlier in the thread) then be aware that that is going to cut a LOT more aggressively/roughly than a 3 um Alumina-ceramic stone like the Spyderco.

More broadly, abrasive particle size is useful for roughly estimating "fineness" but isn't the only consideration. Both the nature of the abrasive and of the binder come into play. 3 um diamond isn't the same as 3 um alumina, and a rigid nickel-electroplated binder isn't the same as a friable stone. For example, the Norton "8000#" waterstone uses 3 um abrasive particles, and while it's rough-cutting relative to some other 8000# stones it isn't nearly as bad as the particle geometry would suggest (and much smoother than the "3 um" DMT XXF plate). The same goes for the Naniwa Chosera stones.

For a very hard binder as in the Spyderco the surface grind matters a lot BTW, because it determines how "prominent" individual abrasive particles will be. The same goes for Arks, for the same reason.

IMO the Spyderco UF leaves a similar finish to a JIS-compliant 6000# waterstone, i.e. in the same ballpark as a very well-lapped Ark.

I do have both a 3micron DMT aswell as an old 3 micron alumina Waterstone, the latter does leave a finer edge but still not as sharp as i want it. I know that particle size (Microns) isnt everything but the Grit sizes seem to be even less reliable from manufacturer to manufacturer.

Around 6000 JIS does sound reasonalbe since 3 microns seems to be about 3000 Grit in JIS. So now to wait if any others have more input.

Almost forgot i have used 1 micron lapping film before and thats the kinda edge id like.

[Pat Barry]

It is interesting that it seems many remark that all the vintage sharpening stones they come across are dished to some degree and yet others note that those stones must not have been used by craftsmen or serious woodworkers. It would appear that stones that are significantly dished must have been used quite a lot, and I'd speculate that hobbyists and non-craftsmen probably never sharpened enough to dish those same stones out, so it leads to the conclusion that at least some craftsmen in the past did not regularly flatten their sharpening stones. Maybe at least, not to the standards we seem to apply on a daily basis in these threads.

[John C Cox]

I do have both a 3micron DMT aswell as an old 3 micron alumina Waterstone, the latter does leave a finer edge but still not as sharp as i want it. I know that particle size (Microns) isnt everything but the Grit sizes seem to be even less reliable from manufacturer to manufacturer.

Around 6000 JIS does sound reasonalbe since 3 microns seems to be about 3000 Grit in JIS. So now to wait if any others have more input.

Almost forgot i have used 1 micron lapping film before and thats the kinda edge id like.

This is going to sound like a dumb question and all....

If you really like the edge you get on 1 micron lapping film.. Why not just use that....

[Philipp Jaindl]

This is going to sound like a dumb question and all....

If you really like the edge you get on 1 micron lapping film.. Why not just use that....

Not a dumb question, well i prefer the "handling" of a Stone and the lapping film isnt that cheap either so long term i think a stone would probably be cheaper.

Oh and in regards to the Spyderco UF being a surface ground Fine there were some mentions of that on the Spyderco Forums.

[Patrick Chase]

Around 6000 JIS does sound reasonalbe since 3 microns seems to be about 3000 Grit in JIS. So now to wait if any others have more input.

Almost forgot i have used 1 micron lapping film before and thats the kinda edge id like.

6000 in the current (1998) JIS standard is about 1.5-2 um, but now we're getting way off track.

If you like the results from 1 um lapping film then you're going to have to sacrifice some convenience IMO. I don't know of any options in that range that aren't maintenance-intensive in one way or another (flattening, film/paste replacement, etc).

The Sigma 13k waterstone is a good inexpensive choice, and has ~0.75 um average particle size. The Kitayama/Imanishi 8000# stone (1.2 um) is another, as is the Imanishi 10000# (1 um). The Shaptons and Choseras aren't as competitive in terms of nominal particle size (their 10Ks are both up above 1.5 um) but the Choseras in particular "punch below their size", probably due to binder interactions.

[Patrick Chase]

It is interesting that it seems many remark that all the vintage sharpening stones they come across are dished to some degree and yet others note that those stones must not have been used by craftsmen or serious woodworkers. It would appear that stones that are significantly dished must have been used quite a lot, and I'd speculate that hobbyists and non-craftsmen probably never sharpened enough to dish those same stones out, so it leads to the conclusion that at least some craftsmen in the past did not regularly flatten their sharpening stones. Maybe at least, not to the standards we seem to apply on a daily basis in these threads.

You know that people used to hand-sharpen things like their own lawnmower blades etc, right?

The notion that heavy-duty bench stone use is the exclusive province of serious woodworkers and the like is a very modern "innovation". I can still remember people doing fairly serious handiwork and putting mileage on their tools and stones when I was growing up in Indiana in the 70s. One would imagine that they did much more still back in the pre-WWII era. before widespread availability of bench grinders and carbide tools.

[Brian Holcombe]

It is interesting that it seems many remark that all the vintage sharpening stones they come across are dished to some degree and yet others note that those stones must not have been used by craftsmen or serious woodworkers. It would appear that stones that are significantly dished must have been used quite a lot, and I'd speculate that hobbyists and non-craftsmen probably never sharpened enough to dish those same stones out, so it leads to the conclusion that at least some craftsmen in the past did not regularly flatten their sharpening stones. Maybe at least, not to the standards we seem to apply on a daily basis in these threads.

Pat, I also insist that the stones found in vintage shops and flea markets are not an indicator of how they were used. Even if they have been in use since the 18th century it's highly unlikely that they left the craftsman's bench and went untouched for 200 years. Your better indicator is to peer into the workshop of a craftsman, such as Warren and see what he is doing and we're lucky as Warren is willing to comment on his practice and his research into historical practice which is quite detailed.

I don't feel it is a huge leap to assume that the stones were used by someone after they left the craftsman's bench at some point in their travels. Without knowing the provenance, which practically impossible, one can gain no real insight into historical practice by looking at stones.

[Philipp Jaindl]

You know that people used to hand-sharpen things like their own lawnmower blades etc, right?

Used to? I'm still Hand sharpening the Mower blades though i just use a coarse and fine File instead of stones


6000 in the current (1998) JIS standard is about 1.5-2 um, but now we're getting way off track.

If you like the results from 1 um lapping film then you're going to have to sacrifice some convenience IMO. I don't know of any options in that range that aren't maintenance-intensive in one way or another (flattening, film/paste replacement, etc).

The Sigma 13k waterstone is a good inexpensive choice, and has ~0.75 um average particle size. The Kitayama/Imanishi 8000# stone (1.2 um) is another, as is the Imanishi 10000# (1 um). The Shaptons and Choseras aren't as competitive in terms of nominal particle size (their 10Ks are both up above 1.5 um) but the Choseras in particular "punch below their size", probably due to binder interactions.

Fair enough since i do own Diamondplates anyways i can make do with flattening. The Sigma Select II 13k is about 100€ the Imanshi are 70€ for the 8000 and 90€ for the 10000. A Naniwa 10000 and the Shapton Pro 10000 are around the 85 to 90€ mark while the Naniwa Pro is just way overblown at 230€. All of them being so close in price makes it kinda difficult to decide.


Pat, I also insist that the stones found in vintage shops and flea markets are not an indicator of how they were used. Even if they have been in use since the 18th century it's highly unlikely that they left the craftsman's bench and went untouched for 200 years. Your better indicator is to peer into the workshop of a craftsman, such as Warren and see what he is doing and we're lucky as Warren is willing to comment on his practice and his research into historical practice which is quite detailed.

I don't feel it is a huge leap to assume that the stones were used by someone after they left the craftsman's bench at some point in their travels. Without knowing the provenance, which practically impossible, one can gain no real insight into historical practice by looking at stones.

Agreed Old tools arent necessarily in the shape their last "proper" owner left them.

[Patrick Chase]

Fair enough since i do own Diamondplates anyways i can make do with flattening. The Sigma Select II 13k is about 100€ the Imanshi are 70€ for the 8000 and 90€ for the 10000. A Naniwa 10000 and the Shapton Pro 10000 are around the 85 to 90€ mark while the Naniwa Pro is just way overblown at 230€. All of them being so close in price makes it kinda difficult to decide.

At that pricing I'd just get the Imanishi 8K. It's a really solid all-around polishing stone, with ~1.2 um abrasive particles. It's also sold as the "Kitayama 8K" and if you search on that you'll find a lot of positive reviews. The Imanishi was the first serious polisher I ever bought, and I still have and use one (the second one is branded "Kitayama", but it's the same stone).

The only catch for you will be that like most waterstone polishers it's fairly soft, so based on some comments you made earlier you may need to adjust your technique a little to avoid digging in. Also, it's a magnesia stone so don't soak it (you don't need to do that with polishers anyway).

Another option that both Malcolm and I already mentioned is the Naniwa Snow White. It's a magnesia stone like the Imanishi 8K/10K but it's a fair bit harder than either. Carvers and other people with curved-edged tools have been known to like it. It isn't the finest-cutting "8K" stone in existence (particle size is somewhere around 1.8 um IIRC, but the hard binder makes it cut a little more finely than that would suggest) but it might be a good match for your specific preferences. Unfortunately Dieter Schmid doesn't seem to carry it, and you seem to be quoting their prices here :-).

I've been tempted for a while to buy a second Snow White and hack it up into slips...

[Philipp Jaindl]

At that pricing I'd just get the Imanishi 8K. It's a really solid all-around polishing stone, with ~1.2 um abrasive particles. It's also sold as the "Kitayama 8K" and if you search on that you'll find a lot of positive reviews. The Imanishi was the first serious polisher I ever bought, and I still have and use one (the second one is branded "Kitayama", but it's the same stone).

The only catch for you will be that like most waterstone polishers it's fairly soft, so based on some comments you made earlier you may need to adjust your technique a little to avoid digging in. Also, it's a magnesia stone so don't soak it (you don't need to do that with polishers anyway).

Another option that both Malcolm and I already mentioned is the Naniwa Snow White. It's a magnesia stone like the Imanishi 8K/10K but it's a fair bit harder than either. Carvers and other people with curved-edged tools have been known to like it. It isn't the finest-cutting "8K" stone in existence (particle size is somewhere around 1.8 um IIRC, but the hard binder makes it cut a little more finely than that would suggest) but it might be a good match for your specific preferences. Unfortunately Dieter Schmid doesn't seem to carry it, and you seem to be quoting their prices here :-).

I've been tempted for a while to buy a second Snow White and hack it up into slips...

Yeah the Snow White does look good indeed, problem is i cant find a good source in Europe for one thats reasonably priced, if you know one that ships to Europe let me know. Other then that the Imanishi/Kitayama does look nice indeed seems to be a bit more stone for the money then others. Though i wonder how big the difference between the 8 and 10k Imanishi is cant find any info on that. Oh well im gonna think on this some more and try to find a source for a Snow White.

[John C Cox]

Will you be satisfied with yet another soft(ish) stone?

Perhaps spend some time figuring out technique on your existing soft stones to get a fine edge - which will pay even greater dividends on whatever new stone you pick..

[Patrick Chase]

Yeah the Snow White does look good indeed, problem is i cant find a good source in Europe for one thats reasonably priced, if you know one that ships to Europe let me know. Other then that the Imanishi/Kitayama does look nice indeed seems to be a bit more stone for the money then others. Though i wonder how big the difference between the 8 and 10k Imanishi is cant find any info on that. Oh well im gonna think on this some more and try to find a source for a Snow White.

I will now sheepishly confess to having owned all of the stones you're considering at one point or another (Shapton Pro 8K as there is no 10K, Imanishi 8K, Imanishi 10K, Snow White 8K, Sigma 13K).

I don't think that the difference between the two Imanishis is all that large, and I think that the Imanishi 8K is already solidly into diminishing returns for woodworking. The 10K has a "creamier" feel but is also a touch softer.

[Stewie Simpson]

We have used oil stones similar to Arkansas stones for millennia. They are used for polishing. Rub stones are coarse flat water stones like sandstone.

There is no 18th century evidence that craftsmen used sloppy stones. The historical texts and the quality of their work suggests otherwise. The chisels in the Seaton chest have flat bevels.

380792


Warren; you chose to ignore the obvious fact that most of the tools found within the Seaton Chest were in a unused condition.

[Warren Mickley]

I have talked to Jane Rees, who edited the Seaton Chest book, and also with Jay Gaynor and Peter Ross who both spent a month making drawings of the tools at Williamsburg. Around 1991 a group of researchers were given permission to examine the tools. They had one day to take the two hundred some tools out of the chest, catalog and photograph them, and put them all back. The quarters were cramped and the light was poor.

Later the chest was loaned to Williamsburg where they had much more time and much better facilities (lighting, magnification etc.) for examining the tools. It is my understanding that some were unused and some were used.

Of course when one is actually using tools everyday for work, he can get a feel for just how flat the stones need to be for fine work and also how to use the stones to avoid dishing them in the first place. You want to manage the wear on the stone. If you are arguing that a stone need not be flattened for every sharpening or even for every 100th sharpening, I am with you. If you argue that it did not matter what the condition of the stone was, I disagree.

[Warren West]

You know that people used to hand-sharpen things like their own lawnmower blades etc, right?
.

That brings back fond memories of grandfather kneeling on the floor with his mower blade. Back and forth over the stone in the Shapton pond filled with water imported from a spring in Japan. He'd work for hours going through each grit progression. The process culminating with him mowing. The blade was so sharp there was no smell of freshly cut grass. It was as if a surgeo had cut the lawn with a harmonic scalpel

[Patrick Chase]

You want to manage the wear on the stone. If you are arguing that a stone need not be flattened for every sharpening or even for every 100th sharpening, I am with you. If you argue that it did not matter what the condition of the stone was, I disagree.

I don't think that that sort of nuance is allowed in an SMC sharpening thread. You must either flatten your stones continuously with a $700 Shapton flattening plate (and you really shouldn't use them to sharpen anything as that might cause them to go out of flat), or you must believe that flatness doesn't matter. No other opinions are possible.

Seriously, like everything in life it's a balance.

[Philipp Jaindl]

Will you be satisfied with yet another soft(ish) stone?

Perhaps spend some time figuring out technique on your existing soft stones to get a fine edge - which will pay even greater dividends on whatever new stone you pick..

The reason i startet this Thread in the firstplace was that i'm looking for a Hard stone(~ 1micron) however it appears that there arent any at my pricepoint. So i dont really have many options open, seems i just have to make do with softer stones at those Grit ratings.

[Jason Lester]

That brings back fond memories of grandfather kneeling on the floor with his mower blade. Back and forth over the stone in the Shapton pond filled with water imported from a spring in Japan. He'd work for hours going through each grit progression. The process culminating with him mowing. The blade was so sharp there was no smell of freshly cut grass. It was as if a surgeo had cut the lawn with a harmonic scalpel

That's awesome!

I grew up on a dairy and tobacco farm. We were not quite that careful sharpening things like blades, knifes, etc. They were lucky to get hit with a bench grinder or file once a year or so. Our corn chopper that had a huge roller with several knives (think a very larger jointer or planer), had a built-in stone for sharpening. You set it to running at the lowest tractor RPM and then 2 people used a rope to pull the stone back and forth over the running knives. It was not for the faint of heart!

[Philipp Jaindl]

So i just went ahead and ordered the Kitayama/Imanishi 8000 alongside an Atoma 400 since my old coarse Diamondplate is pretty worn out. I'll let you know how that works out for me, thanks for all the input at any rate, even though alot of answers got a bit offtopic its nice to read along.

[Patrick Chase]

I grew up on a dairy and tobacco farm. We were not quite that careful sharpening things like blades, knifes, etc. They were lucky to get hit with a bench grinder or file once a year or so. Our corn chopper that had a huge roller with several knives (think a very larger jointer or planer), had a built-in stone for sharpening. You set it to running at the lowest tractor RPM and then 2 people used a rope to pull the stone back and forth over the running knives. It was not for the faint of heart!

Errm, I think that Warren was being sarcastic.

[Bill White]

I finish with a Spyderco "very fine".
Bil

[Chet R Parks]

Bill, I agree, a Spyderco vary fine/super fine is hard to beat for a finish. No mess, no fuss I just keep it on the bench all the time for a quick touch up.

[Jason Lester]

Errm, I think that Warren was being sarcastic.

I know, still great though. I guess he had to start over if he hit a rock.