Ah yeah - that’s the definite downside. Though I tend to use very worn ones for it, and they keep going for slurry raising almost indefinitely.
Bridging Gaps In Full Ark Progression
- Thread starter lightfoot
- Start date
Ah yeah - that’s the definite downside. Though I tend to use very worn ones for it, and they keep going for slurry raising almost indefinitely.
At least soft and hard arks don't cost much. I have set bevels off my soft ark from Dan's, but I find it much easier to start out on my 800 and 2k chosera, clean them up on a cot, then move on up to my arks.
~doug~
- Thread starter
- #23
I’m also staying open to the possibility that a full set might work as a kind of finishing process after 8-10k. It would be less work on the Arks and you would still have some of the texture imparted on the bevel by them…
IME, ark slurry cuts but it cuts poorly for razor edges. Workable for cutlery. Honing razors on Ark slurry will not provide an edge I find acceptable. Just doesn't work that way, it is not a friable slurry and it just bangs into the apex endlessly with enhanced cutting to the steel. For me, this doesn't get me to where I want to be. It's literally the last thing I'd ever do on an Ark. Second to last would be trying to use Ark slurry on another stone.
Pressure is an integral component with any abrasive, not just Arks. With Arks though ,you don't get to buy them in a color coded order of grit fashion. So pressure, surface, and friction coefficient becomes the gradient/s, not a change in the abrasive.
Surface text most definitely factors in heavily, more so with finer edges where subtle nuances are more easily read or felt. Novaculite's (the stuff we hone on, not the pavement gravel grade) crystalline structure lends itself to this but it's not a linear thing from stone to stone, different personalities.
I knew someone that honed bevel to finish on a Hard Ark. He liked his edges, I do not. He's happy and I am happy for him. So yeah, 1 or 2 stone honing might be good for someone but when looking into refinement at the level Devan is, minimalization of the process might not (prob will not) cut it for someone with a discerning palatte or an objective past what the rank and file are looking for.
What 'can' be done isn't the same as 'how far can I go' - which is why many of us are here. I remember the self proclaimed experts arguing with me about using a 5k in between a 3k and 8k. "you don't need it" they said, as though they are able to know what I or my face can or can't feel.
Objectively, the system works more effectively with the steps in place. Can't tell the forum experts that though, because they know everything already.
Pressure is an integral component with any abrasive, not just Arks. With Arks though ,you don't get to buy them in a color coded order of grit fashion. So pressure, surface, and friction coefficient becomes the gradient/s, not a change in the abrasive.
Surface text most definitely factors in heavily, more so with finer edges where subtle nuances are more easily read or felt. Novaculite's (the stuff we hone on, not the pavement gravel grade) crystalline structure lends itself to this but it's not a linear thing from stone to stone, different personalities.
I knew someone that honed bevel to finish on a Hard Ark. He liked his edges, I do not. He's happy and I am happy for him. So yeah, 1 or 2 stone honing might be good for someone but when looking into refinement at the level Devan is, minimalization of the process might not (prob will not) cut it for someone with a discerning palatte or an objective past what the rank and file are looking for.
What 'can' be done isn't the same as 'how far can I go' - which is why many of us are here. I remember the self proclaimed experts arguing with me about using a 5k in between a 3k and 8k. "you don't need it" they said, as though they are able to know what I or my face can or can't feel.
Objectively, the system works more effectively with the steps in place. Can't tell the forum experts that though, because they know everything already.
Certainly not an expert here. Pretty much all of the stones I used in the machining trade were of the synthetic variety, and I used an old 3/4" x 2 1/2 India stone to sharpen my pocket knives with for decades.
Only in the past 3-4 years have I been learning the nuances of natural stones, starting with a 2 x 6 cot and a 2 x 6 surgical black ark from Best Sharpening Stones a few years ago, and slowly adding more stones to my collection.
I've now got a couple more cots from AC, and a soft, hard, black, trans from Dan's, an 800 and 2k chosera, a norton 4k/8k, a snow white 8k, and a naniwa 12k glued to a ceramic tile that I feel I'm getting pretty good edges with, but now I'm getting interested in getting a Washita just to find out what everyone is talking about.
~doug~
Washita are awesome. Real ones - pre transitional grade, the real deal from the 40s being really juicy.... I'm just not into using oil stones for early-mid work on razors. But I'll take one real Washita over a dozen Soft Arks any day.... Def worth checking out.
- Thread starter
- #27
So I’ve made a couple of observations from spending pretty much all day with this:
1- Neither the Soft or Hard can effectively cut past 1.5K Shapton striations in a reasonable amount of time and also seems to be inducing excessive edge fatigue setting the edge up for failure later on. Perhaps moving from a higher synthetic is an option
2- When moving from 8k to Hard followed by translucent I seem to be getting chips in the apex with edge-leading WOB strokes only within 20-30 strokes, no stunt honing!
Overall, these stones seem to struggle in the midrange.
In short I have to stay flexible and avoid a crystallized mentality until I can make heads or tails of a working process.
1- Neither the Soft or Hard can effectively cut past 1.5K Shapton striations in a reasonable amount of time and also seems to be inducing excessive edge fatigue setting the edge up for failure later on. Perhaps moving from a higher synthetic is an option
2- When moving from 8k to Hard followed by translucent I seem to be getting chips in the apex with edge-leading WOB strokes only within 20-30 strokes, no stunt honing!
Overall, these stones seem to struggle in the midrange.
In short I have to stay flexible and avoid a crystallized mentality until I can make heads or tails of a working process.
I was thinking of using them on kitchen knives and such. I'm pretty well sorted when it comes to my small collection of SR's. Just love the way my trans calms down the edge off my 12k.
~doug~
Good, soft washita can make really good kitchen edges. Also nice for fast touch ups. Better than a honing rod since you get a flat surface, and the new edge seems to last a bit longer too. Depending on the stone. Usually 2-5 swipes on an edge that was already well established is all it takes to get back to slicing tomatoes easily.
- Thread starter
- #30
So I’m going to pass on a metric that may prove useful although it may warrant some debate.
I’m inclined to take an edge up to 5K followed by a handful of strokes on basically any Arkansas stone and evaluate the quality of the surface prep based on the results. If I see anything on the bevel that suggests chipping or scratches that look too deep I would lean towards thinking that the surface prep is not on-point.
I’m inclined to take an edge up to 5K followed by a handful of strokes on basically any Arkansas stone and evaluate the quality of the surface prep based on the results. If I see anything on the bevel that suggests chipping or scratches that look too deep I would lean towards thinking that the surface prep is not on-point.
Pike/norton Washita> norton hard ark/ Dans black and that'll get you set on any blade you got.
I have a Dan’s hard (and a Dan’s washita, black, and blue-black). I’m assuming you’re talking about a Dan’s or similar grading system and not a “Norton’s hard”.
My Dan’s hard with a burnished side finishes similar to a 5K synthetic stone. If you’re 8K synthetic - especially something like a Naniwa Fuji which says 8K but is really more like a 10K - going to a hard Ark is a big step back.
I also have the problem of not having something to bridge the gap between my hard Ark and my finishing Arks. This is easily solved by buying a couple more Arks.
For me though and for razors in particular I find that synthetics sweet spot is the coarser grits. Fast and consistent . But I don’t like them as finishers. For knives, man, the hard and washita are something amazing.
- Thread starter
- #33
This seems to be highly contingent on surface quality. I’m actively evaluating the “5K pass/fail” surface test. Even a black Arkansas stone set too rough opens the door to liabilities it seems. I finally managed to get the surface on my Hard and Translucent to actually PASS the 5K test believe it or not but I’m still actively making evaluations and adjustments.
- Thread starter
- #34
I’m considering the very real possibility that the surface preparation was not fully realized at the time of these observations.
In the end there absolutely must be a way to know without question that the surface quality lines up with the desired outcome.
I think I’m almost there with a method of confirmation…
A hard Ark can, depending on the stone and user, refine an edge past a solid (Fuji, SW, etc) 8k mark.
Been there, done it.
Will every hard Ark be there? Nope. Will everyone honing get the edge there? Prob not.
Part of the problem with so much of the thinking is assuming a Norton (or whatever) hard Ark is a specific thing, when it isn't. A very soft 'Hard Ark' isn't going to top out like a very hard "Hard Ark".
Many hard Arks these days, it seems, aren't all that hard - but some are. Agreed that one of these modern marginalized 'Hard Arks' are going to probably shortchange a well done 8k edge. And some soft Arks are very similar to some of those hard Arks - so it's can be almost like using the same stone sometimes.
Even so, I have owned many good Hard Arks that will go further. One was so hard I was nearly unable to tell if it was finer or coarser than a Trans Ark I had at the time. Pure white stone.
Everyone calling out solutions and recipes based on brand and labels is just perpetuating confusion. Sure, I have had a very cool Norton/Pike line up at one time but I would never ever tell anyone to buy the exact same stones and to expect the exact same results. It's ridiculous to think that. Stones are different, people are different, and different people perform differently when they are working on different stones.
Suggested methodology - take each stone on its own merits and gauge the plan according to where that stone actually is and not where the spreadsheet or someone says it is supposed to be.
In the end there absolutely must be a way to know without question that the surface quality lines up with the desired outcome.
Yes, there is, it's called feedback. Skills factor in too.
Trying different 'jump' stones is one way to a good understanding. I remember long ago not being happy with 12k Nani to my Black Ark and eventually adding an Escher after the 12k and then all was on-point. During that time, I was using a Coti to refine Nani 12k edges but the Coti didn't work well between the 12k Nani and the Ark.
I had my Preyda Black Ark out the other night and the feeling is so crystal clear, running the same blade on a vintage Trans I just got is like the proverbial night/day thing. Def got a lil work to do on the trans for sure...
Been there, done it.
Will every hard Ark be there? Nope. Will everyone honing get the edge there? Prob not.
Part of the problem with so much of the thinking is assuming a Norton (or whatever) hard Ark is a specific thing, when it isn't. A very soft 'Hard Ark' isn't going to top out like a very hard "Hard Ark".
Many hard Arks these days, it seems, aren't all that hard - but some are. Agreed that one of these modern marginalized 'Hard Arks' are going to probably shortchange a well done 8k edge. And some soft Arks are very similar to some of those hard Arks - so it's can be almost like using the same stone sometimes.
Even so, I have owned many good Hard Arks that will go further. One was so hard I was nearly unable to tell if it was finer or coarser than a Trans Ark I had at the time. Pure white stone.
Everyone calling out solutions and recipes based on brand and labels is just perpetuating confusion. Sure, I have had a very cool Norton/Pike line up at one time but I would never ever tell anyone to buy the exact same stones and to expect the exact same results. It's ridiculous to think that. Stones are different, people are different, and different people perform differently when they are working on different stones.
Suggested methodology - take each stone on its own merits and gauge the plan according to where that stone actually is and not where the spreadsheet or someone says it is supposed to be.
In the end there absolutely must be a way to know without question that the surface quality lines up with the desired outcome.
Yes, there is, it's called feedback. Skills factor in too.
Trying different 'jump' stones is one way to a good understanding. I remember long ago not being happy with 12k Nani to my Black Ark and eventually adding an Escher after the 12k and then all was on-point. During that time, I was using a Coti to refine Nani 12k edges but the Coti didn't work well between the 12k Nani and the Ark.
I had my Preyda Black Ark out the other night and the feeling is so crystal clear, running the same blade on a vintage Trans I just got is like the proverbial night/day thing. Def got a lil work to do on the trans for sure...
Pressure has always been the key for me with arks. A three stone progression is much easier than two, I could even see adding another stone if it fits. More pressure to less at each stone progression.
A heavier grind razor is easier to hone with some pressure than a full hollow and arks like pressure.
A heavier grind razor is easier to hone with some pressure than a full hollow and arks like pressure.
- Thread starter
- #37
I’m actually in a good place with the Hard and the translucent stones in this lineup. They’re just far enough apart without being too far as best I can tell and both seem to leave a readable fingerprint on the bevel in a conservative amount of strokes without signs of degradation at the current surface condition. That being said there may be room for a little tweeking.
I would like to have a nice Hard grade stone a touch harder (Dan’s) at a full 10x2x1” size for a little extra runway. The added weight helps too IMO…
Sometimes antique can be differentiated that way to some degree because of the level of quality control and the fact that operations were much smaller at the time. Most of those really old Nortons probably come off the same huge chunk of novaculite in the quarry, because everything was pretty low tech. All the old Norton/ pike translucent stones I have are essentially identical in use, feedback and finished product. The black norton hard ark I have is very, very similar to my black arks from Dan's. The grain feels tighter under my fingernail/ tooth but the end result is essentially the same. I've got a pretty large variety of hard Arkansas stones but pike/ norton hard Arks and Dan's translucent&blacks(haven't tried his true hard) are very consistent and usually take you to the same place. Those huge deposits that they chipped at as long as possible is the reason I'd wager that the old washitas that came from that pike quarry are so distinct. Even the different grades of it are different than anything you'll get today. Escher gained their reputation this same way from what I can gather. Consistency, epically then, was EXTREMELY important and 10x the labor had to be expended to accomplish it. It's extremely impressive honestly. Aside from those 2 labels I don't usually recommend anything by name because I'm either not knowledgeable enough about it, don't have enough experience with it but most importantly I don't put stock into cooperate anything but some of those old labels have their reputation for a reason.
Chases operation was quite significant. Low tech, saws cutting with a sand sluice, but still pretty large.
Norton's operations were big too. Arks were excavated from numerous veins at many locations. Certain 'strains' came from specific places, like the Rosy Red for example, only one quarry produced it, I would assume several veins were exploited. Hard and Soft Arks were dug from multiple sites, multiple veins, etc. That is one reason why a 1920s Soft Ark is not like a 1980s soft Ark and why the current Washita is nothing like a Lilly White.
I've dissected Nortons from the 20s through the 80s fairly extensively. I still do actually, just not at the volume I was doing 3-5 years ago. There are many many variations within each subset of grades, Soft, Washita, Hard, etc... The grading systems changed at one point and what was one thing at one point was then something else different later on. Veins ran out of material, and new veins were exploited in the same quarry and things changed again. We hear about 'the old rock' or 'the good rock' being 'mined out'; and all of that comes about for very valid reasons.
Translucent stones though, I have come across about 6 different 'types' - they all seem to wind up taking things to the same place though. There are differences in feedback, look, etc. But stones at that level of density seem to just peak similarly enough where the end results are kissing cousins regardless of history.
There are most definitely many differences in qualities, or let's say personalities within the brands across the 1900s. Regardless of someone saying everything within their sample size is all the same, or all works the same, the fact is that across the many decades there have been changes in the types of stone and the grading of those stones. I've had more Norton/Pike than anything else but there has been a pretty significant number of Halls, Dans, War Eagle, Smiths, etc here too. All the brands show a pretty wide spread within each 'grade' of stone across the years of distribution. Halls was mining at Fancy Hill back in the early days, and they were taking some very special rock from there, but that vein is now depleted. Mining at that location continues, but the stone being excavated is not the same.
Dan's Washita from 20 years ago is not what you might find them selling today. His Translucent today is way different than it was long ago, totally different look. There's a lot I could get into with his Hard and True Hard stuff but I'd need to cross a line to detail it so I'll pass.
In general, since forever, large companies, old companies, vintage, antique, etc - Arks have always been sort of a mixed bag of tricks. My uncle was a ship builder, restorer, all wood ships and boats. Owned a boat yard, etc - when tuning up a plane blade, he would say things like 'gimme the 'hard hard' one. That means the black hard Ark, not the grey one. Both were "hard Arks' but the black one was harder. None of this is new news.
It's just a matter of how deep one wants to dig into it.
Norton's operations were big too. Arks were excavated from numerous veins at many locations. Certain 'strains' came from specific places, like the Rosy Red for example, only one quarry produced it, I would assume several veins were exploited. Hard and Soft Arks were dug from multiple sites, multiple veins, etc. That is one reason why a 1920s Soft Ark is not like a 1980s soft Ark and why the current Washita is nothing like a Lilly White.
I've dissected Nortons from the 20s through the 80s fairly extensively. I still do actually, just not at the volume I was doing 3-5 years ago. There are many many variations within each subset of grades, Soft, Washita, Hard, etc... The grading systems changed at one point and what was one thing at one point was then something else different later on. Veins ran out of material, and new veins were exploited in the same quarry and things changed again. We hear about 'the old rock' or 'the good rock' being 'mined out'; and all of that comes about for very valid reasons.
Translucent stones though, I have come across about 6 different 'types' - they all seem to wind up taking things to the same place though. There are differences in feedback, look, etc. But stones at that level of density seem to just peak similarly enough where the end results are kissing cousins regardless of history.
There are most definitely many differences in qualities, or let's say personalities within the brands across the 1900s. Regardless of someone saying everything within their sample size is all the same, or all works the same, the fact is that across the many decades there have been changes in the types of stone and the grading of those stones. I've had more Norton/Pike than anything else but there has been a pretty significant number of Halls, Dans, War Eagle, Smiths, etc here too. All the brands show a pretty wide spread within each 'grade' of stone across the years of distribution. Halls was mining at Fancy Hill back in the early days, and they were taking some very special rock from there, but that vein is now depleted. Mining at that location continues, but the stone being excavated is not the same.
Dan's Washita from 20 years ago is not what you might find them selling today. His Translucent today is way different than it was long ago, totally different look. There's a lot I could get into with his Hard and True Hard stuff but I'd need to cross a line to detail it so I'll pass.
In general, since forever, large companies, old companies, vintage, antique, etc - Arks have always been sort of a mixed bag of tricks. My uncle was a ship builder, restorer, all wood ships and boats. Owned a boat yard, etc - when tuning up a plane blade, he would say things like 'gimme the 'hard hard' one. That means the black hard Ark, not the grey one. Both were "hard Arks' but the black one was harder. None of this is new news.
It's just a matter of how deep one wants to dig into it.
I never want to ever lap another 10" Ark... 10x2 is easier than 10x3 but it's still too much work....
