Dipping my toe in the water. Hope it's a real washita.

But not so bad for a chance find. There are minimum at least 5 knives made of simple carbon steel, looks like old Forge craft or Ontario Old Hickory, then that should be 1095 if I remember correctly. Nothing exciting, but fun to play with. Much better than the average flea market rubbish box here in Germany.My wife found a rug and light fixture for our dining room. But nothing cool. There was a bucket of old knives at one place. But nothing that I had to have.
View attachment 154039
Still trying to get me head straight on this. Is Washita a defined mineral or layer, or a marketing/grading term that separates them from other novaculites?
I tried an Arkansas labeled 'soft' that was much coarser than one that I have that I've always thought of as a Washita.Arkansas stones are categorized by density. The Washita's are the coarsest of the lineage. The quality Washita's are very hard to come by any more.
Still trying to get me head straight on this. Is Washita a defined mineral or layer, or a marketing/grading term that separates them from other novaculites?
But not so bad for a chance find. There are minimum at least 5 knives made of simple carbon steel, looks like Ontario Old Hickory, then that should be 1095 if I remember correctly. Nothing exciting, but fun to play with. Much better than the average flea market rubbish box here in Germany.
I tried an Arkansas labeled 'soft' that was much coarser than one that I have that I've always thought of as a Washita.
@cotedupy : Lucky hand again![]()
Dipping my toe in the water. Hope it's a real washita. View attachment 154066
There are some people who use the term ‘Washita’ only to refer to stones produced from the Pike-Norton quarries, and might say that your stone is more similar to a soft ark. I’ve only ever used old P-N stones can’t give you a first hand comparison, but it sounds plausible. Even softer P-N Washitas are quite hard, and it gives them a lot of range, and means you can work them to a much higher ‘grit’ level than the particle size might normally. You can tell the difference in hardness also by how few old Pike brand Soft Arkansas are still around in comparison to Pike Washitas, even though the latter were considerably more expensive. The soft arks have just got worn away over the years, whereas Washitas last a very long time.
But ‘Washita’ wasn’t a trademark. It was applied originally, in the early 19th century, to stones that were transported to market down the Ouachita river, and there were a number of quarries that produced them. In the 1890s Pike bought out the only other large company that marketed Washita stones (called George Reynolds I think). And then bought a number of the quarries; some if not all of the Sutton quarries, though there were others, and I doubt Pike bought all of them. What they did do is a very good job of monopolising the name Washita, and convincing everybody that PIKE BRAND ARE THE BEST!
Smith’s who produced your stone were I think the first people after that to start marketing their own Washitas, not from the P-N quarries. Which I think makes your stone rather interesting. And obviously Smith’s, and Dan’s who also market a Washita, are well-respected companies that aren’t going to be turning out rubbish.
So yeah... it’s a ‘real’ Washita because that’s what they’ve called it. Just not a Pike-Norton one, so might be slightly different in use, and some people make a distinction. As I mentioned above - when new the P-N Washitas were almost always completely white, whereas other companies’ versions often had pretty colours and patterns like yours.
TBH I’d love to have a NOS Smith’s Washita like that to compare, so gimme a shout if you come across another! And keen to hear your thoughts when you use. (Note that it’ll be better with oil).
There are some people who use the term ‘Washita’ only to refer to stones produced from the Pike-Norton quarries, and might say that your stone is more similar to a soft ark. I’ve only ever used old P-N stones can’t give you a first hand comparison, but it sounds plausible. Even softer P-N Washitas are quite hard, and it gives them a lot of range, and means you can work them to a much higher ‘grit’ level than the particle size might normally. You can tell the difference in hardness also by how few old Pike brand Soft Arkansas are still around in comparison to Pike Washitas, even though the latter were considerably more expensive. The soft arks have just got worn away over the years, whereas Washitas last a very long time.
But ‘Washita’ wasn’t a trademark. It was applied originally, in the early 19th century, to stones that were transported to market down the Ouachita river, and there were a number of quarries that produced them. In the 1890s Pike bought out the only other large company that marketed Washita stones (called George Reynolds I think). And then bought a number of the quarries; some if not all of the Sutton quarries, though there were others, and I doubt Pike bought all of them. What they did do is a very good job of monopolising the name Washita, and convincing everybody that PIKE BRAND ARE THE BEST!
Smith’s who produced your stone were I think the first people after that to start marketing their own Washitas, not from the P-N quarries. Which I think makes your stone rather interesting. And obviously Smith’s, and Dan’s who also market a Washita, are well-respected companies that aren’t going to be turning out rubbish.
So yeah... it’s a ‘real’ Washita because that’s what they’ve called it. Just not a Pike-Norton one, so might be slightly different in use, and some people make a distinction. As I mentioned above - when new the P-N Washitas were almost always completely white, whereas other companies’ versions often had pretty colours and patterns like yours.
TBH I’d love to have a NOS Smith’s Washita like that to compare, so gimme a shout if you come across another! And keen to hear your thoughts when you use. (Note that it’ll be better with oil).
Damn you are a rock HOUND, every week you've got a new find. Serious congrats on the Charnley.
Oh man, now you're going for it ...At the risk of making @KingShapton ’s head explode, and of slightly derailing the Washita thread to include other types of novaculite, here’s a dirty old stone I found *very* cheaply at a local market yesterday:
View attachment 154479
From the feel and look of it I had an inkling what it might be. And indeed now cleaned up and flattened:
View attachment 154480
View attachment 154481
For those not au fait with some of the world’s more recherche sharpening stones - that’s a Charnley Forest, a very pretty green stone from Leicestershire, often with distinctive red stripes through them. They’re very fine and quite slow; far more comparable to a hard black or translucent Arkansas than a Washita, and nothing like as useful for most kitchen knives as the latter, unless you’re looking for super refined 10k + finishes.
They haven’t been quarried probably for at least 100 years, after being replaced quite quickly by the Washita, which is equally hard wearing but far faster. Though recently were rediscovered by the straight razor community, and prices have exploded. That one above is a large and thick example at 270 x 47 x 28, and worth a pretty penny.
I've got one coming in the mail. Fingers crossed it's not SiC. Other than that I don't care.
View attachment 154496
That looks interesting...
I’ve had a couple of ebay stones that looked a bit like that - with potential - but did turn out to be SiC. However one particular detail in your stone (which I imagine caught your eye too) looks very promising, and slightly unusual... the corners are rounded. And who the hell rounds the corners of SiC or AlOx stones?
Looking forward to seeing what comes out!
Yup. SiC usually has very square edges and corners. Even if extremely dished. The box is also pretty. Although I've been burned on that one a couple of times. There were evidently quite a few master woodworkers out there making beautiful boxes for craptastic stones. Like a figured koa saya for a Victorinox. Or I guess the original stone could have been replaced I guess.
But here's the box for this one. 8"X2" stone dimensions
A lot of promise. And I don't have too much invested in it.
View attachment 154506
View attachment 154507
Well written and very interesting information.Some good news now... because this type of old Washita were only ever quarried and produced by Pike / Norton - if you’ve got one you can basically be guaranteed it’s going to be good. However they do vary. The most important thing that governs or indicates what a particular stone might be like is Specific Gravity - how dense it is. @stringer has talked about this above, and outlined how you measure it. But in short; SGs in Washitas run from about 2 to about 2.5, which is quite a large range. All Washitas are quite quick and have a large range of effective ‘grit’ levels depending on how much pressure you apply, but *in general* stones with lower SGs will be coarser, softer, and faster, and ones with high SGs finer, harder, and slower. And the various quality levels of Washitas does not generally have anything to do with their SGs.
Before about 1933 Washitas were produced by Pike in various grades; Lily White, Rosy Red, No.1, No.2, and these indicate how homogenous the stone is.
Lily White was the top grade, but they can be softer or harder - and actually the old Pike stones included an end label indicating whether the stone was a softer, faster example or a harder, finer one. These end labels have often been lost over time, and if you find a stone with one it increases the value quite significantly. A 6x2 Pike Lily White sold on ebay a few days back for about $200 because it had this label still intact:
View attachment 154644
Here is my old Pike LW, which is contrast to the above is very hard and fine, with a SG about 2.45. Unfortunately it doesn’t still have its end label:
View attachment 154645
Rosy Red Washitas were so-called because of the orange/pink blush that the stones had, and indicated that they were particularly coarse and fast. The stone were the same quality as Lily Whites, just very coarse. This is by some distance the rarest and most expensive type of old Washita - labelled examples tend to go for at least $300. So if you come across one - snap it up.
No.1 and No.2 are stones that have less homogenous structure and grit, perhaps with inclusions or cracks, though as with Lily Whites they can be softer or harder, it doesn’t refer to how fine they are. I don’t believe No.2 Washitas were ever sold with labels, though there are some stones labelled ‘Red Washita’ that old catalogues show were No.2 quality.
There are also some Pike stones at various points called things like; Woodworkers Delight, Mechanics Friend, and Extra Quality. These, I think, sat between No.1 and Lily White, though don’t quote me on that. And occasionally you see some old Pike Washitas with labels for specific customers or shops.
After Norton bought Pike in the early 30s all this plurality was cut down considerably, and only Lily White and No.1 were offered. And the Lily White grade no longer had end labels indicating the character of the stone.
While this stuff to do with labels can have quite a significant impact on the value of a stone, as I said at the beginning - if you just want one to use - you don’t need to concern yourself with it too much. If you’ve get this kind of old Washita they were only produced by Pike / Norton, and they’re all good, labelled or not, because they had proper quality control.