Ok so some work done with the King 1200.
Used it to do “maintenance thinning” on 13C26, just a pretext to see the finish it leaves, as well as sharpen it. Then used on another occasion to sharpen Blue #2.
First the stone was soaked for about 2-3 hours prior to both sessions.
On 13C26 I did some “thinning” from clean state, then some more raising a slurry first with the Atoma. The stone feels better and clogs less with slurry on – no big surprise. That slurry will break down some, but keeps on feeling on the sandy side – not becoming slick. It also doesn’t thicken much from work – what you raise in conditioning is what you get, so to speak. So, very different from a Cerax.
It will however be less thirsty and easily manageable with mud, whereas from clean it dries out too fast, and clogs too easily, to be likeable. Shiny, clearer shade of hazy finish – even with mud. I really thought it would darken more than it does. Scratch pattern is consistent, relatively fine while still on the coarser side of things, I feel pretty ideal towards a Kasumi, probably very effective in covering scratches from coarser stones, and I’m sure it can be refined further more in a real session – not some speedy passes as I did, half of which using no mud.
In behavior stays the same when sharpening: feels better with mud while requiring less water. I wouldn’t call the sandy feeling aggressive, nor did feel the cutting is. It’s slower than SP1K, feels on par with NP800, perhaps a bit faster. Much more forgiving than both. I’ll take the NP800 as a comparison point, as it’s pretty funny how they are similar to each other in being different.
When used from clean, with very little water needed, the NP800 will generate some dark swarfy mud that gets it pretty slick. The King will release a good deal of abrasive, but dries out too fast to naturally turn to usable mud – unless a tight water management would be applied. It won’t be swarfy dark mud neither because the actual swarf tends to clog the stone rather than be kept swimming on the surface. Now, taking into consideration that the NP800 is orangy in color, whereas the King is definitely brown, when forcing a slurry they look formidably the same shade of orangy, with milky pattern throughout. The King slurry sustains itself quite well, while the Naniwa tends to clear out pretty fast. Upon “thinning”, the Naniwa gets more muddy, it’s mud a darker and darker shade of brown. The King, in the same circumstances, actually produces mud that turns a bright burnt orange shade.
The NP800 is obviously very hard, and hard to dish. The King sure is softer, and sure is dishier, but my great surprise is that it isn’t dishy at all, and feels quite hard. I’ve either resurfaced or flattened it about 8-10 times in all (it’s so very easy to flatten), I had some slight dishing in the center twice, yet after all of this and bringing it flat again, it’s still a full 34mm high. I had to re-chamfer only once – and the original chamfer was of the slightest, so in the end, I don’t know that there’s even 1mm gone from it. The exact same regimen of work/resurfacing/raising slurry/flattening on a Cerax 320 – now that’s dishy! – would end up with – what? – certainly 3-4mm loss for sure, easily more if one doesn’t use some caution with pressure. Another way to say this – I know comparing a #320 to a #1200 in dishing is unfair – is that the King releases a great deal of abrasive, for how very little is taken away from the actual surface in the end.
In feeling, the NP800 is smooth, almost creamy; the King is sandier. The NP800 has great feedback, but I’d say the King is top notch with this: the actual sandy part makes all the difference. It’s like a thousand tiny sensors reporting on duty. Sorry if all this sounds naive or perhaps even a bit off – first impressions!
But I don't care so much in the end, just aiming for the best advice.
