Reappreciation for my Charnley

[gumbo]

I know they've fallen out of favor lately, but I'm not exactly sure why.
I guess I bought into the anti-hype, but lately I haven't been using my Charnley much and it's been sitting on my dresser, looking all green and lonely.
I honed up a restored sheffield near wedge last night with a chosera 1k ---> 3k "sham stone ---> Rose coticule with slurry dilutions progression. It sharp, and certainly could be considered shave ready but for my tastes just wasn't there. I thought about a layer of tape with the coticule, which is what I usually would have done, or maybe 20 laps on the Y/G, but instead, on a whim I took it for a 100 lap ride on my 11" Charnley and BAM...the thing is laser sharp. No oil, just a bit of soapy water.

Yes they are awfully slow, but my god are they phenomenal when you have a good one.

 

[Gamma]

Cool - Charnwoods are real sweet stones.
So are Llyn Ids.

 

[Wid]

The Charney stone is my favorite natural finisher. I'll end up with another at some point.

 

[Brooksie967]

Pics or the hone doesn't exist.

 

[jpcwon]

Charnley's are the one finisher I've never laid hands on...I hear nothing but good things though, so I'll have to keep my eyes open for one!!

 

[Gamma]

Some are just gorgeous to look at, although many say the plainer looking stones are often finer.

 

[Brooksie967]

Some are just gorgeous to look at, although many say the plainer looking stones are often finer.

I've always drooled over the charns that have the red swipes through them. They're great looking stones.

 

[MileMarker60]

I personally like them a lot!
I think they fell out of favor once the price went crazy a few years back.
Now you can pick up one for a decent price.

 

[gumbo]

I realized I never posted pictures of the beauty. Here it is, in natural light. First dry, then wet.
View attachment 358608


View attachment 358609

 

[jpcwon]

very nice!!

 

[Brooksie967]

Oh yeah! Great looking stone! Dimensions?

 

[SliceOfLife]

There's nothing wrong with them. They're a solid oil stone that can put a fine finish on a razor. The "anti-hype" is because one or two people said they were their favorite stones several years ago, and they suddenly started fetching $300-500... which is insane. Now that you can get a decent sized one under $100, they're not so bad. I'd still take a nice old arkansas over one any day of the week. I will say this, they can be absolutely beautiful stones.

 

[gumbo]

There's nothing wrong with them. They're a solid oil stone that can put a fine finish on a razor. The "anti-hype" is because one or two people said they were their favorite stones several years ago, and they suddenly started fetching $300-500... which is insane. Now that you can get a decent sized one under $100, they're not so bad. I'd still take a nice old arkansas over one any day of the week. I will say this, they can be absolutely beautiful stones.

Both are novaculite AFAIK. But as with all novaculite there is likely a lot of variation in finishing ability.

Oh yeah! Great looking stone! Dimensions?

11 x 2.25 x 1.5

 

[Wid]

Beautiful rock

 

[Gamma]

Both are Novaculite but dis-similar in a couple other regards. If memory serves me correctly, they're generally softer and the SG is higher.
At one time - when the Charnwood stone was a premium imported offereing - there was at least one geological study that compared them and found the translucent Arkansas stone to be of a significantly higher quality.

All in all - stones vary and I'm sure there's been duds on both sides of that fence.

I love Charnleys - they're beautiful and very effective finishers.

I very nearly bought one a coupla weeks ago. I just lost sight of it and moved on to another shiney bauble.

 

[gumbo]

Both are Novaculite but dis-similar in a couple other regards. If memory serves me correctly, they're generally softer and the SG is higher.
At one time - when the Charnwood stone was a premium imported offereing - there was at least one geological study that compared them and found the translucent Arkansas stone to be of a significantly higher quality.

All in all - stones vary and I'm sure there's been duds on both sides of that fence.

I love Charnleys - they're beautiful and very effective finishers.

I very nearly bought one a coupla weeks ago. I just lost sight of it and moved on to another shiney bauble.

When you say it was found to be "higher quality" in what regard? Is it in the number of inclusions, etc.?
I know with the introduction of the Washita that CFs fell out of favor with woodworkers, but I think that's only because they are faster cutters.

 

[SliceOfLife]

If he's thinking of one of the two docs I've seen (old geological surveys if memory serves), they were from late 19th century and they said something to the effect of the Charnley existing as a good quality stone that can be used if an Arkansas is not available or too expensive. So my best guess would be that they were viewed as superior in general use by the sorts of people most likely to be using these stones at the time... which I'm going to guess were carpenters. A later doc made a similar mention of Llyn Idwal stones vs Charnleys (As Charnleys started to get rarer, they said the LI's were acceptable but noticeably inferior substitutes).

That said, while I agree that I've yet to find a CF that I'd prefer over my favorite Arks; I don't really know how much bearing the stones performance on carpentry tools has with our use of it on razors. Especially with novaculite stones that cut like a microplane rather than abrading like sandpaper, a lot of pressure (sharpening perhaps a plane or chisel) vs comparatively light pressure (a razor) is going to give very different results.



On another note, looking around for a Specific gravity comparison of novaculites, I found this gem. It appears to be a paper for a shipbuilding magazine. It talks a good bit of hones. Has a lot of nice ardennes and coticule pictures. One or two old thuri pictures too. Also has a very long rating chart for various hones putting Coticules at a step finer than Shapton 10k's, and including a Norton 15k (which I've never heard of before). Very interesting read if you're into this stuff. Has PAGES of technical details on coticules (which I've only skimmed so far).

http://bosq.home.xs4all.nl/info 20m/grinding_and_honing_part_1.pdf

And this one appears to talk more on Charnleys and Arks (haven't even looked at it past the summary yet).

http://bosq.home.xs4all.nl/info 20m/grinding_and_honing_part_2.pdf

 

[Gamma]

There were the papers from the geological society, and there was a separate comparison done by an individual. I believe the latter included razor honing endeavors, where the former was more general but did not exclude honing razors.
In several places of a few of those geological studies, razor honing was mentioned. It always seemed that it was a viable concern although not mentioned outright throughout the reports.

Although not qualified outright, I'd assume the notion of the Arks being more desireable has everything to do with the end results of sharpening efforts across the board. Sharpening razors were obviously a concern, albeit a minor one when compared to the entire scope of applications.

Personally - I don't think it's possible to generalize accurately here. Which is best would have to be based on specific examples.

Its like someone saying SB Arks are better polishers the the Translucents.

I've had Charnleys and Llyn Ids, great stones but I preferred my SB Ark.

 

[gumbo]

Thanks.
I actually just stumbled across a nice vintage ark this morning at a local antique shop (Norton 4x2 "Hard Arkansas Oilstone" Translucent)
It's in great shape (albeit small at 4x2), so now I'll have something to compare it to. Still no surgical yet, but that's on the list.