Of course. Back when these theories were first put into practice, it was done by rubbing a harder stone on a softer stone, or a coarser stone on a finer one until the desired shape was reached. Nowadays, an angle grinder can speed that process up considerably.

Is this the best way to do it? No. That's why we have plates. Is it doable? Absolutely. Just mark the desired level of convexity on the sides of the stone, and remove material.

A lot of people seem to go with an Arkansas progression of convex hones, and that works well, because they generally tend to be low maintenance rocks

Getting the steel backing plates concaved this week, and the grit is showing up Friday.

7m and 8m stones are confirmed. The stone for the 5m is still being tested. The 1.7m and 2m stones are still up in the air.

Otherwise, I'm still filling gaps in the stone progression, and coming to the reluctant conclusion that my "all natural" stone progression is probably not going to work. It's doable with Arkansas stones, going from a Washita up to a trans black. It's less doable with other stones. Once you get below a 5-6k equivalent stone, you are usually dealing with water stones, and most of those are too soft to make good convex hones, unless you really don't care about burning through rocks.

Microscope and 20x and 30x loupes are also in the mail.

I have the Thuringian convexed to the 8m, and two Belgian Blue Whetstones convexed to 5m and 7m respectively. Working on a hard Washita on the 1.7m. It's not a fast process.

I'm thinking about taking the 7m stone and dropping it down to the 2m, to return the stone closer to it's original shape, which was closer to a 1m convex shape, though I don't know if that was a honing choice or simply a comfortable shape to hold. The sides are all beveled inwards, so if anything, it would give me more usable surface area, and somewhat more flexibility in use.

My brother-in-law brought over his Ralf Aust and Boker for an edge refresh, and I thought I would get to play with bumpy rocks. Unfortunately, all the Aust needed was a good stropping. The Boker did need an edge refresh, but that was all done on the coticules. Mostly by my brother-in-law, once he watched me for a while, and I explained what the various techniques and processes were and did.

We did determine that his issues were caused by too heavy of a hand on the strop, and an improper shaving angle. Waiting to hear back on how he finds the edges on the razors now.

I'd have to buy some first. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for me to do so. It would be more "if I see a good deal" type of a stone purchase, rather than a "gotta collect them all," sort of thing.

The resulting shave would have to be exceptionally good for me to devote another couple hundred dollars and literally weeks of my life to shaping those.

Some sort of Arkansas stones incoming, presumably. This one is 6" long. Edit: wrong! Hindostan!

This next one is Washita...ish, and 5" long.
...and from the same seller, a for sure ark. Edit: also Washita.

Though it's not a razor stone, imo.

These are usually 3x1" or 4x1", but I decided to bid on it too, since I was angling for combined shipping, and that was the reason I got this one too...

Some sort of 8" slate...thing. Could be anything from an unlabeled Escher to a Belgian Blue Whetstone, or a floor tile.
Edit: ended up being a quite nice green/blue or blue Thuringian. Lighter than my dark blue Thuringian.

The two trans and the #51 surgical black are headed my way. All are 2x8" stones, and are particularly egregious seconds from Dan's, but at a price I couldn't refuse.

Pain, misery, and suffering are my future now, as I lap these things.

Edit: the surgical black is at least lapped flat.

I figure I can get at least one convex stone out of the trans. The black and the other trans I plan to leave flat. The black, mostly because of it's thinness.

I want to reiterate, these are the tail end of a lot of hundreds of Dan's whetstone seconds. I got them for a phenomenal deal. Convincing the wife that the deal was a good one took considerably more effort.

Edit: On the other hand, I've seen multiple people post that they would rather have a Dan's second stone than another company's firsts.

Yes, surgical black, my bad. I got it in my head that they were trans black for some reason. Went back and edited the posts.

Probably should have picked up two of those too, but money is super tight right now.

One of the trans is getting the bumpy treatment, on the 8m plate. I hadn't planned on doing the black, mostly because of the thinness, but it's doable.

People see the 1.7m or the 2m radius stones and think they know what convex hones look like. The truth is, at the larger radii, it can be hard to see the difference between flat and convex.

On an 8" stone, you are probably going to lose maybe a milimeter or two of depth on the very ends of the stone. I have to double check the 8m everytime, to make sure the correct side is up. It's not a shape that screams "I'm convex!" at an initial glance.

I'd rather not, unless one side is not usable. That way I can still use both surfaces. It's not much of an experiment unless you can directly compare edges honed on flat against edges honed convex from the same stone, ideally from identical razors.

In hindsight, I should have gone with a fully synthetic progression, but it is what it is at this point, and I took to heart @JPO's comment about the depth of the scratch pattern having a larger impact on the bevel's flexibility than people realize, and that natural stones are less aggressive in this regard.

I will be making boxes for all my stones, sooner rather than later.

Edit: I'm going on the assumption that once I have the trans both flattened, and one of them convexed, I'm going to be unwilling to do it a third time.

Heh. The strongest argument FOR convex hones is that some idiots (I include myself in this select group) are willing to spend 40-80 or more hours shaping Arkansas stones. Anyone that committed is not going to have their mind changed by someone else saying "you're wrong, because reasons."

I definitely lean towards the "this is a monumental waste of my time" side of things, and I regret indulging my curiosity. On the other hand, it's been fun and I now have a very in-depth sharpening setup. I also have a new appreciation for the variety of differences between the 'same' type of stones... and that includes the potential differences between the two faces of a stone, which can be quite different.