@Simon082 So your vote would be not to chart these at all? Did you buy the stones you have merely by random, or did you have some expectation for each? How did you gain that expectation? From your simplistic example is it not still useful to know that a Norton Washita is 800 to 3000, while a Charnley Forest is 5000 to 10000?
Effective "grit size" of natural stones
- Thread starter Mr.Wizard
- Start date
Help Support Kitchen Knife Forums:
I suppose the chart would certainly educate new stone buyers to the pitfalls of buying natural stones and would be useful to an approximation.
As for the stones, I started with a Charnley Forest near a decade ago when I was a razor guy and ended up with a lemon, it left an awful edge, took 3-4 stones until I was happy. My expectations was that I would have a great finisher from the get go but ended up learning that naturals are like lottery and fell down the rabbit hole.
Oh and don't forget the coticules. First bout coticule ended up for knives, I wasn't expecting it to eat through metal that quick for a supposed 8k stone and a ebay win was a piece of useless %*£#, went straight in the bin.
I'd say create a new chart or separate page in your current one. That's just my opinion though.
Desert Rat
Senior Member
Wizzard, this guy popped up on my youtube and thought he might be of interest to you.
Maybe it's already posted in here somewhere I don't know. I don't have the attention span to go see. We got spring happening.
Maybe it's already posted in here somewhere I don't know. I don't have the attention span to go see. We got spring happening.
I been thinking about this. There will always be caveats. I think you are very aware of what these are. The hard part about that will be getting people to read your documentation. Lol. But I think the chart is very valuable. And even these rough drafts are better than anything similar on the web.
And I really really really like the idea of using the x-axis for hardness and the y axis for fineness or something like that. Getting two info carrying axes will make it much more visually obvious that everything is on
(a couple of different) continuums (is that a word?(. Where you go from coarse to fine polish on one axis and fast to slow cutting on the other. Doesn't have to be exactly that. But I trust you to make it pretty and write excellent documentation!
My specialty is definitely the Arkansas family. I have bought probably around 100. There is tremendous variability. However I also know what to expect. I'm very rarely surprised at this point. And the biggest caveat at all won't be about the natural variability of the stones. It will be about the variability of the methods and techniques of the user.
@Desert Rat I have already been using those videos and the naturalwhetstones website in addition to the input from this forum. Thanks nevertheless! I am also referencing razorlovestones.wordpress.com and www.tomonagura.com -- the latter doesn't give grits, but it's still a useful naturals reference I think.
I see that this page groups a "Goldfisch Wetzstein" under "Lorraine Rouge / Rouge Du Salm" and gives all of the samples a 4000–10000 rating. https://razorlovestones.wordpress.com/category/belgian-stones/lorraine-rouge-rouge-du-salm/
Is there any non-confusing name for these stones that people would recognize? Would you rate your sample of the "Goldfisch Wetzstein" similarly? Are these even common enough to merit charting?
My own opinion would echo Mike's. I think a separate chart, presented consecutively, would be the ideal. As you say; as well as freeing up space and preventing information overload, slight differences in the format would allow you to convey more nuance. And I would do that chart in relation to JIS and perhaps microns as a standard reference, rather than any of the other scales for two reasons:
Firstly - Whatever one used could obviously then be cross-referenced back to the original chart anyway. But the kind of people using natural stones are going to be most familiar with JIS, and IME often don't even know that other systems exist.
Secondly - Differences in binder and hardness of JIS rated Japanese synthetic stones affects them in ways that are often fairly similar to natural stones. A hard Naniwa 5k will absolutely finish your edge higher and polish very differently from a soft Suehiro 5k. And so by rating natural stones in comparison to JIS, you are already implicitly acknowledging some of these other factors that blur and affect their behaviour.
Absolutely ^this^!
Anybody who has sold a natural stone to someone who hasn't had that type before, or bought a stone of a type you haven't had before, will recognize the value here I think. Whenever I sell stones stones I try to give a a range estimate, because if I didn't then people wouldn't buy them. And likewise when I buy stones I don't know much about (i.e. jnats) I do ask for a rough estimation of where they sit.
A chart like this is definitely achievable in a way that will be useful to a lot of people, imo. Keep going MR.W!
I would certainly say that the Goldfisch Wetzstein and the fancy label La Lorraine are so niche that they don't warrant including. And whether they’re exactly the same thing or not is also up in the air.
Maybe on some of the German language forums / community they might be more common(?), but in the English-speaking sharpening community - I can think of very few people who own either.
---
Finally, just to re-iterate something I said at the start of this thread; your work @Mr.Wizard on the original chart is absolutely superb, and hugely appreciated! I've used it as a reference point for years.
It's obvious that an awful lot of research went into it, but what I'd not thought about or appreciated until now was how impressive the design of it is. Which itself is (obviously) - the highest of compliments. Presenting a large amount of information in a way that is seamless, and intuitive, and unnoticeable, is the really difficult thing.
I look forward to seeing how you tackle the probably even larger hurdle of natural whetstones…
Last edited:
This post is a note to myself but open for comment. Anecdotally I am finding support for the idea that at least some Aizu in some hands are fairly fine, 4000+. I will probably extend its upper range to 4500 or 5000 based on these.
Aizu stones are fantastic. I have two and they are in the 4000-6000 range'ish and I would range those two I have as mid-gritOhira suitas are finer and an aizu and ohira suita would complement each other very nicely. If you can come by an okudo they are highly recommendable as well. The three I have all give a crazy edge.
I have been churning away at this for almost a month and have gone through a full cycle of input, interpretation, feedback, and adjustment. I think it is time to freeze what I have, barring errors and minor refinement. I intend to pursue a dedicated naturals chart given the positive reception of that idea, but I've put too much work into this GLGC column just to drop it so at least for revision 15 it will be included. This is the actual layout I plan to use. Please tell me if you see any outright errors, e.g. spelling, or strongly disagree with any part of the presentation.
Last edited:
I have a labeled white tam o shanter in the post. Apparently the white stones are the finest of its kind up there with Water of Ayr and even known to surpass it, maybe in another revision it can be separated along with WoA.
I'll be glad to revisit it for the eventual naturals-only chart.
I like it, and I think it’s as good as can be given the space constraints.
If you wanted to free up more space - note that La Lune stones are just types of fine slate, around 12k. And the modern ones are effectively indistinguishable from any other fine purple slate (Welsh, Vermont, &c.)
I do think there might be value in trying to include Japanese awasedo, even if it’s just as a single category. Cos atm it kinda looks like no jnat is as fine finishing as a trans ark or thuri, whereas they certainly be.
I’d also change ‘HTL’ to ‘Trans’.
Desert Rat
Senior Member
"Surgical" please no, Pike- Norton never did that and we shouldn't either.
Thank you.
La Lune fit conveniently under/left the Cretan stone. But ...
... I was afraid of this, and you've confirmed it. @ethompson informed me: "If we’re going for a range that broad (awasedo) id say 5500-12k. Personally I’ve never encountered a jnat that I’d describe as north of 12k." (I am quoting a PM which is not my practice, but I earnestly hope in this particular case he will not mind.) If I add Awasedo I'll need to drop Oouchi and drop or revise Fine Slates.
I could drop La Lune, move Thuringian to its slot, and squeeze Fine Slate in below/left of Tam O'Shanter. This estimate is more in line with @captaincaed for "Fine European slates" in post #13 but badly out out line with your estimate for "Welsh Slates" in post #45. However since I am charting "Fine Slate(s)" and not simply Slate would you be OK with this placement?
Are there not coarser Arkansas stones that show translucency? I was sure I came across that. If so, is not "Hard" important to specify?
Noted.
Last edited:
Most Arkansas stones with translucency are capable of delivering a very fine finish. It is a good indicator that the stone is mostly quartz, ie silica. Very hard with small uniform particle size.
I would vote for just calling them Trans as a group as @cotedupy recommended. I have never seen them called HTL. You could even just group them as Trans/black.
It gets super confusing. Back in the day they didn't call them black or translucent. Just Hard Arkansas. But the only thing they sold as hard Arkansas was what we today call either translucent or Black. And there are lots of translucent stones out there that don't look like a typical Norton "translucent" hard Arkansas but have the same properties.
All of these stones behave like a "true" hard Arkansas and are translucent.
Seems I made a transcription error on Iyoto as NaturalWhetstones has it as 600 to 1500 (combining both forms) whereas I had it down as 600-1100. That no longer fits below/right of Loosbryne, so I think I'll drop it as I already have three other Japanese stones in that general range. Dalmore Yellow doesn't seem quite coarse enough to slot in there either. Queer Creek sandstone is still sold and a few sources estimate it as JIS 600-1000 so it would fit if that is reasonable, but I recall comments on this stone are not kind. Should I include it?
Basically all novaculite displays some level of translucency; Arks, Washitas, Charnleys, Idwals, Turkish. The term 'Translucent Arkansas' is widely understood to mean a specific thing though. It's a proper noun, rather than an adjective followed by a noun.
I think this is probably another example of Ed talking mostly in terms of polishing. If using one for razor finishing then I think a lot of people would say that harder awasedo could definitely go up to 15k equivalent.
They're a good example of how friability influences edge finish. If you look at them under a scope; many softer suita are at least as fine, sometimes finer, in terms of particle size. But hardness has a huge impact on the respective finish levels.
I think the chart is looking good atm.
You could include Queer Creek / Ohio Blue if you wanted, as they're quite common and still available to buy. Note that they're now called 'Clear Creek', for political correctness purposes. I'd have them down as something like 800-1500, but 600-1k or 800-1k would work too.
They're not brilliant stones, in the way that most coarse and mid grit naturals aren't brilliant. You basically get two main types - sandstones and schists. The former tend to be coarser and slightly softer, the latter finer and harder, though there is overlap. Queer / Clear Creek is no better or worse than any other similar grit sandstone, it's just that similar grit synths are way better.
I have several that I bought as crusty mystery stones hoping they were something else . But I do end up using them frequently. For sacrificial heavy lifting on softer steel and stone in hand technique use for lawn mower blades, screwdrivers, hatchets, fixing knife tips, etc. Where I wouldn't want to gouge something that I actually cared about.
I note that all the finest stones seem to top out in a narrow band. I wonder about this.
Since JIS R 6001 only goes to #8000 these are of course poorly quantified. It could be that the extrapolation and conversion I am using marginalizes differences that others intend to be significant. Lapping film is tightly graded and readily available finer than #8000; perhaps this is a better comparison to be making?
Perhaps differences in polish and sharpness become difficult to distinguish above this level? Or is there something about the composition of natural stones that leads to this convergence? stringer's mystery jasper is the only asserted exception in this thread I believe.
Probably like 600-1000
Desert Rat
Senior Member
Well, there's two of us. I thought I was the last one.I have several that I bought as crusty mystery stones hoping they were something else . But I do end up using them frequently. For sacrificial heavy lifting on softer steel and stone in hand technique use for lawn mower blades, screwdrivers, hatchets, fixing knife tips, etc. Where I wouldn't want to gouge something that I actually cared about.
@stringer @captaincaed @ethompson @cotedupy I would like to credit your assistance in the README file, unless you prefer that I do not. Please let me know if I should use your moniker, a real name, or omit you.
Last edited:
I would be honored. My handle is fine. Thanks for letting me help!
Same as @stringer, flattered to be included! My handle here works great. Just reach out if you have follow up questions or clarifications
Same here, thanks for the kind consideration! I admire the work you’re doing.
