just got a translucent Arkansas.

[theycallmefix]

Man, does that make a difference. I know that a lot of people hone much finer, but I was using an old barber hone before and actually got good results.

The Arkansas I have is tiny, but I'm definitely looking for a bigger one.

I really like the natural stones. It seems like the man made stones are winning out in poularity, but I'm stuck on my Arkansas.
I am thinking about lapping film though. I'm not sure I need it that sharp, but the difference between the barber hone and the translucent Arkansas is very noticeable.

 

[Soldierdan]

I just figured out that same information. I got one in a box of random hones, lapped it, and honed on it. Its amazing. What kind of oil do you use?

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[Brianskeet]

I did a little honing on my translucent Arkansas just yesterday. Wonderful edge.

 

[PapaFish]

How fine have you lapped your stones? Mine is at 200 grit, and needs to go way further. I am planning on polishing it as best I can. The edges I get are sharp and smooth, but I am hoping for SHARP and SMOOOOOTH once it's lapped and broken in. Yes, the more they are used, the better they get .

 

[gumbo]

Yeah, whoever started the community down this line of thinking that Arks are not good finishers or not good for razors in general...that was just a bad call.
I love my edges of my trans ark. And they are quite smooth to boot.

 

[Soldierdan]

Yeah, whoever started the community down this line of thinking that Arks are not good finishers or not good for razors in general...that was just a bad call.
I love my edges of my trans ark. And they are quite smooth to boot.

+1

I found a Washita Oilstone that I may have to try as my bevel setter. If only I had something for in between that I could replace my coti with (gasp), then I could have a complete Arkie progression.

 

[PapaFish]

To get a Washita to really remove metal, it has to be freshly lapped. I lapped mine to 220 and it cut good and strong, and removed a good size chip from a wedge, and after that amount of honing it settled in and started to cut much slower, and more fine, ending with maybe a 7K finish that was technically shavable (not comfortable, but shavable). If you followed that with a Black Arkansas to bridge up to the Translucent, you would be set.

 

[PapaFish]

Yeah, whoever started the community down this line of thinking that Arks are not good finishers or not good for razors in general...that was just a bad call.
I love my edges of my trans ark. And they are quite smooth to boot.

I recently got some Arkansas Stones, and before flattening them, I figured I would finish a razor on the translucent, just to see what the "as it came to me" surface was like. This is a new, unused stone from a reputable vendor. It took a known good edge (8Kish) and backed it down to 6 or 7K. It would no longer shave without lots of irritation. If I used that as my only test, I would say Arkansas Stones didn't work for razors. BUT, I knew going into it that I would need to lap them up, and to allow a bunch of time for it to get done. I am still working on getting them flattened all the way (they were NOT flat when I got them), and although the translucent is only flattened at 200 grit, it is already producing shavable edges on razors. After I get it all flattened, I will be taking it up to a high shine. Hopefully that, plus a bunch of time honing, will give me a much sharper, even smoother edge.

 

[Alum of Potash]

Arkansas and Washita stones are lots of fun to work with, and there seems to be a lot of varying information as to their relative ratings and use. I have two Washita stones: a Pike's Lily White and a Norton no. 1. The Lily White does have a "self-masking" quality, as PapaFish describes. The trick there may be to keep one side freshly lapped, and let the other smooth. Ditto for the rest of the gang as well. The Norton no. 1 remains coarser in comparison, and is perhaps the best bevel setter I've ever used.

Most of the Arkansas stones I've used have come from Dan's. They grade their stones as follows from coarse to fine:

soft/medium;
hard;
true hard = translucent;
black.

The higher price for the translucent is due to its rarity, not because it is harder or finer (the true hard is the same, but has streaks, diminishing its value).

 

[SliceOfLife]

Translucents are the highest specific gravity possible. Black CAN be as high as a translucent, but in my experience, only black translucents are. Not sure why Dan's grades blacks as above translucents, and I recall a review a few years back of the currently operating mines, saying that only one's "surgical black" grade was on par with their translucent grade, and that there was no reason to buy a black from the other mines (I forget which mine had the good blacks, I believe it was Hall's). The recommendation was to AVOID black arks from the other mines as they were testing to be noticeably inferior to translucents (which were relatively consistent).

edit: Hall's were the only surgical blacks found to be as good as Trans, and Hall's and Nortons Trans were found to be superior to other mines Trans.

I can't speak directly about true hard except to say that there was no such thing as a translucent arkansas in the past. Hard arkansas WERE translucent. The current "Hard" grade would be sold as mediums in the past if they were even bothered with. I've never come across a labeled hard ark from more than 50 years ago that wasn't translucent. So I would be suspicious about all these new grades the seller claims are "just as good" as the only grade that people bothered selling back when it was more plentiful.

 

[PapaFish]

The Washita stone I have is a Pike Lily White. I would keep one side lapped at 200 and let the other be smooth BUT the (very worn) label is glued to the back. This is what keeps me from using solvents and such on the stone to try to remove old oil. The label may not mean much value wise (since I never plan to sell it), but it does mean something to me.

I bought from Natural Whetstones. The surfaces of the stones were not lapped flat (not close), and are not smooth when they came. 200 grit is a HUGE step up in the surface appearance. I got all 4 stones, Soft, Hard, Black, and Translucent Black. I am planning on playing with all the stones, and will post my findings on B&B. The Soft and Hard are really really hard! Just saying. I don't think they will be dishing out, at least not with the number of razors that I have been honing. The Translucent Black sings when tapped, none of the others do. I am hoping that the Black will be a good bridge to the Translucent Black, but haven't gotten them all flat enough to play with a full progression. I am also hoping that I can get a good shaving edge off the Black, and who knows, maybe even off the Hard.

 

[Gamma]

The debate over which Ark is best/ finest! SB or Trans, has gone on forever, and it'll probably keep going on forever.
Personally, I think it's better judged with a stone-to-stone comparison/evaluation.
I have a SB Ark and I love it.

 

[Steve56]

+1 Gamma, but although I have fine Arkansas, I much prefer JNats for their cutting speed. One of my first JNats was a dark CKTG Ozuku, classically hard and fine, not exactly a recommended JNat starter stone. My initial reaction was "Huh, a black SB or translucent Arkansas that cuts."

Cheers, Steve

 

[Steve56]

No, all JNats are water stones and I used it as recommended.

Does that make a difference? I'm truly interested.

Cheers, Steve

 

[Soldierdan]

I think he means with the Arkie... Could be wrong though, I tried a JNAT once, and couldn't figure it out.

 

[Alum of Potash]

No, all JNats are water stones and I used it as recommended.

Does that make a difference? I'm truly interested.

Cheers, Steve

Sorry, I deleted my post in editing, as I was being a bit facetious. I don't have much experience with jnats, so I can't speak to these, but if a stone is really hard, it'll resist penetration by oil. You mentioned your jnat reminding you of a trans. or black Ark. so I thought it might be hard like these (although jnats are normally used with water and slurry stones), there being a recent thread on how to remove oil from a jnat of all things. My experience has been that if one side of the trans. or black Ark is kept freshly lapped, it'll cut, although perhaps not as fast as you would like. I always use my Arkansas stones with oil, and the soft ones (that absorb oil), I soak in oil for three days in advance to saturate them. Other stones I have used with oil are a vintage Yellow Lake and a Vosgian stone ("brown Thuringian"). The Vosgian stone is very nice, although I use it more or less as a barber's hone at the end, since 3-6 laps will do the trick there and it risks to wreck the edge otherwise.

 

[Steve56]

Nope, Japanese natural stones aka JNats. They're water stones only.

I think he means with the Arkie... Could be wrong though, I tried a JNAT once, and couldn't figure it out.

 

[Soldierdan]

I gotcha, I thought he was asking if you were using oil on the Arkie. I was pretty sure oil on a JNat was a nogo lol

 

[SliceOfLife]

The debate over which Ark is best/ finest! SB or Trans, has gone on forever, and it'll probably keep going on forever.
Personally, I think it's better judged with a stone-to-stone comparison/evaluation.
I have a SB Ark and I love it.

The difference is that SB is just a term. Translucent actually is an observable trait to the stones. And people have known for a century or better than translucence in an Arkansas is effectively a guarantee of a certain density to the stone.

Some SB's are reported to be around the same density as translucents... but some aren't. When you buy a sight unseen SB, you're gambling. You could get a stone as dense as a trans, or you could get one significantly less dense. A telling thing if you glance at Dan's website. They list "true hard", "Surgical Black", and "translucent" arkansas as all having a specific gravity of 2.5+. Odd that there's no distinction to them despite their claims that black stones are even denser than trans. Their own grading disagrees with their claims. More problematic is the fact that 2.5 isn't an accurate Specific gravity for a trans ark. I've never heard of someone measuring under ~2.7 on one. I've seen people measure 2.85-2.95 regularly. I've also seen someone measure a vintage black hard with the slightest bit of translucence on one side at 2.65-2.7. Using an extremely conservative rating of 2.5+ on a trans ark seems a pretty easy way to claim that your stones with less demand and less value are as fine or FINER than the stones that you can't mine enough of... pretty good marketing. Doesn't properly inform the consumer, though.

 

[theycallmefix]

I just figured out that same information. I got one in a box of random hones, lapped it, and honed on it. Its amazing. What kind of oil do you use?

[/URL][/IMG]

Don't laugh.
I use olive oil. It's handy, since I cook with it, and it cleans up well.