Looking for a Finishing Stone

[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.

Attachment 380792

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