Meaning of “stone-ready bevels”

[Seemore]

I’ve seen this phrase many times, and I’m still trying to understand the full meaning.

As a background to this, it seems that the terms “sharpening” and “polishing” are not differentiated for many experienced people, but rather are considered different parts of one process.

For awhile, I thought “stone ready bevels” meant flat bevels. But this never made sense to me, because it implied modifying all knives by all makers to be the same flat-beveled shape. Recently, and to my relief, I read this in a different thread:

Yes, light pressure and pay careful attention to your angles. Last thing you want to create is a flat bevel blade. Maintain the convexity

This makes total sense: the many styles of convexity all contribute hugely, and differently, to the cutting feel. So just what is the meaning of stone ready?

 

[timebard]

My interpretation: you can make contact with all parts of the blade road with a flat stone. So no high or low spots, bends, warps, etc. A perfectly flat bevel would qualify and so would a convex one. Concave, compound, or uneven flat/convex grinds wouldn't.

 

[ethompson]

Can a flat stone reach all parts of the grind? If so, then stone ready. If not, then it’s not. A low bevel scandi grind like Takeda can be flat and stone ready and a very convex higher bevel on a workhorse like a Milan can be stone ready. Very different shapes but both stone ready.

 

[Seemore]

My interpretation: you can make contact with all parts of the blade road with a flat stone. So no high or low spots, bends, warps, etc. A perfectly flat bevel would qualify and so would a convex one. Concave, compound, or uneven flat/convex grinds wouldn't.

Can a flat stone reach all parts of the grind? If so, then stone ready. If not, then it’s not. A low bevel scandi grind like Takeda can be flat and stone ready and a very convex higher bevel on a workhorse like a Milan can be stone ready. Very different shapes but both stone ready.

Well, that was easy. Thanks.

 

[mengwong]

χ = 2

 

[Nemo]

Is it a marketing term?

 

[John_Keating]

Can a flat stone reach all parts of the grind? If so, then stone ready. If not, then it’s not. A low bevel scandi grind like Takeda can be flat and stone ready and a very convex higher bevel on a workhorse like a Milan can be stone ready. Very different shapes but both stone ready.

This is the way I see it, a very flat finish no matter the shape of the bevel.

 

[John_Keating]

Is it a marketing term?

I use it as a marketing term but for the purposes of the owner knowing that when it comes time to sharpen they won’t have a mess of high and low spots making the knife look less than stellar and makes it difficult for the end user to keep the same geometry the maker intended, obviously it doesn’t matter as much if the end user decides they don’t like the maker’s geometry and wants to change it as that requires going back to shaping rather than just revealing the edge again.

 

[Seemore]

χ = 2

?
Sorry I have to ask…

 

[Vertigo]

Well, that was easy. Thanks.

To me, "Stone Ready Bevel" sounded like "this bish need to hit a rock as soon as you get it" lol.

Their definition makes a lot more sense.

 

[Bico Doce]

“Stone ready” is not the same for all makers. Some put a bit more work into it than others. I think it really depends on which stone they are referring to in the “stone ready” statement.

Softer stones can absorb a bit more unevenness in the grind. The harder the stone the better prepared the bevels need to be.

Initially I thought if a maker used to say “stone ready” I would be able to take my finest/hardest stone and go straight to town. That is certainly not the case. It may be helpful to see what stone the maker stopped at in their progression to deduce how much they worked the bevels to remove high/low spots.

 

[mengwong]

?
Sorry I have to ask…

Sorry, nerd joke. The Euler characteristic of a convex polytope is 2.

If there’s any concavity at all, like a low spot or a bend, some part of the knife will hide from the flat stone, and χ becomes some other number for some planar cross section around that spot. Basically think of it as a contour map with a circle in it.

(Exception: the hole in a cleaver shouldn’t count! A knife is not a donut!)

(Another exception: a beignet is not stone ready! It is too obtuse, also squishy.)

 

[Vertigo]

Sorry, nerd joke. The Euler characteristic of a convex polytope is 2.

If there’s any concavity at all, like a low spot or a bend, some part of the knife will hide from the flat stone, and χ becomes some other number for some planar cross section around that spot. Basically think of it as a contour map with a circle in it.

(Exception: the hole in a cleaver shouldn’t count! A knife is not a donut!)

(Another exception: a beignet is not stone ready! It is too obtuse, also squishy.)

 

[aporigine]

Sorry, nerd joke. The Euler characteristic of a convex polytope is 2.

If there’s any concavity at all, like a low spot or a bend, some part of the knife will hide from the flat stone, and χ becomes some other number for some planar cross section around that spot. Basically think of it as a contour map with a circle in it.

(Exception: the hole in a cleaver shouldn’t count! A knife is not a donut!)

(Another exception: a beignet is not stone ready! It is too obtuse, also squishy.)

It is important to remember that two never equals three — even for very large values of two.

 

[timebard]

“Stone ready” is not the same for all makers. Some put a bit more work into it than others. I think it really depends on which stone they are referring to in the “stone ready” statement.

Softer stones can absorb a bit more unevenness in the grind. The harder the stone the better prepared the bevels need to be.

Initially I thought if a maker used to say “stone ready” I would be able to take my finest/hardest stone and go straight to town. That is certainly not the case. It may be helpful to see what stone the maker stopped at in their progression to deduce how much they worked the bevels to remove high/low spots.

This is getting in the weeds and maybe a dumb question, but are softer stones more forgiving of minor unevenness due purely to being muddier and a thicker/more viscous layer of mud getting worked into low spots? Or is there some (very small but non-zero) level of deformation of the stone itself? Or something else I'm not thinking of?

 

[Bico Doce]

This is getting in the weeds and maybe a dumb question, but are softer stones more forgiving of minor unevenness due purely to being muddier and a thicker/more viscous layer of mud getting worked into low spots? Or is there some (very small but non-zero) level of deformation of the stone itself? Or something else I'm not thinking of?

Others can speak to this way better than me but I believe it is both. As the high spots plow thru the stone they won’t burnish like on hard stone, maybe a bit of forcing the stone to yield to the bevel and fill in the low spots, mud helping as well. Let’s page a few experts here though @edthompson

 

[aporigine]

This is getting in the weeds and maybe a dumb question, but are softer stones more forgiving of minor unevenness due purely to being muddier and a thicker/more viscous layer of mud getting worked into low spots? Or is there some (very small but non-zero) level of deformation of the stone itself? Or something else I'm not thinking of?

I believe it’s the bolded.

 

[Ruso]

I never heard that term before, but without any history/context I would assume that the knife is ready for the final sharpening/putting the edge. Hence, the geometry behind the edge does not need any modifications for the intended purpose.

But the actual state of the bevel will depend on many factors.

 

[Heckel7302]

I never heard that term before, but without any history/context I would assume that the knife is ready for the final sharpening/putting the edge. Hence, the geometry behind the edge does not need any modifications for the intended purpose.

But the actual state of the bevel will depend on many factors.

In the general context it means that the primary bevel can be properly polished on bench stones with little to no fundamental coarse stone work.

 

[Ruso]

In the general context it means that the primary bevel can be properly polished on bench stones with little to no fundamental coarse stone work.

Does this “phrase” only covers flat grinds then?

 

[Seemore]

Does this “phrase” only covers flat grinds then?

The first two responses to my original post cover this question clearly. Check them out.

 

[Ruso]

The first two responses to my original post cover this question clearly. Check them out.

I think I start getting this term. I was hoping it was meaningful. However, it appears to just say that the sharpener did their job properly by creating even and uniform grind.

 

[OkayMode]

I was hoping it was meaningful. However, it appears to just say that the sharpener did their job properly by creating even and uniform grind.

Tell me you’re not into polishing without telling me you’re not into polishing

90% of knives that perform and cut like the absolute devil and are beloved here have pretty uneven and funky grinds once you peel back the faux shinogi, but so long as it doesn’t mess up with the edge profile then that’s fine if you’re just concerned about performance.

Most sharpeners won’t be concerned about create perfectly uniform grinds from a polishing perspective as it’s just not worth it or necessary.

 

[ian]

Sorry, nerd joke. The Euler characteristic of a convex polytope is 2.

If there’s any concavity at all, like a low spot or a bend, some part of the knife will hide from the flat stone, and χ becomes some other number for some planar cross section around that spot. Basically think of it as a contour map with a circle in it.

(Exception: the hole in a cleaver shouldn’t count! A knife is not a donut!)

(Another exception: a beignet is not stone ready! It is too obtuse, also squishy.)

Fwiw, the thing about Euler characteristic of a polyhedron being 2 doesn’t *require* convexity. Interpreted in the sense of that theorem, any knife has Euler characteristic 2, except stuff like cleavers with holes or Kamon mono integrals. Talking about planar cross sections is another matter, but if you take planar cross sections of a convex body in 3-space, they’re essentially disks, and their Euler characteristics are 1, not 2.

 

[Ruso]

Tell me you’re not into polishing without telling me you’re not into polishing

90% of knives that perform and cut like the absolute devil and are beloved here have pretty uneven and funky grinds once you peel back the faux shinogi, but so long as it doesn’t mess up with the edge profile then that’s fine if you’re just concerned about performance.

Most sharpeners won’t be concerned about create perfectly uniform grinds from a polishing perspective as it’s just not worth it or necessary.

I’m not into polishing, but I did my fair share of it. Having no highs or lows helps but it’s not mandatory.
Also, you wont be polishing concave or convex or more complex grinds on a flat stones.

 

[OkayMode]

Having no highs or lows helps but it’s not mandatory.

For sure, but I would definitely class it as meaningful.

Also, you wont be polishing concave or convex or more complex grinds on a flat stones.

All the knives I polish have varying degrees of convexity.

 

[ian]

For sure, but I would definitely class it as meaningful.

Any knife is stone-ready if you’re willing to put your arm into it!