What is the finest Arkansas Stone? Disagreement from the suppliers

[Andrew Pitonyak]

In this post, I list suppliers opinions from Best, Dan's, and Preyda

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?276528 and here is the list:



Brand
Type
Density
Grit
Grit
Comment


Preyda
soft
Medium
400
600



Preyda
hard
Fine
600
800



Preyda
hard black
Extra Fine
2000
3000



Preyda
translucent
Ultra Fine
4000
6000



Preyda
surgical black
Extra Ultra Fine
8000
1000



Dan’s
soft
Medium
400
600



Dan’s
hard
Fine
600
800



Dan’s
true hard
Extra Fine
1200
+
Same as Translucent


Dan’s
translucent
Extra Fine
1200
+
Same as true hard


Dan’s
black
Ultra Fine
1200
+



Best
soft

1200

12 micron


Best
hard

1500

10 – 11 micron


Best
Black Surgical

2300
2500
7 – 7.5 micron


Best
translucent

3500
4000
5.5-6 micron


When Dan's says "Black", that seems to correspond to "Surgical" from Best and Preyda. In some of their literature, Best simply uses the term Black.

It gets worse, Dan's and Preyda list 5 stone grades. Best lists 4.

Dan's and Preyda indicate that translucent is before "Surgical".

Best, however, has a different take (opinion).

https://www.danswhetstone.com/information/stone-grades-101/

https://www.bestsharpeningstones.com/articles/arkansas-sharpening-stone-grits

As a reminder, they grade Arkansas stones by looking at the Specific Gravity. Higher is better (in theory). Best lists these numbers:



Soft Arkansas - Specific Gravity 2.22 | 12 micron | .00047" | Grit Equivalent: 1200. The Soft Arkansas is close to the 12 micron lapping film but clearly finer than the 800 grit diamond stone.
Hard Arkansas - Specific Gravity 2.36 | 10-11 micron | .00041" | Grit Equivalent: 1500. It is a little coarser than the 9 micron lapping film but finer than the 12 micron film.
Black Arkansas - Specific Gravity 2.55 | 7-7.5 micron | .00028' | Grit Equivalent: 2300-2500. While the Black Arkansas did have a few larger scratches, overall, it is a little finer than the 9 micron lapping film.
Translucent Arkansas - Specific Gravity 2.53 | 5.5-6 micron | .00023' | Grit Equivalent: 3500-4000. It is clearly finer than the Black Arkansas. Most closely resembles the 5 micron lapping film.

Dan's lists their lasts three stones as having a specific gravity of 2.55+ and states that their Black (surgical black) is the finest.

If you look at Best, They show that their Black has a higher density than their translucent, but, then they show high resolution images of the scratch pattern from their Black compared to their Translucent Arkansas. Best claims to base their grit equivalent (micron equivalent) based on comparing the scratch pattern to graded abrasives. Their result is that the Translucent has the "finer" edge.

If you are still with me, I had some general assumptions.



Any stone from any supplier will have variations, so, from the same supplier, I expect that I will find stones that will produce results that are out of order, especially for their finest stones.
Some kind of consistency between suppliers based on grading. For example, if Translucent usually produces the finer edge from one supplier, I would expect that from another.


Dan's directly states that the specific gravity is pretty much the same for their finest three stones and that stones #2 and #3 are essentially equivalent. In other words, no reason to buy their Translucent because it should produce the same edge as their "true black". But buy their black because it will produce the finest edge.

Best states that although the Translucent does NOT have the highest specific gravity, the produced scratch patterns are smaller.

I have been focused on finishing a project and shop clean-up lately.... and I am not sure if my current skills will allow me to obviously state which produces the finer edge and I do not have the tools to check patterns. part of this is strictly academic I suppose, but I have some practical uses.

I own tools specifically designed to sharpen knives, probably more than is reasonable. I have a few knives that resisted a sharp edge off one of my belt sander knife sharpeners, but after proper rehabilitation with the belt sander sharpener, it took a wicked edge off the Arkansas stones. For the record, I do not shape, repair, or restore edges with the Arkansas stones.

So, any opinions on (surgical) black versus Translucent? (especially with respect to different suppliers).

[Jim Koepke]

[edited]
As a reminder, they grade Arkansas stones by looking at the Specific Gravity. Higher is better (in theory). Best lists these numbers:

If you look at Best, They show that their Black has a higher density than their translucent, but, then they show high resolution images of the scratch pattern from their Black compared to their Translucent Arkansas. .

Any stone from any supplier will have variations, so, from the same supplier, I expect that I will find stones that will produce results that are out of order, especially for their finest stones.
Some kind of consistency between suppliers based on grading. For example, if Translucent usually produces the finer edge from one supplier, I would expect that from another.

Dan's directly states that the specific gravity is pretty much the same for their finest three stones and that stones #2 and #3 are essentially equivalent. In other words, no reason to buy their Translucent because it should produce the same edge as their "true black". But buy their black because it will produce the finest edge.

Best states that although the Translucent does NOT have the highest specific gravity, the produced scratch patterns are smaller.

So, any opinions on (surgical) black versus Translucent? (especially with respect to different suppliers).

The problem we may have is that mother nature cannot be expected to create all stone formations equally, even if we humans give them the same name. Different mines will have stones with different properties even if they are the same as cataloged by gem & mineral professionals.

My translucent stones from Dan's are not as smooth as one that was purchased at a gem & mineral gathering. The Dan's translucent stones also are more translucent than the one purchase at the gathering.

For me the difference between my rouge rock and my black Arkansas from Dan's is indiscernible by feel on the stones or action at work. In the less worn areas the black stone seems to be a bit more aggressive.

Just a thought, if the specific gravity is supposed to be the determinator of a stone's grit, wouldn't the empirical evidence of 'scratch patterns' counter this claim?

jtk

[Bill White]

In my shop I feel that stones are graded by the seller's view.
I just use what I have, sharpen 'till the item works, and let the result determine the quality.
I don't do surgery, but I do have a Spyderco surgical ceramic for finishing. It was a gift, works like a champ, and I could shave with the resultant edge if I was foolish enough (or drunk).

[ken hatch]

I have a number of oil stones but only from Dan's and Pike/Norton so not a clue about the other suppliers.

Even from the same supplier and from the same class of stone, each stone is slightly different. There are several Dan's Black stones and a Dan's Translucent in my kit. One of the Dan's Black stands out as the best polishing stone I've owned. Lucky for me it is a large stone where the other Blacks are smaller so it is easy to identify. The other Black stones and the Dan's Translucent are basically interchangeable. When you deal with natural stones expect to kiss a few frogs but even the frogs can have a place in your sharpening kit, you just have to figure out where,

Bottom line buy, try, return if you do not like, or find a spot for it in your sharpening kit. I usually find a spot.

ken

[Rafael Herrera]

Check out this pamphlete, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31175035165789&view=2up&seq=12. It describes how the old Pike/Norton company marketed their oilstones, including Arkansas. It seems to me that you're equating stones labeled as "hard" and "fine" as being preferable to the softer stones, or that the softer stones are inferior. As I understand it, these stones had their specific uses, it was not one size fit all. If you want to sharpen chisels and plane irons (made of O1 steel), a Washita seems plenty good to me, since it's what I do. The harder stones were meant for harder steels used by "engravers, watchmakers, die-sinkers, wood and ivory carvers, surgeons, etc." The Washita stone was considered a coarse ston

Keep in mind that these stones started as the sediment of an ancient ocean about 300 million years ago, even before the dinosaurs existed. These sediments turned into rock and that's what these companies mine, it's not an homogeneous rock it varies from place to place. They strive to produce stones within certain parameters, but you're never going to get precise numbers from any company as you do for manufactured stones.

Perhaps someone here with more experience can comment about it, but I think that a super fine, mirror polish, shave your hair, kind of edge on a woodworking tool will wear out soon after it hits the wood, so the focus on translucent and surgical blacks is not very productive, although it can be fun to get these edges.

Rafael

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I have a hard and a black from Dan’s. Before switching to oilstones I used a 1000/8000 combination stone from Norton.

The “hard” is a little more aggressive than the 1000 Norton Waterstone, but not a lot. The black is a lot finer. It does not act anything like what I imagine a 1200 waterstone would feel like.

I have an india for faster removal, but mostly I just use the two From Dan’s.

My sample size is precisely one, so if there is significant variation I am not in a position to comment on it.

[Mel Fulks]

Rafael, The washitas were considered coarse ....for a natural stone. Since it was widely used as only stone ,I don't think
users thought of coarse the same way commonly understood today. The Washitas were graded and "coarse" was a grade.
It was pretty common ,at least into 1960s , for a cheap carborundum type stone to be considered coarse even when it
was a tradesman's only stone. In the mid '60s I worked with a great cabinet maker from Lithiwania who only used a
carborundum stone even when hand planing large banquet tables. I wish I had paid more attention to how he sharpened.
All I remember is grinder and the cheap carbo.

[Adam Cherubini]

The problem we may have is that mother nature cannot be expected to create all stone formations equally, even if we humans give them the same name. Different mines will have stones with different properties even if they are the same as cataloged by gem & mineral professionals.

My translucent stones from Dan's are not as smooth as one that was purchased at a gem & mineral gathering. The Dan's translucent stones also are more translucent than the one purchase at the gathering.

For me the difference between my rouge rock and my black Arkansas from Dan's is indiscernible by feel on the stones or action at work. In the less worn areas the black stone seems to be a bit more aggressive.

Just a thought, if the specific gravity is supposed to be the determinator of a stone's grit, wouldn't the empirical evidence of 'scratch patterns' counter this claim?

jtk
I don’t understand the relationship between specific gravity, essentially density, and cutting ability. Feel like at some point, the stones are so hard, they aren’t really cutting. More burnishing.

FWIW, my finest stone is a translucent Norton I bought from Joel.

[Rafael Herrera]

Mel, yes, that's how the washita is described in the pamphlet above, a stone to be used by itself for blade maintenance, assuming you didn't have to remove chips or re-bevel. I remember my dad using a double sided 6" fine/coarse carborundum stone for all his sharpening, his chisels were sharp. I don't remember him using natural stones. I also didn't pay attention either, he didn't really teach me, these are boyhood memories of me watching him work. I don't know if he would have cared for all the types of oilstones, he would have been more excited about trying new woods or figuring out how to build a particular piece out of a picture when he came to visit me when he was still around.
Raf

[Tom M King]

My "black" stone, an early '70's from Smith's, is about comparable to between a 6k and 10k Sigma waterstone. It's much finer, and puts on a sharper edge, than the mid '90's black stone from Dan's. That stone is not any finer than the 6k Sigma. I have, and use all those stones, and have a lot of experience with them, but it's still just my view on them.

I always thought it strange that the Smith's black was so uniformly black for a natural stone. I had never washed it, for probably four decades of use, but at some point not long ago (some few years), I decided to clean them all. I used carburetor cleaner. All the "black" came out of that old Smith's black stone, and it is definitely translucent. Held in front of a light bulb, you can see the light transmitted. They had coated it with some sort of dye. It's a great stone.

These are the only "black" stones I have any experience with in my hands, and under my tools.

All the old guys that worked for me back in my early days in the '70's, and 80's also used nothing more than a carborundum stone, and did fine work with the tools they sharpened with them, but they absolutely marveled at the edge my Smith's Arkansas stones produced, and never used their old ones when mine were available. They did do better work with sharper edges, and I heard them comment on it many times.

[Warren Mickley]

A few notes:
1) You can throw out your grit comparison charts. They were designed to sell waterstones. If you expect a soft Arkansas stone to abrade like a 1000 grit stone you will be sorely disappointed. And if you expect a 1000 grit stone to polish anything like a soft Arkansas stone, you will be disappointed as well.

2) Synthetic stones were first introduced around 150 years ago. Coarse natural stones (rub stones) and medium natural stones (rag stones) were waterstones. Washita stones were not considered coarse except in comparison to other novaculite stones.

3) The various dense Arkansas stones are not very different from each other. It is much more profitable to work on your technique and your discernment, id est your ability to notice subtle differences in edge performance.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Wow, that was a lot to digest.

I had expected that universally the stones would be graded very similar. They seem to be on the "courser" side, but not on the finer side.

Based one what I read here, not will I probably find stones from the same quarry that differ, but it is natural that different quarries will have different stones with different expected rankings.

I do not consider the finer stones better, it is just that they order the same on the coarser side.

I think that Best does a good job in their description when they discuss how they chose a "grit" with respect to their stones (scratch patterns under magnifications).

I need to read all of that over again. I learned much, but now I need to read it again.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

I don’t understand the relationship between specific gravity, essentially density, and cutting ability. Feel like at some point, the stones are so hard, they aren’t really cutting. More burnishing.

FWIW, my finest stone is a translucent Norton I bought from Joel.

I assume (meaning I am guessing) that a higher density means that either something is packed tighter (less space between whatever so there is more of something), or there is a higher percentage of of something heavy.

I cannot directly comment on burnishing versus cutting, but apparently the Novaculite (Silica Stone) is hard so it can affect (cut) even some pretty hard metals. So, even though I was told by one person that it simply cannot actually cut the metal (so I should use only diamonds for sharpening). I currently believe that to be untrue. I have raised a burr from even the finest stones that I own but I have only tried this on:



Some old Stanley chisels
Some newer cheap Stanley chisels
Modern Case knives
Some older knives
Older and modern Buck knives


I bought a knife with some hard super steel just to test it, but it came so sharp I did not bother to do any testing with it yet; figure I will wait until it dulls.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Just a thought, if the specific gravity is supposed to be the determinator of a stone's grit, wouldn't the empirical evidence of 'scratch patterns' counter this claim?

For certain that is true, and Best specifically notes this difference. Frankly, I preferred how they documented this on their web site compared to other places. Dan's did a good job as well, but, they did not show any tests images. I like pictures!

[Warren Mickley]

For certain that is true, and Best specifically notes this difference. Frankly, I preferred how they documented this on their web site compared to other places. Dan's did a good job as well, but, they did not show any tests images. I like pictures!

Here are some razor edge pictures by Zowada:

Translucent Arkansas
424394

Shapton 15000
424395

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Here are some razor edge pictures by Zowada:

Wow! I am suitably impressed.

[ken hatch]

Here are some razor edge pictures by Zowada:
Translucent Arkansas
424394

Shapton 15000
424395

Thanks Mickley,

I'll bet the Shapton blade will really shine. Beautiful illustration of the difference between natural stones and man made.

ken

[Marinus Loewensteijn]

Mel, yes, that's how the washita is described in the pamphlet above, a stone to be used by itself for blade maintenance, assuming you didn't have to remove chips or re-bevel. I remember my dad using a double sided 6" fine/coarse carborundum stone for all his sharpening, his chisels were sharp. I don't remember him using natural stones. I also didn't pay attention either, he didn't really teach me, these are boyhood memories of me watching him work. I don't know if he would have cared for all the types of oilstones, he would have been more excited about trying new woods or figuring out how to build a particular piece out of a picture when he came to visit me when he was still around.
Raf

A similar experience here: Dad would grind on a standard 8" bench grinder with a carburendum stone, dipping the blade regularly in some water, and then a Pfeil (Belgian) whetstone to take the burr off.

I've had it all, Veritas Mk I & II guides, diamond and whole series of Shapton and Arkansas stones.

These days I use an old Taiwanese clone of a 10" Tormek (with a natural stone). Then a few strokes on either a Norton 4000/1000 (using an old guide for a bevel) or a Shapton 5000 (freehand) waterstone. Simple, fast and satisfactory.

[Jim Matthews]

I have both a Dan's surgical black and antique Translucent Arkansas (presumably from Norton).

The surgi black makes some finer adjustments, the Transluscent stone hardly makes a noise while honing.

In practice, I use a strop instead.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

I took a Stanley 16-150 150 Series Short Blade Wood Chisel to do some tests. Think about a set new that is about $5 each today.

It was mostly sharp, so I started with a set of four Best Sharpening stones.

Step 1: Use the soft. I did not do it long, but, I did do it. It made more of an impact on the front than the back, but, I wanted to see if it would leave marks. It did, you can see them going from up and down in the image below (I should have rotated the image). I did not spend a lot of time on this. The back was already mostly flat.

424532

It seemed to be that the Best Surgical Black was a less aggressive stone and was better able to cut paper than the translucent stone.

The chisel has a hollow grind and what you see looks like a tiny bevel. In reality, that part before the bevel is part of the hollow grind, is not touched by the stone, so, remember that. Also, the bevel is perhaps larger than normal because the chisel needs a full sharpening cycle. So, here is the Best Surgical Black front.

424533

The Best Translucent stone was very aggressive. After using the Best translucent stone, the blade cut paper worse than from the Best surgical black.
And now from the Best Translucent.

424534

On a whim, I used Dan's finest stone (supposedly), the Black.

424535

This cut paper even better, and I think it left a better edge. The edge looks the same to me in my picture

424536

Clearly, however, this chisel cut paper better after the strop.

So, in my inexperienced hands, Dan's Black leaves the best edge from the stones that I own. The Best Translucent, at least in this test, did worse than the Best Surgical Black.

I did strop with compound, and then without. I don't usually use compound, but I usually come off a Shapton 16000.

[ken hatch]

I took a Stanley 16-150 150 Series Short Blade Wood Chisel to do some tests. Think about a set new that is about $5 each today.

It was mostly sharp, so I started with a set of four Best Sharpening stones.

Step 1: Use the soft. I did not do it long, but, I did do it. It made more of an impact on the front than the back, but, I wanted to see if it would leave marks. It did, you can see them going from up and down in the image below (I should have rotated the image). I did not spend a lot of time on this. The back was already mostly flat.



It seemed to be that the Best Surgical Black was a less aggressive stone and was better able to cut paper than the translucent stone.

The chisel has a hollow grind and what you see looks like a tiny bevel. In reality, that part before the bevel is part of the hollow grind, is not touched by the stone, so, remember that. Also, the bevel is perhaps larger than normal because the chisel needs a full sharpening cycle. So, here is the Best Surgical Black front.



The Best Translucent stone was very aggressive. After using the Best translucent stone, the blade cut paper worse than from the Best surgical black.
And now from the Best Translucent.



On a whim, I used Dan's finest stone (supposedly), the Black.



This cut paper even better, and I think it left a better edge. The edge looks the same to me in my picture



Clearly, however, this chisel cut paper better after the strop.

So, in my inexperienced hands, Dan's Black leaves the best edge from the stones that I own. The Best Translucent, at least in this test, did worse than the Best Surgical Black.

I did strop with compound, and then without. I don't usually use compound, but I usually come off a Shapton 16000.

Andrew,

What did you use to take the photos?

ken

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Andrew,

What did you use to take the photos?

ken

Went to Amazon and choose a $23 thing that works with Linux box, my Android phone, etc.


Jiusion Original 40-1000X USB Microscope with Portable Carrying Case, Digital Magnification Endoscope Camera 8 LEDs Metal Base for Micro USB USB-C Android, Windows Mac Linux

Pictures I posted i took with my phone connected to this thing. I can get a link if you like. But cannot hear it now.

[ken hatch]

Went to Amazon and choose a $23 thing that works with Linux box, my Android phone, etc.


Jiusion Original 40-1000X USB Microscope with Portable Carrying Case, Digital Magnification Endoscope Camera 8 LEDs Metal Base for Micro USB USB-C Android, Windows Mac Linux

Pictures I posted i took with my phone connected to this thing. I can get a link if you like. But cannot hear it now.

Andrew,

Thinks, I should be able to find it no need for a link.

ken

[ken hatch]

Andrew,

A couple of questions: Did you feel a burr coming off the soft stone? After working on the polishing stones and removing the burr could you see reflected light on the cutting edge? The reason I ask is from looking at the photos there are a couple of spots that look like they should reflect light. But then I'm not use to looking at an edge at that magnification level.

ken

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Andrew,

A couple of questions: Did you feel a burr coming off the soft stone? After working on the polishing stones and removing the burr could you see reflected light on the cutting edge? The reason I ask is from looking at the photos there are a couple of spots that look like they should reflect light. But then I'm not use to looking at an edge at that magnification level.

ken

Not a lot of shiny stuff going on off the soft stone, things are very hazy. In fact, i do not see a lot of shine off my Arkansas stones in general. I do off my water stones, but no so much off the Arkansas stones. As soon as they touched the Arkansas stones, the mirror was gone. I cannot say that I spent much time looking for a mirror after that so I was also not specifically looking for it. And I surely did not expect it from the soft stone.

Andrew

[Rafael Herrera]

Andrew, I think Ken is referring to light shining off of the very edge of the tool, not the back or front bevel. I think the reason is that seeing a shine at the very edge is an indicator of no having achieved a sharp edge.
Raf

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Andrew, I think Ken is referring to light shining off of the very edge of the tool, not the back or front bevel. I think the reason is that seeing a shine at the very edge is an indicator of no having achieved a sharp edge.
Raf

Oh, of course. I don't remember and I was not looking for it. :-(

[ken hatch]

Andrew, I think Ken is referring to light shining off of the very edge of the tool, not the back or front bevel. I think the reason is that seeing a shine at the very edge is an indicator of no having achieved a sharp edge.
Raf


Rafael,

You are correct, there were a couple of spots that looked as if they would reflect light.

ken

[ken hatch]

Not a lot of shiny stuff going on off the soft stone, things are very hazy. In fact, i do not see a lot of shine off my Arkansas stones in general. I do off my water stones, but no so much off the Arkansas stones. As soon as they touched the Arkansas stones, the mirror was gone. I cannot say that I spent much time looking for a mirror after that so I was also not specifically looking for it. And I surely did not expect it from the soft stone.

Andrew

Andrew,

Most natural stones will not shine like a synthetic stone.I think because of the shape of the scratches from each. Just remember shiny is not necessarily sharp. Shiny may look pretty but that is about it.

ken

[Jim Koepke]

Just remember shiny is not necessarily sharp. Shiny may look pretty but that is about it.

A cylinder can be shiny but it won't cut very well.

jtk

[Tom M King]

Andrew, Thanks for finding that microscope. I just ordered a slightly different one that works with an iPhone. They have a number of different variations that work with different phones, and such. I copied and pasted the item title, but it may be transferred as a link. I didn't intend for it to be a link. I know they're funny about links on these particular forums. Hopefully, this is not a link, and if it's not, just copy and paste it in the search box at Amazon.

Jiusion WiFi USB Digital Handheld Microscope, 40 to 1000x Wireless Magnification Endoscope 8 LED Mini Camera with Phone Suction, Metal Stand and Case, Compatible with iPhone iPad Mac Window Android (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B079BQSPDZ/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Andrew, Thanks for finding that microscope. I just ordered a slightly different one that works with an iPhone. They have a number of different variations that work with different phones, and such. I copied and pasted the item title, but it may be transferred as a link. I didn't intend for it to be a link. I know they're funny about links on these particular forums. Hopefully, this is not a link, and if it's not, just copy and paste it in the search box at Amazon.

Jiusion WiFi USB Digital Handheld Microscope, 40 to 1000x Wireless Magnification Endoscope 8 LED Mini Camera with Phone Suction, Metal Stand and Case, Compatible with iPhone iPad Mac Window Android (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B079BQSPDZ/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)

Nice, that one comes with a "wifi box" of some sort.

[JohnM Martin]

just glad to see others using Arkansas stones.

[ken hatch]

just glad to see others using Arkansas stones.

John,

I could be wrong (which I often am) but I think folks that like to have the finest edge they can get tent to gravitate to natural stones. Either Ark, JNat, or both.

ken

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Then a few strokes on either a Norton 4000/1000 (using an old guide for a bevel) or a Shapton 5000 (freehand) waterstone. Simple, fast and satisfactory.

TheShapton 5000 does not get a lot of Love, but it has worked for me..... of course, I do not have anything similar to compare it to.

[Tom M King]

John,

I could be wrong (which I often am) but I think folks that like to have the finest edge they can get tent to gravitate to natural stones. Either Ark, JNat, or both.

ken

Not me. I use both depending on the circumstances. If we are somewhere long term, where I can set up my sink, waterstones get the call. Somewhere without running water, or short job, oilstones get the call. I like the sharpest edge I can get quickly. Waterstones are quicker, but not if you have to work up a slurry, and not if they're not sitting out ready to go to work. The sharpening sink is my top preference.

[Marinus Loewensteijn]

Not me. I use both depending on the circumstances. If we are somewhere long term, where I can set up my sink, waterstones get the call. Somewhere without running water, or short job, oilstones get the call. I like the sharpest edge I can get quickly. Waterstones are quicker, but not if you have to work up a slurry, and not if they're not sitting out ready to go to work. The sharpening sink is my top preference.

An alternative when using a natural stone is lubricating with some liquid dishwashing soap and some water. No soaking or building up a sludge required. (but that is only when never oil has been used) A bit of spit may be sufficient for a final hone.

[Haitham Jaber]

I wanted to revive this thread sharing some important feedback I received from Kim Kirschman of Dan's Whetstone

================================================== =====

My Email to them

Hello,

Even if you have a page on the subject I was reading this page here:
https://www.bestsharpeningstones.com/articles/arkansas-sharpening-stone-grits.php#:~:text=The%20Translucent%20Arkansas%20h as%20a,the%20translucent%20is%20finer%20still.



Here they say the opposite of you and consider the translucent effectively finer then the black.
I'm going to spend my money on a wide Translucent and use it also as a straight razor's overall stone. I want it for honing and polishing than i will go to the strop. Should I need a translucent or a black?


Thank you

================================================== =====

Dan's (Kim) reply

Dear Haitham Jaber –

Good morning. We are in receipt of your email regarding the comparison of the Translucent Arkansas vs the Black Arkansas (ultra fine) stone.

Thank you for sharing the information from Best Sharpening on the Arkansas stones.

First, I wanted to share with you that it has been my experience that each company in the industry has their own methods and ways of evaluating and setting the standards for the products they market. Best Sharpening is a dealer of a variety of natural stone products and not a manufacture of the products. They were a customer of Dan’s Whetstone Company but has not purchased from us in several years. They have been purchasing their products from other companies. So, it can be difficult to compare the standards from one company to another.

Dan’s Whetstone Company Inc. is a complete manufacture of the natural stone products. We quarry the raw material out of the ground, then hand cut and finish each stone. We then package it and ship it all over the USA and the world. All of our natural stones are genuine Novaculite sharpening stones. The novaculite is 99.9% pure silica.... a quartz formation. We have been working with the novaculite for over 40 years.

The Black Arkansas (ultra fine) is the finest stone that we manufacture. It is slightly finer than the Translucent Arkansas (extra fine). It has a very smooth almost glassy feel to the stone. This stone has traditionally been known as a razor hone. It will help to achieve a keen razor-sharp edge on your straight razor.

The Translucent Arkansas (extra fine) stone is slightly more aggressive than the Black Arkansas. This stone can be a uniform light grey to darker grey color stone. It also has a smooth texture to the stone. The Translucent Arkansas will also help you achieve a keen razor-sharp edge on your straight razor. The Translucent Arkansas (extra fine) is higher in cost in comparison to the Black Arkansas because we encounter more natural variations in this material such as cracks, pin holes, that make it a more labor intensive to work with. We do not get the yield in cut stones in the Translucent that we can achieve in the Black Arkansas. The Black Arkansas stone will tend to cut slower than Translucent, but we get more cut products out of this material.

All of the genuine Novaculite stones that we manufacture – Soft Arkansas (medium) – Hard Arkansas (fine) Black Arkansas (ultra fine) Translucent Arkansas (extra fine) – are considered polishing stones. When sharpening with these stones – you are doing the honing and polishing all at the same time. The novaculite stones do not take away a lot of metal fast. If you have to re-establish an angle on a blade – we recommend using a man-made stone to do this. The general progression of sharpening generally will go Soft Arkansas (medium) – Hard Arkansas (fine) – Translucent Arkansas (extra fine) and then the final step would be the Black Arkansas (ultra-fine).

You can use either the Black Arkansas or the Translucent Arkansas for your straight razor sharpening. We do not feel that it is necessary to get both stones. Some individuals think that it is necessary but for us – either one would work for this. I do know from personal experience that the Black Arkansas stone can put a very sharp edge on a straight razor. We had a customer come that is very much into sharpening straight razors on a variety of stones. He demonstrated for us how he did his sharpening and when he did the final sharpening – he used the Black Arkansas stone and sharpened the blade. Then took a single piece of hair and held it between his fingertips and sliced that hair in half barely touching it with the blade. Another customer uses our Black Arkansas to sharpen very precision scalp blades and they are amazing sharp.

I also wanted to let you know that to be cautious in comparing some of the Black Arkansas stones out on the market. To our knowledge there are companies that are manufacturing and selling Black Arkansas stones that are not genuine novaculite stone products. The stone is Black in color and it does come from Arkansas but it is not novaculite. It is a softer material that does not perform the same as the genuine Black Arkansas novaculite stone that we manufacture. So we would like to caution individuals when do comparison especially in pricing and the grade of stones.

Thank you for your inquiry.

[Rafael Herrera]

Where the stones are quarried and selected for grade is what ultimately counts for the abrasive quality of a stone for sharpening. Pick a vendor you are willing to trust, ask them questions, and make a selection.

The deposits of Novaculite span hundreds of miles and are hundreds of feet thick. Not all the quarries yield useful sharpening stones. This was known even in the 19th century. Who you get your stones from and how good of a job they do in grading them is most important in getting a good product.

[Jim Koepke]

I have a chunk of translucent Arkansas that is much smoother than any of the other translucent stones in my accumulation.

514599

The "chunk" at the top right was purchased at a gem & mineral show for $1. The chunk rivals my Dan's Whetstones Black Arkansas. The translucent slip stone is more aggressive than the chunk.

The chunk is only smooth on two or three faces where it was cut by a diamond saw. The rest of it is natural. The black is easier to use for polishing as the chunk has to be held in hand to be used.

I have considered buying a large translucent from Dan's but just haven't pulled the trigger.

In the past I have used some jasper stones. They are as hard as an Arkansas stone and also make good polishing stones but are often more likely to have flaws. If there is a lapidary supply shop in your area, you might want to check them out to see if they can supply a smooth cut hunk of jasper.

jtk

[Haitham Jaber]

Hi Jim,

I'm just about to pull the trigger for a wide one. I've already asked this question in the forum but I would like
to know your take on this.
If it was you, would you buy the 10 or 12 long? Do you think the 12 would serve you in some situations?

Thank you
Haitham

[Jim Koepke]

Hi Jim,

I'm just about to pull the trigger for a wide one. I've already asked this question in the forum but I would like
to know your take on this.
If it was you, would you buy the 10 or 12 long? Do you think the 12 would serve you in some situations?

Thank you
Haitham

I think the longer stones would be good if a person uses a guide. I hone freehand so an 8" works fine for me. I do have some 10" stones. Bigger stones do take up more space. They are also a bit cumbersome to handle when space is tight.

A good thing about a long stone is you may not get all the way to the end so as part of the stone becomes smooth from use there is still some rough area at the ends.

jtk

[Haitham Jaber]

I think the longer stones would be good if a person uses a guide. I hone freehand so an 8" works fine for me. I do have some 10" stones. Bigger stones do take up more space. They are also a bit cumbersome to handle when space is tight.

A good thing about a long stone is you may not get all the way to the end so as part of the stone becomes smooth from use there is still some rough area at the ends.

jtk

Thank you Jim for you advice.

Regards,
Haitham

[John C Cox]

One thing I run into with knife vs razor hones is that often knife users prize slicing aggression. This means the blade grabs and cuts deeply when using a slicing pull-through motion. Often, good knife stones may be a little "scratchy" to leave a fine but slightly micro-serrated edge.

Razors and woodworking tools generally prize push cuts. Instead of slicing across, we push the edge directly in. In this case, we often don't want that micro-serration, as it leaves lines and can produce weak spots on the edge. As such, we generally don't want a stone that is "scratchy."

Horses for courses, and one of the reasons we often love synthetic stones with very uniform grading where the knife guys often prefer natural stones.

[Haitham Jaber]

One thing I run into with knife vs razor hones is that often knife users prize slicing aggression. This means the blade grabs and cuts deeply when using a slicing pull-through motion. Often, good knife stones may be a little "scratchy" to leave a fine but slightly micro-serrated edge.

Razors and woodworking tools generally prize push cuts. Instead of slicing across, we push the edge directly in. In this case, we often don't want that micro-serration, as it leaves lines and can produce weak spots on the edge. As such, we generally don't want a stone that is "scratchy."

Horses for courses, and one of the reasons we often love synthetic stones with very uniform grading where the knife guys often prefer natural stones.

Interesting, never thought about not smooth stones leaving serrations. Anyway a valuable translucent is perfectly smooth. One can still use one side for razor and the other for knives and gouges.

If Rambo would read this, he would laugh. He would shave with a serrated knife.

[Jim Koepke]

If Rambo would read this, he would laugh. He would shave with a serrated knife.

He was a masochistic, glutton for punishment.

I tend to sharpen my kitchen knives with a smooth edge. They can cut very thin slices off a ripe tomato. Scratched or serrated edges tend to make a mess of a ripe tomato.

Of course if you have a tomato that is as hard as a baseball, then maybe the sawing action is helpful.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

IMO, one of the misconceptions about oilstones comes from charts like the one below comparing them to the grit of water stones.

514664

I wish my Dan's Soft Arkansas performed like a 400-600 grit water stone. My Washita stones do have a similar cutting feel as a 1-2000 grit water stone.

There is a wide range of stones with the label "Arkansas stone" of all varieties. Some translucent stones are going to be smoother than others. Same with all the other names derived by Man.

jtk

[Jimmy Harris]

Sharpening stones are 1/3rd art, 1/3rd science, and 1/3rd religion.

I have a few old Arkansas Smith brand stones, and one has a smooth side and a coarse side. It's not supposed to. It wasn't sold as if it should. But it does. And it's not a huge difference, maybe something like 800 grit and 1200 grit. But it's enough you can tell there's a difference.

And I have another that is a mostly black stone with a big translucent streak running through the middle of it, and both the black and translucent parts seem to be about the same grit and wear about the same. No real difference other than color.

So, from my experience, Arkansas stones are just natural stones that happen to be whatever nature told them to be. I wouldn't trust a manufacturer's word on one if you're serious about meeting specific parameters. If you need something 100% accurate, then you probably should get a man-made whetstone. But they're perfectly fine stones and a joy to use, so long as you accept them for what they are.

[Tom M King]

Jimmy, I think better divided up in quarters with 1/4 being history. The mark of a good historian is being able to make it up on the fly, and there is plenty of that too.

My finest stone was bought as a Black around 1974. Once I cleaned it with carb cleaner, and all the black came out revealing it to be a Translucent. It has always done a beautiful job, black dye or not.

[Haitham Jaber]

Sharpening stones are 1/3rd art, 1/3rd science, and 1/3rd religion.

Thumbs up to Nature that doesn't follow our strict categories and cliches and that shows a fair bit of "free will".
By the way Nature will take back our dictatorship upon the world. Just give her some thousands years.

[Warren Mickley]

Thumbs up to Nature that doesn't follow our strict categories and cliches and that shows a fair bit of "free will".
By the way Nature will take back our dictatorship upon the world. Just give her some thousands years.

The makers of synthetic stones don't follow strict categories either. A 1000 grit stone can be quite different among different manufacturers.

If you expect a black Arkansas stone to cut like a 1200 grit stone, you will be quite disappointed. And if you expect a 1200 grit stone to polish like an Arkansas stone, you will be disappointed as well.

Arkansas stones are for polishing already sharp tools.

[Haitham Jaber]

The makers of synthetic stones don't follow strict categories either. A 1000 grit stone can be quite different among different manufacturers.

If you expect a black Arkansas stone to cut like a 1200 grit stone, you will be quite disappointed. And if you expect a 1200 grit stone to polish like an Arkansas stone, you will be disappointed as well.

Arkansas stones are for polishing already sharp tools.

Thank you Warren

[John C Cox]

Thumbs up to Nature that doesn't follow our strict categories and cliches and that shows a fair bit of "free will".
By the way Nature will take back our dictatorship upon the world. Just give her some thousands years.

This is correct. A natural stone is just that - a rock dug out of the ground. As such, each one can have some variation, both within the stone and from stone to stone. Some of them are more or less aggressive, some are more or less scratchy, some polish better than others. Thus it goes.

As such, if you find one you really like, keep it. Unlike synthetic stones, you may not be able to get another one exactly like it.