timwcic
"Look what I found"
I always considered the Norton’s in that style wood box to be from the 1950s early 60’s. Like their earlier brothers, fabulous stones. I have one in the same time frame with a family resemblance
Arkansas Love...Let's see those Arks!
- Thread starter David
- Start date
Got the stone lapped. Went to 80 sic/220/ 600 and the put a few knives on it.
Turned out really nice
Turned out really nice
Yeah I think a special version of a soft ark is probably a reasonable description in a way, but the SGs of the old ones can vary quite a lot. Going from about 2 up to maybe 2.55. My lightest is 2.08, and densest is over 2.5 and highly translucent:
My personal preference for the sweet spot in Washitas seems to be between 2.25 - 2.35, so I think is sounds like you've probably got a couple of gems already, will be interesting to hear how your new LW compares. (And if you've got any pictures of your current two stones - old Washitas are usually relatively easy to ID when clean, so should be able to say one way or t'other)
---
I've never used a newer one from Smith's, Dan's &c. but people seem to regard them as basically just a repackaged soft ark of a non-special kind, so I guess the SGs of those is always going to be quite low (?).
My suspicion is that the really big difference between soft arks and Washitas is how hard they are. Washitas are always pretty hard, as @Tomo noticed above, even ones with low SGs. They're just relatively porous - the actual structure is pretty damn solid. Compare how many old Pike Soft Arks you see today vs. Pike Washitas, even though Washitas were a fair bit more expensive. I assume they soft arks have just worn away, whereas Washitas are seriously hard wearing.
And I think that's what gives them the famous range; if you've got a very hard stone that you can work with seriously light pressure then the effective 'grit' is far higher than the particle size would suggest. Silica is not massively harder than hardened steel, so if you can play around with pressure you can manipulate the effect quite a lot.
^All just my own impressions, guesses &c. Might be wrong... I often am!^
Not an expert by any means. I have 5 stones that were sold as Washitas. I can confirm that to Dan’s a “washita” is just a softer soft Ark (from a discussion with Kim within the past few months). And 1 of my washitas is almost certainly a soft Ark, as it is nearly identical to my Dan’s soft Ark. The other 4 frankly do not look alike at all. Two I am confident are Norton/Pike, very different colors, but both are quite porous yet hard, coming in at 2.09 and 2.17. A recent acquisition came in at 2.4. I don’t really see the porosity with that one. Question to those with more experience - for the Washitas that have a higher S.G. do the pores get smaller, further apart, or both?
My Lily white came in at 2.39 and is a very hard stone. The other I had as you know was about the same. Neither acted like a soft stone. To me they act more like a hard arkansas stone. I need to try to go from the Washita straight to a black or translucent.
I would guess late 50s-60s too, and you are right on. They are absolutly beautiful finishing stones, that in my opinion are really unrivaled for sharpness amongst natural stones in general and amongst arks specifically.
Having a Dan's black and now this vintage Norton I'd have to agree. I'm lucky enough to have a Norton HB6 translucent in the mail right now. It's been a long hunt, not easy stones to find
They are not, especially for a decent price. I've got a translucent hs4 and a black hs5 and they do something special to a razor.
I like the nicheness of this question! Lemme go have a look at some of the ones I have here...
It's not universal. I've had some translucent washita's that were borderline Hard Ark SG (2.4-2.55), but were clearly Washita, with big pores, typically fairly spaced... but with basically translucent hard ark material between the pores. I've had "Fine" lily whites that had tons of closely packed, very small pores but with a much softer material in between the pores. And I've had Soft Washita's that had big, spaced out pores and ones with smaller pores.
The Hard Lily whites TEND to have very fine, close, pores.
The highest Specific Gravity Washita's are basically a Translucent Ark but with Washita Pores; and in my experience are incredibly fast but hard to keep clean/oil guzzlers.
The soft stones can go either way, with the fine pored ones being very nice, but not as fast as you'd expect; and the bigger pored ones being very good and fast, but wearing ultra-fast (so they are quite rare as most got used up)
The Hard Lily whites TEND to have very fine, close, pores.
The highest Specific Gravity Washita's are basically a Translucent Ark but with Washita Pores; and in my experience are incredibly fast but hard to keep clean/oil guzzlers.
The soft stones can go either way, with the fine pored ones being very nice, but not as fast as you'd expect; and the bigger pored ones being very good and fast, but wearing ultra-fast (so they are quite rare as most got used up)
So the answer to this is... kinda both.
It'd be easier to show if I had a scope on me, but because Washitas are novaculites it's more that the whole structure is more dense, rather than there being actual 'pores' (even though it looks like there are).
Working on lapping a vintage translucent Ark, rounding corners. Looks promising, think it needs more break in, maybe a little more flattening...
I'm relatively new to this, what's the advantage of a convex stone?
I'm relatively new to this, what's the advantage of a convex stone?
Not a whole lot, in my opinion. And it's a lot easier to make a hone flat than evenly, and constantly concave.
If you are new, use the tried and true methods until you can regularly get good results, then experiment with other ideas later if you want to.
I totally agree, and thank you! Having a lot of fun trying out some stones I've collected over the years, finally have some idea what I'm doing with them.
I haven't tried one personally (not counting pdso I haven't lapped which tend to start out quite convex) but my assumption is it speeds up honing by isolating a much smaller section of the edge/bevel. Basically lets you hone as if you're using much more pressure, without requiring the pressure. I assume it requires an x stroke to work properly, even on wide hones though.
The two brothers I'm working to bring into shape.
Seems like you'd need a steady hand and/or a forgiving stone.
“The two brothers I'm working to bring into shape.”
How?
If they are vintage, new to you, you should try them on a razor before you do anything other than clean them. If they were heavily but gently used, they may be finely burnished and work well for razor finishing.
Nice stones, you may want to remove the label for cleaning and reapply. Hard arks are finishers, but the razor must be shave ready in order for Arks to finish polish the edge.
How?
If they are vintage, new to you, you should try them on a razor before you do anything other than clean them. If they were heavily but gently used, they may be finely burnished and work well for razor finishing.
Nice stones, you may want to remove the label for cleaning and reapply. Hard arks are finishers, but the razor must be shave ready in order for Arks to finish polish the edge.
Wow, those are some seriously hard stones to find. Each makes for a great finishing stone. Like has been said, make sure to take a shave ready razor to them. Makes for a wonderful edge. Take your time with them, not the fastest stone(s)
Last edited:
One was not entirely flat. Both have some harder or rougher corners. I honestly don’t think The black has ever been used. So for that one I think it just needs a little bit of breaking in to help the surface become smooth enough for a razor. After taking my razor from the Coticule it was tree topping hair a bit, but the black Ark is still degrading the edge slightly. I’m not sure if this is because of the rougher corners, which I can really feel, or if it’s because the surface needs to be broken in our lapped a bit. One side of the translucent seems OK, the other is still a hair rough/not entirely flat.
Trying to start with the least impactful work at first and then giving the stone a try. Wash rinse repeat. I’m certainly open to suggestions though!
General progression before the Arkansas has been bevel setting if necessary on a 2000 grit, then going up to 4000. After that, 8000, then 10,000 Ohishi, then Coticule, finishing with clear water, then the Arkansas. I have a linen and leather Heritage strop, for daily maintenance, but I’m curious to see what I can do straight off the stones to start with.
Last edited:
You can use sic powered to dress those stones, or wet/dry sandpaper if you'd like. I'd go up to 600 then put a couple of big kitchen knives to them before a razor. That should turn those arks into great finishing stones.
