Ok Eli. I went back some years. Hardly unknown but no where the popularity they now have.
Happy?
Happy?
Not impressed with my new arks yet....
- Thread starter Rustynail
- Start date
Chan Eil Whiskers
Fumbling about.
Oh, I could very well be. Not a stone historian. I have heard about Arks being used by barbers and such of yore, and seen 'em mentioned in old shaving books and such. My guess (and it is a guess) is straight razor honers have used whatever stone they could find if it worked. Local availability may have been a factor until recently.
I'm sure somebody knows. Hope they'll tell us.
Happy shaves,
Jim
As little as three years ago you would get some pushback for stating that you could get a shaveable egde from a Arkie. I got some from known honers but I knew I was right because I was doing it myself. So not too long a go. It made me better in the long run because I had to learn how to verify myself. Never looked back after that just try to share my experience, hopefully it could help someone.
Not too many years ago, I saw a guy post on another shaving forum that he was getting excellent edges from his arks, which he had been using for many years. An internet personality who is both a vendor and a "senior moderator" (simultaneously!) over there, and who has a bunch of honing videos on YouTube, told that poster that he only thought his ark edges were any good because he was unfamiliar with other, greatly superior finishers.
That was the day I stopped bothering to read that forum.
As has been said, the level of finish or dressing of the surface has soooooo much to do with how it will perform.
I have a surgical black primitive from Dan's that I ripped into 2 pieces(he did what?????), one for razors and one for pocket knives and such.
The wider piece is for razors and you can easily see reflections. After lapping each of them on loose SiC grit up to "fine" (from a HF rock polishing set of loose grit) the piece intended for razors I then lapped with my king 1k stone until the surface was uniform then some time on a norton 8k. That made for a very smooth surface that is working well for me as a finisher. Never any visible swarf whatsoever.
The pocket knife section creates swarf by just looking at it with a blade. Very aggressive but leaves a very smooth finish. Same stone, too completely different purposes based on surface prep. I'm pretty sure I could set a bevel on a razor with the pocket knife piece. I need to try that soon.
I have a trans ark also that sits somewhere in between these 2 in terms of its surface dressing. Almost a midrange to upper midrange type of surface.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
I have a surgical black primitive from Dan's that I ripped into 2 pieces(he did what?????), one for razors and one for pocket knives and such.
The wider piece is for razors and you can easily see reflections. After lapping each of them on loose SiC grit up to "fine" (from a HF rock polishing set of loose grit) the piece intended for razors I then lapped with my king 1k stone until the surface was uniform then some time on a norton 8k. That made for a very smooth surface that is working well for me as a finisher. Never any visible swarf whatsoever.
The pocket knife section creates swarf by just looking at it with a blade. Very aggressive but leaves a very smooth finish. Same stone, too completely different purposes based on surface prep. I'm pretty sure I could set a bevel on a razor with the pocket knife piece. I need to try that soon.
I have a trans ark also that sits somewhere in between these 2 in terms of its surface dressing. Almost a midrange to upper midrange type of surface.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Arks are a different beast from the time before. I talked to a Norton Rep years ago about the Lily White. He said they had the capability to produce those and any Ark of whatever density was desired. In fact Norton did a run of Lily Whites in the early 2000’s when there were numerous requests from wood workers and they just did not sell. There just no demand for them anymore since most markets have switched to synthetics.
I like Arks and there is a nostalgia to them but you have to be a little “off your rocker” , in a good way, to use them when there are so many alternatives available.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I like Arks and there is a nostalgia to them but you have to be a little “off your rocker” , in a good way, to use them when there are so many alternatives available.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you have a reference for this?
I have never seen a barbers manual reference Arks.
Yet Gamma does not subscribe to this thought and uses water - not oil?
Through my own experiments it DOES make a difference to me, but they are still so slow and the edge no better than other hones of much quicker action.
I gave up on them long ago.
They are certainly capable of producing very sharp comfy edges but so are many other hones at a much quicker rate.
Chan Eil Whiskers
Fumbling about.
I'll keep an eye out, but don't have a reference at hand.
Here's a reference of sorts, not what you have in mind probably, but I'm just seeing what I can find within B&B as I also watch football on tv. Link.
I hope I've not reported something I can't eventually (or much sooner) find. Worse would be something non-existent. I'll keep an eye out, but my library is very unorganized.
Happy shaves,
Jim
Here's a reference of sorts, not what you have in mind probably, but I'm just seeing what I can find within B&B as I also watch football on tv. Link.
I hope I've not reported something I can't eventually (or much sooner) find. Worse would be something non-existent. I'll keep an eye out, but my library is very unorganized.
Happy shaves,
Jim
My favorite coticule performs VERY differently when lapped with W/D paper vs diamond plate. In fact, I have to refresh it with W/D paper more than I need to actually lap it because it seems to lose its cutting speed the longer I use it...more like it is after lapping with diamond plate. I know that Keith's experience doesn't match mine and I can't explain that either.
I don't use my arks all that much either but I have found my SB and that coti give me better edges than I got from my jnat and escher both of which I sold as a result. To each his own.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
I guess I'm just not following along very well. Is the difference in experience, water vs oil or stone surface prep?
All I seen was a guide to Arkansas whetstones in North America.
The Art of Shaving and the Shaving made Easy are NOT in any way a guide for Barbers.
I believe it is the Art of Shaving (its one of these two) that suggest honing with oil or water is so the temper is not lost while honing a razor.
Really...…? How could you believe anything after that statement?
There are some that prefer water and others that prefer oil yet others like water soluble Smith's honing solution, Ballistol, WD-40, mineral oil cut with kerosene or any other concoction worth trying out. I personally use Baby Oil.
There's also debate about the impact of surface prep...for me it matters...others say no.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Keith just doesn’t burnish his stones to a high polish like many of us do. I tried his approach of keeping the surface of the stone more of a matte finish (on black and trans) and must say that it works better than extreme burnishing and they cut much faster as well. A well done ark edge is damn hard to beat IMO. Yes, they’re slower than synths and jnats, but that just means we get to hone longer.
OK thanks for clarifying that for me.
I manipulate surface of hard Arks too.
I concur with you and Keith on this, while my SB I use on razors does show reflectivity at a pretty low angle I never actually burnished it and it performs way better than when I had a more reflective burnished finish on it.Keith just doesn’t burnish his stones to a high polish like many of us do. I tried his approach of keeping the surface of the stone more of a matte finish (on black and trans) and must say that it works better than extreme burnishing and they cut much faster as well. A well done ark edge is damn hard to beat IMO. Yes, they’re slower than synths and jnats, but that just means we get to hone longer.
There had been comments in the past about how my experience with the coticule surface prep effect on performance didn't line up with his experience with any of the coticules he's ever owned or tested, but I can't argue with what my face tells me...and I can't argue with his experience either.
So much YMMV with this it's hard to know what is definitively and objectively true across the board.
I certainly don't have anything figured out except for what works for me at this point.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
NEW guy here
I think burnishing the stone is so ridiculous that I can not make sense of the reasoning. This is a fun hobby because there is so much pseudo B.S. that one can always find a keyboard battle to read!
While this is very true - it will cut faster, most will concede it does not leave the same results as a burnished surface.
I have tried both, I preferred the polished for finishing.
Then you’ve got it all figured out, Chris! All that matters is what works for you.
All of the above.
Honing medium dictates friction coefficient and it will change the game - not the stone, just the game. Surface condition is to be considered because these stones will glaze, and become inconsistent, and/or inefficient. They can also behave 'coarser' if they are sufaced 'coarsely' or finer if it's lapped to a higher degree. How well the user knows what their stone is capable of, in what circumstance, using which approach, is very imporant too.
Similar threads
