The Why Behind Common Stone Dimensions

Kitchen Knife Forums

Help Support Kitchen Knife Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

The_Real_Self

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
112
Reaction score
98
Location
Tampa, FL
I've grown quite curious about this bit of trivia on stones. It seems something like 8" x 3" or 8" x 2" is the norm both in Japan and USA but I can't help but wonder why this is the case. I've used 8" x 2" stones quite a bit for sharpening knives and really do not find them lacking in any way. I almost prefer them to some degree just because they are easier to handle with my short fingers which affects how thick of a brick I can easily pickup without straining my fingers (especially with the large brick sized soaking stones which can be a bit heavy and definitelly bulky).

I recently become aware of this line of stones by Shapton that Lee Valley sells and they have an interesting bit of marketing copy :

"The smaller format of this series makes it ideal for freehand honing of the longer edges found in most households (knives, shears, scissors) or smaller edge tools such as carving or turning tools.

The stones are 160mm × 37mm (6 5/16" × 1 7/16"), weigh about 180g (6.4 oz) each and are 12mm thick, about 7mm of which is usable abrasive."


https://www.leevalley.com/en-us/sho...assstone-seven-series-gs7-stones?item=61M0201

These stones fall well under this 8x2x1" minimum dimension and they advertise to be ideal for more common household tools. I can say with certainty that I've used DMT Diafolds (which are much smaller surface than GS7 series) in the role of setting the apex finish on knives up to and including 6-8" heavy duty field knives by simply anchoring them down to a thick cutting board for stability... with quite satisfactory results. I wouldn't argue they are ideal for most knives but certainly serviceable if that's all you can afford. I actually do feel that using this for apexing has improved my ability to focus my grinding better to make sure I'm steady on apex.



I am tempted to pick up some of these for apexing just to see how I feel about them. In this role having a full size benchstone is really more than I need to give 1-2 minutes of grinding at very light pressures to bring out high sharpness. So that being the case, what are your thoughts on smaller stone dimensions than standard? Does anybody think they understand why such large format stones have become the standard?

At what point do these smaller format stones start to become the wrong choice? I'd guess somewhere over 8-9" blades, personally.
 
I've grown quite curious about this bit of trivia on stones. It seems something like 8" x 3" or 8" x 2" is the norm both in Japan and USA but I can't help but wonder why this is the case. I've used 8" x 2" stones quite a bit for sharpening knives and really do not find them lacking in any way. I almost prefer them to some degree just because they are easier to handle with my short fingers which affects how thick of a brick I can easily pickup without straining my fingers (especially with the large brick sized soaking stones which can be a bit heavy and definitelly bulky).

I recently become aware of this line of stones by Shapton that Lee Valley sells and they have an interesting bit of marketing copy :

"The smaller format of this series makes it ideal for freehand honing of the longer edges found in most households (knives, shears, scissors) or smaller edge tools such as carving or turning tools.

The stones are 160mm × 37mm (6 5/16" × 1 7/16"), weigh about 180g (6.4 oz) each and are 12mm thick, about 7mm of which is usable abrasive."


https://www.leevalley.com/en-us/sho...assstone-seven-series-gs7-stones?item=61M0201

These stones fall well under this 8x2x1" minimum dimension and they advertise to be ideal for more common household tools. I can say with certainty that I've used DMT Diafolds (which are much smaller surface than GS7 series) in the role of setting the apex finish on knives up to and including 6-8" heavy duty field knives by simply anchoring them down to a thick cutting board for stability... with quite satisfactory results. I wouldn't argue they are ideal for most knives but certainly serviceable if that's all you can afford. I actually do feel that using this for apexing has improved my ability to focus my grinding better to make sure I'm steady on apex.



I am tempted to pick up some of these for apexing just to see how I feel about them. In this role having a full size benchstone is really more than I need to give 1-2 minutes of grinding at very light pressures to bring out high sharpness. So that being the case, what are your thoughts on smaller stone dimensions than standard? Does anybody think they understand why such large format stones have become the standard?

At what point do these smaller format stones start to become the wrong choice? I'd guess somewhere over 8-9" blades, personally.
I use little pocket stones to refresh edges and for deburring even very large knives in hand. Sometimes really little. Like 2" by 3/4" by 3/4". For 12"+ blades. But my optimal size for in hand sharpening is about 6" by 2".
 
I have large hands, and honing in hand with an 8x3" stone feels just right to me. 2" wide stones, I have to be much more careful about where my fingertips are. Generally I am more reluctant to hold them in hand, for that reason.

However, I don't think that's why 8x3" has become a standard. I would guess that it was Japan-driven, and in turn driven by the standard sharpening techniques you can see in the JKI sharpening videos. If your knife and stone are flat, and you're using about a 45 degree angle horizontally, which is very natural for our hands and wrists, you can cover a lot of the knife on a 3" wide stone, and get in a nice long stroke on an 8" long one.

The reason I think it was Japan-driven is that, looking at old American stones, the standard seemed to be 6x2 for general-purpose stones. I suspect the King stones disrupted all that.

I've sharpened knives on EdgePro-sized stones, which are 1x6, and it was a pain and took considerably longer. But I am doing mostly strokes perpendicular to my body. If you're sweeping the edge along the stone, as I've seen in some of Stringer's videos, I suppose the width would matter much less. When I try that technique, I don't seem to do very well at keeping the stone on the apex through the curve of the knife, so I rarely use it, except to try to get better at it so I can use it more.
 
I was watching a video a member posted on another forum of him touching up his hunting knife on SG7's. It looked easy as, but the knife didn't have a very long blade.

As a rule of thumb for ease of use, I find the longer the blade, the longer the stone. Width isn't so important, but for a full size kitchen knife (say 8-10" blade) I find a 2x8" stone pretty comfortable, and 9 or 10" is luxury. That's not to say it can't work on a shorter stone just fine, but ideally I like the stone to be roughly the length of the blade.
 
Interesting topic! Coupla observations...

I use smaller stones of various sizes quite a lot, and up to a point it's not too tricky with practice. Below about 1.5" becomes more difficult for full size kitchen knives, and below about 5" long is a bit irritating, not difficult just annoying. I also find the height and weight of a knife probably more important factors than the length when thinking about how wide you want a stone; a caidao is more difficult to sharpen on a narrow stone than a longer but lighter gyuto (imo).

Why is 2" the traditional standard benchstone width? I'd bet my bottom dollar it's something to do with this...


Screenshot 2023-01-08 231008.jpg


If your stone is about the same width as the thing you're sharpening (rather than wider) then it only dishes on one axis. Which makes it far easier to keep flat just by the normal process of sharpening, without screwing up the geometry or grind of your blade.

Very wide stones are not good for tool sharpening. You often see old 8x2 whetstones - Indias, Charnleys, Idwals, Washitas, Dalmores &c. - where people have made boxes to mount them sideways, so you're sharpening on the side of the stone not the supposed main face. Because it's narrower, ergo better for chisels.
 
Last edited:
Insider tip for you right there when looking for old stones...

Often you can pick up cheap ‘narrow’ stones on ebay, cos people don’t want 1” wide any more. But if the box they come in looks suspiciously tall then you might actually have a full size 8x2x1” mounted sideways. I’ve picked up quite a few bargains this way.
 
Interesting topic! Coupla observations...

I use smaller stones of various sizes quite a lot, and up to a point it's not too tricky with practice. Below about 1.5" becomes more difficult for full size kitchen knives, and below about 5" long is a bit irritating, not difficult just annoying. I also find the height and weight of a knife probably more important factors than the length when thinking about how wide you want a stone; a caidao is more difficult to sharpen on a narrow stone than a longer but lighter gyuto (imo).

Why is 2" the traditional standard benchstone width? I'd bet my bottom dollar it's something to do with this...


View attachment 218469

If your stone is about the same width as the thing you're sharpening (rather than wider) then it only dishes on one axis. Which makes it far easier to keep flat just by the normal process of sharpening, without screwing up the geometry or grind of your blade.

Very wide stones are not good for tool sharpening. You often see old 8x2 whetstones - Indias, Charnleys, Idwals, Washitas, Dalmores &c. - where people have made boxes to mount them sideways, so you're sharpening on the side of the stone not the supposed main face. Because it's narrower, ergo better for chisels.

I'm really glad you shared this, I actually had a suspicion prior to posting this that it had something to do with plane blades being about that size. Of course knives come in all sizes so you're not going to try to match the blade length to something which isn't fixed.
 
Very wide stones are not good for tool sharpening. You often see old 8x2 whetstones - Indias, Charnleys, Idwals, Washitas, Dalmores &c. - where people have made boxes to mount them sideways, so you're sharpening on the side of the stone not the supposed main face. Because it's narrower, ergo better for chisels.
Yep, this is a sideways India I have like that, which is my chisel stone.

A09CFEF5-D744-4C99-BFF2-9C9E65D05D5C.jpeg
 
I'm really glad you shared this, I actually had a suspicion prior to posting this that it had something to do with plane blades being about that size. Of course knives come in all sizes so you're not going to try to match the blade length to something which isn't fixed.


Yeah with knife sharpening you don't really run into those issues because it's basically always going to be bigger than your stone, so having 3"+ stones like some jnats are isn't really a problem.

---

To answer / give my own opinions on a couple of the other things in your OP...

160mm × 37mm should be fine for kitchen knives. I wouldn't go much below about 35mm width though, unless you're a Tiny Whetstone Maestro like @stringer is. But 35+mm don't take too much adjusting to.

I personally do most of my sharpening on 2" wide stones, and I kinda like 6x2 but only really cos I think the dimension / proportions look nice, and they're a bit easier to take about the place. I don't do in-hand honing for knives.

---

Here's another fun extreme I've been playing around with. Used as a benchstone my coticule wheel has a diameter of 6", you can cover an awful lot of edge with that!

IMG-3401.jpg
 
Interesting topic! Coupla observations...

I use smaller stones of various sizes quite a lot, and up to a point it's not too tricky with practice. Below about 1.5" becomes more difficult for full size kitchen knives, and below about 5" long is a bit irritating, not difficult just annoying. I also find the height and weight of a knife probably more important factors than the length when thinking about how wide you want a stone; a caidao is more difficult to sharpen on a narrow stone than a longer but lighter gyuto (imo).

Why is 2" the traditional standard benchstone width? I'd bet my bottom dollar it's something to do with this...


View attachment 218469

If your stone is about the same width as the thing you're sharpening (rather than wider) then it only dishes on one axis. Which makes it far easier to keep flat just by the normal process of sharpening, without screwing up the geometry or grind of your blade.

Very wide stones are not good for tool sharpening. You often see old 8x2 whetstones - Indias, Charnleys, Idwals, Washitas, Dalmores &c. - where people have made boxes to mount them sideways, so you're sharpening on the side of the stone not the supposed main face. Because it's narrower, ergo better for chisels.
Yep, 2" allowed for the whole width of the stone to dish. Plane blades are traditionally sharpened with some camber to smooth without marks. So a wider blade set askew full width on a dished stone could even be advantages to a point.
 
Yeah with knife sharpening you don't really run into those issues because it's basically always going to be bigger than your stone, so having 3"+ stones like some jnats are isn't really a problem.

---

To answer / give my own opinions on a couple of the other things in your OP...

160mm × 37mm should be fine for kitchen knives. I wouldn't go much below about 35mm width though, unless you're a Tiny Whetstone Maestro like @stringer is. But 35+mm don't take too much adjusting to.

I personally do most of my sharpening on 2" wide stones, and I kinda like 6x2 but only really cos I think the dimension / proportions look nice, and they're a bit easier to take about the place. I don't do in-hand honing for knives.

---

Here's another fun extreme I've been playing around with. Used as a benchstone my coticule wheel has a diameter of 6", you can cover an awful lot of edge with that!

View attachment 218524

Nice, is that a Tinker Tank?
 
Yep, 2" allowed for the whole width of the stone to dish. Plane blades are traditionally sharpened with some camber to smooth without marks. So a wider blade set askew full width on a dished stone could even be advantages to a point.

Cheers for confirming! I don't sharpen many planes blades at all tbh, so wasn't certain about what I said. Just knew that was the reason narrow stones were better for chisels.


Nice, is that a Tinker Tank?

It is! I'm a big cleaver fan and absolutely love that knife. Got lucky and managed to get one direct by messaging him on IG.
 
Working with small coticules in the @stringer size have helped me a lot in gaining precision by holding a steady angle, especially with sweeping motions.
I've also found that working with smaller stones, or even smaller portions of dished stones forces me to focus more on all of my motions. That also means that I don't do that every time because sometimes it's nice to just get into a rhythm and relax.
 
Back
Top