King or Norton? or does it matter?

[Bob Jones 5443]

I'm coming up to the point of wearing out the 1000 part of my Norton 220/1000 combination waterstone, so this time I'm going to buy the single 1000 grit. I just ordered the King 1000, drawn to its 1-3/8" thickness and lower price than the 1" Norton.

Any opinions here about the relative merits of the two brands at this grit? Any difference in necessary soaking time or anything else relevant? I've used the King –– in someone else's shop –– without giving it much thought, and certainly didn't notice any difference.

I use my stones for honing and polishing plane irons, chisels, and a couple of other blades (router plane, spokeshave). Charlesworth method. Steel runs the gamut from 1922 Stanley tool steel to contemporary O1 and A2.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Bob, I have a Norton 1000, and thought it was a good stone (I mostly use oilstones now). I have not used the King. If memory serves correctly, the Kings were much discussed (and liked) years ago. I cannot recall them being a recent recommendation, but could not tell you why.

If you do a search you can probably find what you are looking for, but if you wait a day or so you will probably have lots of comments here. People love to talk about sharpening stones.

[Jim Matthews]

My King 800 is similar to your 1000.

They wear evenly, and slowly.
I've been happy with it, when presoaked.

I had the Norton starter set (years ago) and felt they traded fast cutting for excessive wear - I spent time in most sessions flattening them.

[Warren Mickley]

My King 800 is similar to your 1000.

They wear evenly, and slowly.
I've been happy with it, when presoaked.

I had the Norton starter set (years ago) and felt they traded fast cutting for excessive wear - I spent time in most sessions flattening them.

I got my first Norton stone (fine India) in 1962. I was using a King 800 stone when Norton announced that they were going to develop a line of water stones, "specially formulated for the American market". I took this to mean that they were designed for beginners.

The King stone has a range of coarseness depending on how you handle the stone. Give it just the right amount of pressure and water and it cuts quickly and give it different pressure and it leaves a finer surface. The Norton stones are less sophisticated and more straightforward, so you don't have to spend time getting a feel for the stone. I suspect Jim is right about the Nortons wearing faster.

[Mike Brady]

I have examples of both and find them similar. The King stones are very thick. For higher grits I like the 4000 anf 8000 Nortons. Nortons enjoyed the complaints of many during the big quest for the best stones ten years ago (Shapton, etc.), but Nortons are quite popular if you consider sharpening of all edge tools, including woodworking, straight razors, and cooking cutlery.

[Tom M King]

Stu used to have (may still) have some very good charts about different stone properties on his Tools from Japan website. I don't have any experience with that particular King stone. The only King stone I have now is the 300, which is pretty different from all the other King stones, but I do like it. I owned that Norton 1000 for a while. My current favorite waterstones are the Sigma's. They're (either Select II, or Power) significantly faster cutting that any King, or Norton stone that I have owned.

[david charlesworth]

Bob,

I would go with the 800 grit King. We want to shift some metal at this stage!

David

[Bob Jones 5443]

David,

Itchy trigger finger. I ordered the King 1000 yesterday. I had a hunch the hone step might benefit from the 800. Oh well, when the 1000 wears out, I'll move on.

Thanks,
Bob

[Doug Dawson]

I'm coming up to the point of wearing out the 1000 part of my Norton 220/1000 combination waterstone, so this time I'm going to buy the single 1000 grit. I just ordered the King 1000, drawn to its 1-3/8" thickness and lower price than the 1" Norton.

Any opinions here about the relative merits of the two brands at this grit? Any difference in necessary soaking time or anything else relevant? I've used the King –– in someone else's shop –– without giving it much thought, and certainly didn't notice any difference.

I use my stones for honing and polishing plane irons, chisels, and a couple of other blades (router plane, spokeshave). Charlesworth method. Steel runs the gamut from 1922 Stanley tool steel to contemporary O1 and A2.

I have Nortons and Kings and Suehiros, and a few others, and I'll be darned if I could tell the difference in practice. Tactile-ly, the Kings seemed a bit spiffier. I use Shaptons now, the ceramics IMO have a better feel to them, even if you still can't neglect flattening them on a regular basis.

[ken hatch]

I have Nortons and Kings and Suehiros, and a few others, and I'll be darned if I could tell the difference in practice. Tactile-ly, the Kings seemed a bit spiffier. I use Shaptons now, the ceramics IMO have a better feel to them, even if you still can't neglect flattening them on a regular basis.

Doug,

Bingo! There ain't much. There is no magic stone, they all work and after working with any stone for awhile it will teach you how. Now having said that, I will sing the praise of natural finishing stones till the cows come home . Constancy is a sign of a small mind.

ken