Shapton Glass 16k - homemade wooden holder OK?

[Joe Vannucci]

I'm looking at adding the Shapton Glass 16k to my sharpening regimen, and everywhere I read, it says to use the $116 Shapton holder. One site says it's OK to use their "economical" adjustable rubber base instead. That's more palatable, but I'd really prefer to use the holder I made from QS white oak. It fits my tray nicely, and it's doubtful the other one will. Plus, I just like my process, and don't want to change if not really necessary.

The Shapton FAQ, talking about their traditional (not Glass) stones, says not to use a wood holder because the stone might absorb too much water from the wet wood, and it would weaken the stone.

I don't want to ruin a pricey stone, but I can't see the glass base soaking up water from sitting on a piece of wet oak for a minute or two. The way my process works, I only have the one holder, and the stones rotate. The Shapton would spend it's life on a (dry) shelf, when not actually being used to sharpen.


20190601_014035.jpg

[Doug Dawson]

I'm looking at adding the Shapton Glass 16k to my sharpening regimen, and everywhere I read, it says to use the $116 Shapton holder. One site says it's OK to use their "economical" adjustable rubber base instead. That's more palatable, but I'd really prefer to use the holder I made from QS white oak. It fits my tray nicely, and it's doubtful the other one will. Plus, I just like my process, and don't want to change if not really necessary.

The Shapton FAQ, talking about their traditional (not Glass) stones, says not to use a wood holder because the stone might absorb too much water from the wet wood, and it would weaken the stone.

I don't want to ruin a pricey stone, but I can't see the glass base soaking up water from sitting on a piece of wet oak for a minute or two. The way my process works, I only have the one holder, and the stones rotate. The Shapton would spend it's life on a (dry) shelf, when not actually being used to sharpen.


20190601_014035.jpg

I think you're okay with your oak holder. The Shaptons are not so delicate. Even with the non-glass, if somebody told me not to get the stone wet I'd throw them out of my shop. The purveyors seem to be spreading urban mythology.

I get my stones wet all the time! And I also flatten them with a coarse grind lapping plate after every significant use. Bah.

[Joe Vannucci]

I think you're okay with your oak holder. The Shaptons are not so delicate. Even with the non-glass, if somebody told me not to get the stone wet I'd throw them out of my shop. The purveyors seem to be spreading urban mythology.

I get my stones wet all the time! And I also flatten them with a coarse grind lapping plate after every significant use. Bah.

Well, put that way, it does sound pretty silly.

Thanks for the confirmation. And yeah, I'm planning to flatten it with my 300 grit diamond plate, just like I do all my other not-so-precious stones.

[Richard Jones]

Isn't it a water stone? They're not meant to be perma-soaked, but, it's a water stone. I'm not cavalier with mine, but it's stored in a dish-drainer and flattened with a 140 Atoma as needed. It is, after all, a water stone..... at present I am trying to force visions of 'The Music Man' out of my head............... And, so as to quiet the cynical side of me, I am sure the $116 stone holder is nicely made......

[Joel David Katz]

Use absolutely anything that will allow you to use the stone without it moving around.

[Derek Cohen]

Joe, I have Shapton Pro stones. The only treatment I gave them was to epoxy them to glass to prevent any movement. They live inside their plastic case/holder. The case is also a platform for the stones. Simply seat the stone on top, and away you go.

I do not recommend the glass versions, since they are costly (in that they are half the thickness) and offer no advantage over the Pro versions.


Regards from Perth

Derek

[Richard Jones]

Keep in mind that the glass and pro are not the same stones.

[Joel David Katz]

Here in the US the price difference between the glass (HR) series and the Shapton Pro is minimal (except for the highest grit stone, in which the 30,000 Pro is about twice the price of its HR counterpart).

I love my Shapton HR glass stones, and at $149, a 16,000 grit stone is to me a bargain. There is no 16K Pro series stone, btw,

On this issue, of course, YMMV, as the saying goes. For my part, it's the HR series until death us do part.

[Doug Dawson]

Here in the US the price difference between the glass (HR) series and the Shapton Pro is minimal (except for the highest grit stone, in which the 30,000 Pro is about twice the price of its HR counterpart).

I love my Shapton HR glass stones, and at $149, a 16,000 grit stone is to me a bargain. There is no 16K Pro series stone, btw,

On this issue, of course, YMMV, as the saying goes. For my part, it's the HR series until death us do part.

I have some glass and I have some pro, and I don't know where you're shopping, but IME the pro are substantially cheaper (I buy them both on amazon,) and you get more actual cutting material for your money, even if the price was the same.

I would be more concerned about the thickness (in which the pro has the obvious advantage) because these stones _do_ need to be flattened regularly, glass same as pro.

I have the glass because there are some grits that would not be available otherwise. I can feel my way through what is needed, in the edge cases (no pun intended.)

[Joel David Katz]

I buy my stones here:

https://www.sharpeningsupplies.com/

The price difference between the two types is quite small.

[Doug Dawson]

I buy my stones here:

https://www.sharpeningsupplies.com/

The price difference between the two types is quite small.

They charge US$58 for a 1000 grit Pro, amazon charges $41 for the same stone, next day delivery. Comparing the glass stones is closer, though.

[Derek Cohen]

On a side note, I do like the Shapton 1000 Pro. However, The Sigma 6000 and 13000 are superior to the Shapton equivalents - they deal with steel such as PM-V11 and A2, even M2, so much better.. I would have the Sigma 13K before a Shapton glass 16K all the time.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Joe Vannucci]

I have some glass and I have some pro, and I don't know where you're shopping, but IME the pro are substantially cheaper (I buy them both on amazon,) and you get more actual cutting material for your money, even if the price was the same.

I would be more concerned about the thickness (in which the pro has the obvious advantage) because these stones _do_ need to be flattened regularly, glass same as pro.

I have the glass because there are some grits that would not be available otherwise. I can feel my way through what is needed, in the edge cases (no pun intended.)

I understand the thickness advantage is negated by being able to use the glass stone nearly all the way down to the backer. Any normal stone would fall apart.

I saw that Derek got the best of both, by epoxying Pro to a piece of glass. Hmm, a project to consider some other time, perhaps.

Of course, the Pro is available in 12k, and then it jumps to 30k. My finer grits currently include 4k and 8k. I like the idea of a 16k to finish, vs a 12k. If there was a Pro 16k, for nearly the price of the 12k, then I'd have gone with that. While it seems glass pricing is similar on Amazon re Sharpening Supplies, the Pro series is significantly less. The 12k Pro is around $60. And the 30k Pro is 'only' $334. Better than $600+, but still too rich for me.

I ordered the 16k Glass from Amazon late Saturday evening, and I'll have it on Monday. Even on Amazon, though, it seems that some of the Pro line ships direct from Japan, as fulfillment is 3 weeks.

[Doug Dawson]

I understand the thickness advantage is negated by being able to use the glass stone nearly all the way down to the backer. Any normal stone would fall apart.

I use them on a flat surface, so they get full support. What I don't get, is those holders that only support the stone in two or three places, whereupon this might be a real issue.

If they ever get that thin, before I pass into the next dimension, I would probably do as Derek does, and glue them to a glass plate. If it was worth the trouble (I might just buy a new one.)

I saw that Derek got the best of both, by epoxying Pro to a piece of glass. Hmm, a project to consider some other time, perhaps.

Derek, what kind of glue did you use for that? Edit: You mentioned that you used some kind of epoxy.

[Joe Vannucci]

I use them on a flat surface, so they get full support. What I don't get, is those holders that only support the stone in two or three places, whereupon this might be a real issue.

If they ever get that thin, before I pass into the next dimension, I would probably do as Derek does, and glue them to a glass plate. If it was worth the trouble (I might just buy a new one.)

I suspect the gaps in support on the Shapton, and similar 'universal' holders is to address drainage. When not needing to be wet to do work, a dry stone will be stronger, and last longer. I guess. Also, there's the issue of movement. On my solid wood base, I use lightly wedged end stops to keep the stone immobile. It wants to slide around on the water film between stone and base.

Waterlogging is not an issue in my case because I rotate stones through a single holder. But I see guys who have a series of stones lined up, each with it's own holder. If the stone is *always* on that holder, and never allowed to dry, it may become a problem.

Full support during use aside, I suspect a stone will become too fragile to reliably handle long before the point that it's too thin to use on the holder.

If I were going to add a backer, I'd do it when the stone was newer, and stronger. But for me, that raises a whole host of unknowns. It would be an experiment, which is always fun, increases knowledge in dubiously useful areas, etc, but rarely a good plan just to save a few bucks.