Is it an either/or thing? I think the specific gravity on both are the same. Dan's lists Translucent as Extra Fine and Black as Ultra Fine. I have a Black. Should I also own a Translucent?
Dan's Black and Translucent -- any reason to own both?
- Thread starter bmiller3230
- Start date
Unless it is for a collection and you are a completest, there is probably no good reason. They should produce much the same result.
I suspect that Dan rates the black as finer as a marketing thing, since he probably has more of that material available to him. He also charges more for the translucent, probably for the same reason.
I suspect that Dan rates the black as finer as a marketing thing, since he probably has more of that material available to him. He also charges more for the translucent, probably for the same reason.
Edges will be very close and if given 10 edges (5 from blacks and 5 from translucents) you would just be guessing on them. I would suggest getting a surgical black if getting something from Dan's (love his stones) just so you get a good size. When it comes to vintage I'd just grab something I thought looked cool. Feedback will also feel a little different.
I have a Translucent Black (blue/black) and a Translucent.
They both produce more or less the same results.
However, i like the feedback of the Translucent better.
I also like that i can see the swarf on the Translucent.
To me it seems like the my Translucent cuts a little faster. However, i have no way to objectively confirm that.
They both produce more or less the same results.
However, i like the feedback of the Translucent better.
I also like that i can see the swarf on the Translucent.
To me it seems like the my Translucent cuts a little faster. However, i have no way to objectively confirm that.
I’ve always liked collecting translucent stones from a hobby perspective but I’ll usually reach for the black for razor work.
The Dan’s translucent stones I’ve owned/used are a bit more coarse in cutting action than the black stones assuming the same surface prep (600# on both for example).
That said my 1st translucent I got from them years ago would really struggle to cut very much at all. It was like honing on an ice cube…
The Dan’s translucent stones I’ve owned/used are a bit more coarse in cutting action than the black stones assuming the same surface prep (600# on both for example).
That said my 1st translucent I got from them years ago would really struggle to cut very much at all. It was like honing on an ice cube…
Not all Black Arks are in the same class. Some black Arks are just plain old 'Hard Arks" with a lower density.
Assuming we're looking at the Translucent 'extra fine' and black "ultra fine'
They're both, theoretically, in the same 'quality' class, if that's what you mean. The 'extra fine' and 'ultra fine' designations are marketing, not a scientific reality. It's not like someone would need to do an XF to UF finishing progression.
Each stone should be judged on it's own merit. On one hand the translucent will have fewer impurities. On the other hand, the black may yield better edges for some users for any number of reasons.
There is more to the story than just specific gravity, many things can skew the numbers and affect the results.
I did many side by side comparisons with one of Dan's UF Black Arks and one of his Translucents.
After a while, I favored Dan's Translucent.
Comparing Dan's Trans to Preyda's Sugical Black - I kept the Preyda.
Give me 3 different stones though, and I might not wind up with the same color choice.
Assuming we're looking at the Translucent 'extra fine' and black "ultra fine'
They're both, theoretically, in the same 'quality' class, if that's what you mean. The 'extra fine' and 'ultra fine' designations are marketing, not a scientific reality. It's not like someone would need to do an XF to UF finishing progression.
Each stone should be judged on it's own merit. On one hand the translucent will have fewer impurities. On the other hand, the black may yield better edges for some users for any number of reasons.
There is more to the story than just specific gravity, many things can skew the numbers and affect the results.
I did many side by side comparisons with one of Dan's UF Black Arks and one of his Translucents.
After a while, I favored Dan's Translucent.
Comparing Dan's Trans to Preyda's Sugical Black - I kept the Preyda.
Give me 3 different stones though, and I might not wind up with the same color choice.
Not based on Dan's but I spoke with one of their competitors years ago and they said that THEY judged their "surgical Black" to be finer than translucent because it wore out saw blades faster.
I suspect Dan's ranking is likely based along similar logic.
In my experience black Arkansas doesn't tend any finer than Translucent. Both are as fine as stones get when they are high quality... and both can have flaws that reduce that. Those flaws are harder to see in black stones than translucent white ones... as such when buying black, it's usually good to buy from Dan's who are known to be very very good at QC.
When it comes to what the MARKET says... based on casually watching eBay/similar prices on stones:
$$$$
Labeled Vintage Translucent Black / Blue (Norton, Russell's, etc)
Unlabeled Translucent Black / Blue
Labeled Vintage Translucent White
Labeled Vintage Black (not translucent) ~~~~~ Dan's Translucent White
Unlabeled Translucent White
Dan's Black
Unlabeled Black
$
I extrapolate from that... the market feels:
Label's are the most important thing for value
Vintage >= Dans > Anything else Modern
Trans Black > Trans White > Black
Now that of course isn't necessarily all performance based... "Blue" or trans black stones are much rarer than trans white stones... which probably explains MOST of that price difference. And unlike with Thuringians where Labels mostly add value as "proof" of the stone.... with Arks... I feel they're mostly adding value for coolness or collectability. The only area where you might want a label as "proof" would be non-translucent stones (and of course the softer/washita flavors)
As such, probably the biggest drops in value are when you drop the labels (with blue unlabels being an outlier due to rarity)... and way at the bottom with unlabeled & not Dan's modern black stones where you see a BIG dropoff in value as the potential for quality/identity concerns actually matter (Dan's black on up, these worries don't exist).
The crazy thing is that the RAREST stones are probably labeled vintage black/white without translucence... relatively few stones made the cut to be sold as "Hard Arkansas" back in the day if they weren't translucent... but those don't seem to fetch any premium over their more common translucent varieties... typically fetching less in fact.
I've seen some GORGEOUS vintage norton Black arks that sold for pretty reasonable prices... but usually in smaller (4x2/5x2) cuts. My guess is to guys who want to display the boxes as much as the stones.
I suspect Dan's ranking is likely based along similar logic.
In my experience black Arkansas doesn't tend any finer than Translucent. Both are as fine as stones get when they are high quality... and both can have flaws that reduce that. Those flaws are harder to see in black stones than translucent white ones... as such when buying black, it's usually good to buy from Dan's who are known to be very very good at QC.
When it comes to what the MARKET says... based on casually watching eBay/similar prices on stones:
$$$$
Labeled Vintage Translucent Black / Blue (Norton, Russell's, etc)
Unlabeled Translucent Black / Blue
Labeled Vintage Translucent White
Labeled Vintage Black (not translucent) ~~~~~ Dan's Translucent White
Unlabeled Translucent White
Dan's Black
Unlabeled Black
$
I extrapolate from that... the market feels:
Label's are the most important thing for value
Vintage >= Dans > Anything else Modern
Trans Black > Trans White > Black
Now that of course isn't necessarily all performance based... "Blue" or trans black stones are much rarer than trans white stones... which probably explains MOST of that price difference. And unlike with Thuringians where Labels mostly add value as "proof" of the stone.... with Arks... I feel they're mostly adding value for coolness or collectability. The only area where you might want a label as "proof" would be non-translucent stones (and of course the softer/washita flavors)
As such, probably the biggest drops in value are when you drop the labels (with blue unlabels being an outlier due to rarity)... and way at the bottom with unlabeled & not Dan's modern black stones where you see a BIG dropoff in value as the potential for quality/identity concerns actually matter (Dan's black on up, these worries don't exist).
The crazy thing is that the RAREST stones are probably labeled vintage black/white without translucence... relatively few stones made the cut to be sold as "Hard Arkansas" back in the day if they weren't translucent... but those don't seem to fetch any premium over their more common translucent varieties... typically fetching less in fact.
I've seen some GORGEOUS vintage norton Black arks that sold for pretty reasonable prices... but usually in smaller (4x2/5x2) cuts. My guess is to guys who want to display the boxes as much as the stones.
Last edited:
I don't notice any difference from a translucent or black but the blue/black translucent blacks do seem a little finer to me. I've only ever used one and it's an A.G Russell pocket stone but it'll more readily wipe off that outer layer of skin with a little too much pressure. The other hard Arks don't seem to do it as bad. The edge those stones will put on a kiridashi or chisel is insane though. It seems smooth as other hard Arks but bites like it's got teeth on it even though it doesn't(that I can tell).
Worth having both for the sake of the hobby? You bet. Do you need them both? Nah. I have a Dans black, their trans, and their “true hard” and can be perfectly happy with any of them. Fun to collect though. Their True Hard variant can be quite the looker- I recommend.
For me, the answer was yes because I was obsessed 
. My hard black (ultra fine) and hard translucent (extra fine) are about the same, including their specific gravity.
Recently, I have been mostly using the black. No idea why - I am just into it.
Bottom line is Dan's hard black and hard translucent stones are excellent!
. My hard black (ultra fine) and hard translucent (extra fine) are about the same, including their specific gravity.Recently, I have been mostly using the black. No idea why - I am just into it.
Bottom line is Dan's hard black and hard translucent stones are excellent!
- Thread starter
- #11
I do love my Dan's Black. Part of that may be due to the fact that mine looks exactly like the Monolith from "2001: A Space Odyssey". And, though I do tend to be a coticule purist (I'm obsessed with the idea of using a single stone), I do sometimes take an already really good edge to the Arkenstone and am always amazed with the results.
I think I should just get over the one stone thing and include the Ark in my standard progression. I can't imagine getting an edge better than what the Black produces after a La Veinette. So I think the consensus is a translucent is not going to be better or even different.
Still, I've got several from Dan's including my Black, a Soft, and a Wachita. Might as well add a Translucent and a True into the mix just to see for myself... The Wachita and Soft get used for kitchen and pocket knives, BTW
I think I should just get over the one stone thing and include the Ark in my standard progression. I can't imagine getting an edge better than what the Black produces after a La Veinette. So I think the consensus is a translucent is not going to be better or even different.
Still, I've got several from Dan's including my Black, a Soft, and a Wachita. Might as well add a Translucent and a True into the mix just to see for myself... The Wachita and Soft get used for kitchen and pocket knives, BTW
That's the spirit bmiller. It must be done for scientific comparison for Pete's sake.......well, that's what I've always told myself anyhow. I'd like to have a Dan's Black and a Trans and a True, in hand to compare to each other and my lovely pile of vintage Arks.
I have more Arks than I need but not near as many as I want. HAD is bad man, I bought another Ark yesterday......I'll die poor...
- Thread starter
- #13
But you will be Rich in Arks..
Good question.
I own a surgical black Ark from Pinnacle and it has been putting some beautiful edges on my razors. So do I need a translucent or black Ark? And how do they differ from a surgical? Is there a difference or is it just marketing?
“I have a Black. Should I also own a Translucent?”
No, quality Arks in Translucent and Surgical Black are/can be very similar in performance. Vintage to new production may be a bit better, but with Hard Arks how a stone face is lapped and finished is more important than the color.
The problem with modern Black Arks is they are not all the same in terms of hardness and performance.
Ther are some vintage hard Arks that are a blend of Translucent and Black, they are Grey or with translucent streaks.
An Ark finished to 600 can perform very differently to one that is polished to 2k and burnished. So, you can “adjust” the stone face and the stones performance just by how the face is finished.
Once you do get your stone face dialed in for your technique and to the level of finish of razors you bring to the Ark, finishing on an ark is a no-brainer.
You will need to take a razor to a true shave ready edge, 8-12k prior to finishing on a Ark, Hard Arks are just polishers and will not remove material quickly.
You can still pick up Vintage Translucent in the wild for very little money. I recently bought a 6x2x1/2” vintage Translucent for $20 from an Antique Store, it produces stellar edges and required very little clean up. You can buy 2x4” slips for about the same money, a 4-inch stone is plenty of stone to finish a razor on, and is easy (er) to lap and finish, than a large hard Ark.
Bottom line, I doubt anyone could tell the difference between a Translucent and Surgical Black edge in a blind test, if the razor was properly honed.
No, quality Arks in Translucent and Surgical Black are/can be very similar in performance. Vintage to new production may be a bit better, but with Hard Arks how a stone face is lapped and finished is more important than the color.
The problem with modern Black Arks is they are not all the same in terms of hardness and performance.
Ther are some vintage hard Arks that are a blend of Translucent and Black, they are Grey or with translucent streaks.
An Ark finished to 600 can perform very differently to one that is polished to 2k and burnished. So, you can “adjust” the stone face and the stones performance just by how the face is finished.
Once you do get your stone face dialed in for your technique and to the level of finish of razors you bring to the Ark, finishing on an ark is a no-brainer.
You will need to take a razor to a true shave ready edge, 8-12k prior to finishing on a Ark, Hard Arks are just polishers and will not remove material quickly.
You can still pick up Vintage Translucent in the wild for very little money. I recently bought a 6x2x1/2” vintage Translucent for $20 from an Antique Store, it produces stellar edges and required very little clean up. You can buy 2x4” slips for about the same money, a 4-inch stone is plenty of stone to finish a razor on, and is easy (er) to lap and finish, than a large hard Ark.
Bottom line, I doubt anyone could tell the difference between a Translucent and Surgical Black edge in a blind test, if the razor was properly honed.
Yeah. a 6x2x1/2" vintage translucent or 5x2x1 unlabeled or a slipstone is probably the best deal these days... All can often be had for under $50...
In contrast a 6x2x1" modern translucent is probably a close to $200 stone these days.
Dan's Primative cuts can offer some good deals... but they are pretty rare to come up... I think you have to ask them to put you on the waitlist, give them your preferences for stone type and who knows when you'll get one...
I mostly stick to vintages because deals are still out there, especially on unlabeled and smaller stones/less common sizes (7x2" can often sell for less than half what an otherwise identical 8x2" would go for... oftentimes even less than you'll see 6x2" sell for).
But outside of those odd "cheap" examples it is no longer like Coticules where vintage stones (not counting Salms/old rock/etc really pretty/desirable stuff) are just insanely cheaper than modern ones (7x1.5" cotis still sell for WELL under $100 constantly on eBay, sometimes under $50... that's a $150+ stone from Ardennes).
A good, easy to identify 8x2x1" Translucent will typically go for $200-300, even without a label... and that's almost what a modern one costs.
In contrast a 6x2x1" modern translucent is probably a close to $200 stone these days.
Dan's Primative cuts can offer some good deals... but they are pretty rare to come up... I think you have to ask them to put you on the waitlist, give them your preferences for stone type and who knows when you'll get one...
I mostly stick to vintages because deals are still out there, especially on unlabeled and smaller stones/less common sizes (7x2" can often sell for less than half what an otherwise identical 8x2" would go for... oftentimes even less than you'll see 6x2" sell for).
But outside of those odd "cheap" examples it is no longer like Coticules where vintage stones (not counting Salms/old rock/etc really pretty/desirable stuff) are just insanely cheaper than modern ones (7x1.5" cotis still sell for WELL under $100 constantly on eBay, sometimes under $50... that's a $150+ stone from Ardennes).
A good, easy to identify 8x2x1" Translucent will typically go for $200-300, even without a label... and that's almost what a modern one costs.
Last edited:
Nice, you must have gotten a good one! I’ve tried a few and gone the other way, but that is how stones go.
@bmiller3230 I think you have heard a lot of unanimity that they will likely perform perceivably the same. It is rare for that many to agree on something here
. I also add that good flatness and surface prep can probably have a greater impact than selecting between the two stones you mention. I have to say that Dan’s do a pretty good job of having a ready-to-hone stone……but it doesn’t mean that you cannot make the surface a little more polished and/or burnished. Of the modern arks cut, I tend to prefer what I have received from Dan’s. And I have a big modern (overpriced) Norton trans here somewhere. While I expect little to no difference in shave results……I think the vintage stones are still nicer pieces of rock personally.
All three of those stones were good, objectively impossible to say this or that one was better or finer, or whatever. Between the two vendors, the higher end Arks are virtually identical at the end of the day. I'd bet a dollar no one could tell the difference in edges finished on any of them.
In this particular trio, I kept the Preyda based on, probably - equal parts gut instinct mixed with a feel preference. Maybe some nostalgia too, reminding me about the many awesome Hall's Pro-Edge stones that have traveled through here.
I have a Hall's Surg Black... which I think is what became Preyda? It's a great stone. It's 20 years old at this point, so practically vintage, but great rock.
Last year I bought a Pinnacle Surg Black... which I think is rebadged Preyda and it was that Dunsten rock or whatever it's called. Absolute garbage stone.
Last year I bought a Pinnacle Surg Black... which I think is rebadged Preyda and it was that Dunsten rock or whatever it's called. Absolute garbage stone.
