Can't wait to see his results!!
This might help as it did when I bought my setup
Soft Arkansas 6" 400 to 800 grit
Hard Arkansas 6" 800-1000 grit
Hard Black Arkansas 10" 2000-3000 grit
Surgical Black Arkansas 10" 4000-6000 grit
Arkansas Translucent Extra fine 6" 8000-10.000 grit
I’ve done that many times to check the SG of my arks. I’m not sure how accurate it is with vintage stones because of the potential oil thats inside, but with newly mined stones it should work great.Jarrod, bless his OCD heart, has taken to tying string around arks and hanging them suspended in water to do that displacement/density high school experiment thing.
So...is there any significant advantage to putting a translucent extra-fine Arkansas stone in the progression, following a black surgical Arkansas?
I think @Dzaw explained things pretty well in post #19. Arks behave differently than many other stones.So...is there any significant advantage to putting a translucent extra-fine Arkansas stone in the progression, following a black surgical Arkansas?
Man, it’s been a while. From what I remember the blacks, translucents, and butterscotch stones were close to the same. It’s somewhere in the “finally bought an ark” thread. I’ll see if I can dig it up tonight.David, what did you find as a result of your displacement tests?
But that was all done with vintage arks. The only experience I have with modern stones are with Dans black stones.Man, it’s been a while. From what I remember the blacks, translucents, and butterscotch stones were close to the same. It’s somewhere in the “finally bought an ark” thread. I’ll see if I can dig it up tonight.
I’ve noticed the same thing with some soft arks and Washita. It’s like they shed a thin layer of particles from the stone and then just skate on top of them, keeping the stone from hitting the abrasives that you’re lapping with.It took Jarrod about the same amount of time to lap it convex, as the black side.
Dan's are very popular among razor guys and not disliked among wood workers. But the only consensus I've ever seen is that Norton has the best mines. There's a review out there that claims that Hall's has significantly better surgical blacks than Dan's, on par with their translucents whereas Dan's Translucents are far superior to their Surgical Blacks. But truth be told, I sort of suspect that every single person claiming one is better than another has too small a sample size to be speaking authoritatively, and most of the time is probably basing their claims on comparing as few as two stones.But that was all done with vintage arks. The only experience I have with modern stones are with Dans black stones.
Dan's are very popular among razor guys and not disliked among wood workers. But the only consensus I've ever seen is that Norton has the best mines. There's a review out there that claims that Hall's has significantly better surgical blacks than Dan's, on par with their translucents whereas Dan's Translucents are far superior to their Surgical Blacks. But truth be told, I sort of suspect that every single person claiming one is better than another has too small a sample size to be speaking authoritatively, and most of the time is probably basing their claims on comparing as few as two stones.