“......... the traditional checks are not 100% fool-proof. This last test was designed by the head of nuclear science at Caltech, a Dr. Dre. Dr. Dre, along with Dr. Irving and Professor Griffin and the rest of the Wu Tang Clan, know that it is best when you have a baseline screen situation to achieve a pulsopular cataclysmic calibration or something we like to call the Shaq Attack." ——. Jack Hayes (Chris Rick) Bad Company you guys just took it to a new level...... i am still learning, sometimes struggling with my naturals and ocassionally get that wow moment I voted for 20K
I went for 50k only because I obtain that from my 8k stone using slurry, wd40, and diamond paste, finished off with one pinch of fairy dust, works for me!
No opinions on this, Glen(@gssixgun ). This is your thread. My final thoughts on this would be to use a high power microscope, to measure the scratch pattern depths and the grit left by the stones. This would be the most accurate way to measure.
Of course I have opinions and observations over the last 13+ years of professional honing , what I didn't want to do, was taint the data. Here is what I can tell you You can't even compare scratch patterns from the same brand of Synthetics let alone across different types of Stones. What do I mean by that?? Take just Naniwa, Pick a grit you have multiple hones of the same grit, say 1k Compare the patterns of a Naniwa SS to a Chosera/Pro to a Traditional. These are all graded 1k hones from the same company yet all three will present very different scratch patterns. Now add in a few other brands of 1k and you get even more scratch patterns that don't match all from machine graded 1k hones You cannot compare scratch patterns from honing an edge of any type If you want to use scratch patterns you must use Matched cut steel blocks pushed across the surface of the hone with an equal pressure and speed Comparing the "Feel" of the shave is even less accurate, why do I say that ??? Easy most SR shavers consider a Feather Edge to be one of the sharpest out there, yet the BEST Feather made is ground on a 3k stone... We already had one Newb honer with an SEM taint the data pool once, and it still is used as reference point I also have seen the Claimed Grit numbers for Naturals climb on the same stones as the years go by and the marketing of "NEW" stones gets ridicules These are things I already KNOW to be true, Now does that change how you think about the "Comparative Grit Ratings" of Naturals ???
Oh, what you say makes perfect sense. So, what I get is, that this is one big crap shoot, and find a combination of stones that work well for you, and stick with them. Or, just stop being so caught up in numbers, and "Keep on Honing". .
Honestly my personal object with all the polls on all the platforms was to see how much the Marketing had changed the perceived Grit levels of Natural Stones over the last 10+ years The Stones never changed they were formed millions of years ago, the feel on the face never changed, the only thing that has changed is the numbers being pushed by people selling the Stones. I wanted to see how all that unproved data had changed peoples perception over the intervening years.. The other poll on J-nats was done for the same reason
Four insane finishers. Vintage coticule, charnley forest, strange "Dalmore", water of ayre. The "Dalmore" is a crazy stone. Very fine. Very hard. But I couldn't rate the grit on any of them. All I know is they improve on a 12k or even paste.
I also find that oil can really improve the finishing ability of some stones. I use Bisley gun oil, as recommended by @Billyfergie for the initial stages and then switch to clock oil which really seems to push it.
