No this was rushed, just throwing the edge on it to put teeth on it so I can split a half dozen logs while camping for 1 night. It was not put through any rigors that would be identified as sharpening OR honing by a sensible person. It just came out of storage, not my regular use axe, and was a cheap(semi disposable, as much as I hate the word) hatchet. Not even an actual axe, surely not coping down a tree with it. I probably have 100 pounds more of stone, a lot more knowledge to weild both blade and stone now as well so that also changes things a little as well.
Washita Thread. Show off, discuss, etc.
- Thread starter SliceOfLife
- Start date
@2bit_collie once im done with it, it'll be convex like most of my edc knives. Apparently I naturally slightly found them when scrubbing circles on a stone with a knife which makes for tricky work when I do circles on a razor or a French knife. I really have to pay attention or I ruin an edge and half the time my hands don't like to cooperate. I've had some that I hated only to decide to give them another try when I haven't put my hands through the wringer... and they turned out to be some of my favorites. Funny thing, that..
- Thread starter
- #603
- Thread starter
- #604
They look like they're both very fine. I bet you could take a good shave off one(or both) of those. I bet the second one will give you a shaving edge with spine leading strokes. The first one looks hard and fine, my favorite washita looks very, very similar on the surface and is very different than the others. Id wager it's much older, it's way softer and more aggressive than all my other. It's much finer too. I haven't played around to see if I can shave off it because I've been putting all iterations of steel I own to my jnats regularly but I might try one day. It ate this axe up like nothing. I'm not a timber man so I don't know the particulars but i was impressed. It's really hard steel so I just essentially put a micro bevel on it about the width of an average razor bevel. The axe was just a wedge(but would shave arm hair but not smoothly). It'll shave arm hair easily, smoothly and silently now.
Ppppppair of Pike No.1s before their sojourn in the degreaser. The larger 8" stone seems considerably finer than the 6" which feels like it'll have a very low SG.
As well as a lovely, happy thank you sticker, the large one also came with the most extensive boxing and wrapping I've ever seen. It was like breaking into Alcatraz. And much appreciated given the last couple of Washitas I bought on UK ebay got broken due to pisspoor packaging. Well played Rosalind, well played. I doff my cap.
As well as a lovely, happy thank you sticker, the large one also came with the most extensive boxing and wrapping I've ever seen. It was like breaking into Alcatraz. And much appreciated given the last couple of Washitas I bought on UK ebay got broken due to pisspoor packaging. Well played Rosalind, well played. I doff my cap.
Another few things cleaned up slightly. It was a bit difficult to tell exactly what these were as they were completely caked in grime, and a couple could have been synths. But we've got a couple of Washitas, and a Hindo at the bottom. 6, 7, & 8 x 2.
The middle Washita is a slightly unusual stone, be interesting to see how it looks after a full degrease...
The middle Washita is a slightly unusual stone, be interesting to see how it looks after a full degrease...
So earlier today I posted some pictures of a Herter’s Washita in the “nice old box“ thread
A little to my surprise, the oil was mostly on the surface, so after an overnight soak, things were pretty clean. So here is the initial reveal - quite a surprise to me!
Not sure if it will be the best Washita in my collection, but pretty sure it is the most beautiful. Not sure that I’ve ever seen any whetstone that looked like this. So I took a White #2 ajikura to it and in fact it did restore an edge that was just starting to go dull while generating some swarf. So not sure yet if it is a great whetstone, but it is at least not a piece of granite countertop disguised as a whetstone!
It has 2 good sides, though both could be a bit flatter than they currently are. The edges are a bit dinged up, though actually it looks like someone tried to chamfer the corners and just did a very uneven job.
The SG = 2.14, which is right in line with some of my other Norton Washitas. I forgot to measure the dimensions, but it is a nominal 6x2x1, it is coming in about 10% heavier than some of my other Washitas of that size and density.
Given the appearance, I will let it sit in the Krud Kutter a few more days and hopefully lap it next weekend.
A little to my surprise, the oil was mostly on the surface, so after an overnight soak, things were pretty clean. So here is the initial reveal - quite a surprise to me!
Not sure if it will be the best Washita in my collection, but pretty sure it is the most beautiful. Not sure that I’ve ever seen any whetstone that looked like this. So I took a White #2 ajikura to it and in fact it did restore an edge that was just starting to go dull while generating some swarf. So not sure yet if it is a great whetstone, but it is at least not a piece of granite countertop disguised as a whetstone!
It has 2 good sides, though both could be a bit flatter than they currently are. The edges are a bit dinged up, though actually it looks like someone tried to chamfer the corners and just did a very uneven job.The SG = 2.14, which is right in line with some of my other Norton Washitas. I forgot to measure the dimensions, but it is a nominal 6x2x1, it is coming in about 10% heavier than some of my other Washitas of that size and density.
Given the appearance, I will let it sit in the Krud Kutter a few more days and hopefully lap it next weekend.
Countertop is what I thought of too. It’s certainly unique.
Cool looking stone, Marty (@2bit_collie)!
So earlier today I posted some pictures of a Herter’s Washita in the “nice old box“ thread
View attachment 1497150
A little to my surprise, the oil was mostly on the surface, so after an overnight soak, things were pretty clean. So here is the initial reveal - quite a surprise to me!
View attachment 1497151
View attachment 1497152
View attachment 1497153
Not sure if it will be the best Washita in my collection, but pretty sure it is the most beautiful. Not sure that I’ve ever seen any whetstone that looked like this. So I took a White #2 ajikura to it and in fact it did restore an edge that was just starting to go dull while generating some swarf. So not sure yet if it is a great whetstone, but it is at least not a piece of granite countertop disguised as a whetstone!
The SG = 2.14, which is right in line with some of my other Norton Washitas. I forgot to measure the dimensions, but it is a nominal 6x2x1, it is coming in about 10% heavier than some of my other Washitas of that size and density.
Given the appearance, I will let it sit in the Krud Kutter a few more days and hopefully lap it next weekend.
The couple of these Calico stones that I have are both really good. They're a bit softer than the P-N type Washitas and will do the same kind of coarse work, but don't quite have the range to finish as fine. Excellent stones nonetheless, and as you say - extremely pretty. Nice pickup!
.(Your one there may be different obviously, but that's how mine are).
So earlier today I posted some pictures of a Herter’s Washita in the “nice old box“ thread
View attachment 1497150
A little to my surprise, the oil was mostly on the surface, so after an overnight soak, things were pretty clean. So here is the initial reveal - quite a surprise to me!
View attachment 1497151
View attachment 1497152
View attachment 1497153
Not sure if it will be the best Washita in my collection, but pretty sure it is the most beautiful. Not sure that I’ve ever seen any whetstone that looked like this. So I took a White #2 ajikura to it and in fact it did restore an edge that was just starting to go dull while generating some swarf. So not sure yet if it is a great whetstone, but it is at least not a piece of granite countertop disguised as a whetstone!
The SG = 2.14, which is right in line with some of my other Norton Washitas. I forgot to measure the dimensions, but it is a nominal 6x2x1, it is coming in about 10% heavier than some of my other Washitas of that size and density.
Given the appearance, I will let it sit in the Krud Kutter a few more days and hopefully lap it next weekend.
Wow I never would of guessed that stone was hidden under the grime! Such a surprise reveal and looks fun to sharpen on.
Depending on the seller, those calico stones, or “strawberry ripple” as I like to call them, were more often sold as Soft Arkansas than Washita. As Cotedupy said, they are more friable than the average vintage Washita, but usually quite fast.So earlier today I posted some pictures of a Herter’s Washita in the “nice old box“ thread
View attachment 1497150
A little to my surprise, the oil was mostly on the surface, so after an overnight soak, things were pretty clean. So here is the initial reveal - quite a surprise to me!
View attachment 1497151
View attachment 1497152
View attachment 1497153
Not sure if it will be the best Washita in my collection, but pretty sure it is the most beautiful. Not sure that I’ve ever seen any whetstone that looked like this. So I took a White #2 ajikura to it and in fact it did restore an edge that was just starting to go dull while generating some swarf. So not sure yet if it is a great whetstone, but it is at least not a piece of granite countertop disguised as a whetstone!
The SG = 2.14, which is right in line with some of my other Norton Washitas. I forgot to measure the dimensions, but it is a nominal 6x2x1, it is coming in about 10% heavier than some of my other Washitas of that size and density.
Given the appearance, I will let it sit in the Krud Kutter a few more days and hopefully lap it next weekend.
I have a 10” that I like as stone #1 when I am putting a hybrid edge on a kitchen knife.
Great looking stone! I do have a Dan’s Soft Ark that looks something like that.
So here is a question: How do you positively identify a stone as either a Soft Ark or a Washita? Dan’s openly admits that to them “washita” is a low SG (< 2.2) Arkansas stone. I’ve seen other stones labeled as washita that also appeared very similar to the Dan’s Soft Ark. But my Smith’s and Norton/Pike Washitas definitely appear a bit different.
It is a debated grey area, where Washita end and SA start. I think a lot of it is/was marketing. Dans does it by SG, but the stones that are sold today with the name Washita seem to be different to the ones from many years ago, which are not mined anymore, AFAIK.
Vintage/antique Washitas tend to be harder and less friable. They cut fast like a soft Ark with pressure, but with light pressure are capable of quite a fine finish, making them a very versatile, one hone stone.
Last edited:
As David said - this is a big and blurry subject, and drawing hard distinctions might be a bit futile. If we take your stone above for example; it was sold as a Washita, though most people here would call it a soft ark because it's a little different from the old Pike-Norton Washitas, and yet 150 years ago it would have been called a Ouachita - there was no such thing as a 'Soft Arkansas'.
To put things in quite simplified terms, and bearing in mind all of these things exist on spectrums... the way that Arkansas stones cut is a function of two things - hardness and porosity. How hard the stone is affects how fine it will finish, how porous it is influences its speed.
Your stone is likely to be quite porous and quite soft, it will be a faster stone that finishes coarse. A hard ark by comparison is less porous and harder (duh), making for a slower, finer stone. The best Pike-Norton Washitas are both highly porous and relatively hard, giving a stone that is fast and can finish fine.
This is a slight simplification because if a stone is soft that will also make it faster, and the porosity doesn't matter so much. But if a stone is hard then its porosity is what influences how quick it is.
And NB - things can get further confused in that older Pike-Norton 'Soft Arkansas' stones, are the kind of rock that many companies today sell as Hard Arkansas.
[The above is just my take, others may disagree].
These type seem to cut faster when they are friable but not finish wire as fine. They are great stones.So earlier today I posted some pictures of a Herter’s Washita in the “nice old box“ thread
View attachment 1497150
A little to my surprise, the oil was mostly on the surface, so after an overnight soak, things were pretty clean. So here is the initial reveal - quite a surprise to me!
View attachment 1497151
View attachment 1497152
View attachment 1497153
Not sure if it will be the best Washita in my collection, but pretty sure it is the most beautiful. Not sure that I’ve ever seen any whetstone that looked like this. So I took a White #2 ajikura to it and in fact it did restore an edge that was just starting to go dull while generating some swarf. So not sure yet if it is a great whetstone, but it is at least not a piece of granite countertop disguised as a whetstone!
The SG = 2.14, which is right in line with some of my other Norton Washitas. I forgot to measure the dimensions, but it is a nominal 6x2x1, it is coming in about 10% heavier than some of my other Washitas of that size and density.
Given the appearance, I will let it sit in the Krud Kutter a few more days and hopefully lap it next weekend.
Thanks David and Oli and @Empire straights
So trying to take it a step further - We often talk about Arks in terms of hardness, and also in terms of Specific Gravity, but the latter is really a measure of density, not hardness. I know from woodworking that there is actually a separate test for hardness, is there for minerals as well? I assume since people don’t talk about it, its not as easy to perform as a SG test. But now on to my main question.
For Arkansas/Washita stones, is it a good assumption that any mineral content that makes it less hard would also make it less dense?
Where this is coming from is that clearly, increased porosity will lower the SG of an Arkansas stone. For some novaculites (e.g. Llyn, Idwal) I understand that impurities actually raise the SG. But you never seem to hear of an Arkansas stone with a SG > 2.65 = Quartz. And stones with SG > 2.6 are usually considered finishers. So my thought is that Ark/Washitas, to the extent that they are not quartz, contain dense materials. But its not necessarily correct. After all gold and lead have very high densities and they are both very soft.
If the above assumption is correct, then that would say that the value of SG is that it gives a good indication of speed since a stone with SG = 2.2 clearly has either a good amount of porosity, or a decent percentage of softer material, which might contribute to it being friable. In both cases the stone would be fast and coarse. But if the lower SG is due mainly to porosity, then it is possible that the stone will also be fine when light pressure is used, correct?
If true the fact that porosity and softness both have a similar impact on SG explains why SG can only give some idea of how a stone will work but in the end the only real test is to rub a piece of steel against it!
Thanks,
Marty
So trying to take it a step further - We often talk about Arks in terms of hardness, and also in terms of Specific Gravity, but the latter is really a measure of density, not hardness. I know from woodworking that there is actually a separate test for hardness, is there for minerals as well? I assume since people don’t talk about it, its not as easy to perform as a SG test. But now on to my main question.
For Arkansas/Washita stones, is it a good assumption that any mineral content that makes it less hard would also make it less dense?
Where this is coming from is that clearly, increased porosity will lower the SG of an Arkansas stone. For some novaculites (e.g. Llyn, Idwal) I understand that impurities actually raise the SG. But you never seem to hear of an Arkansas stone with a SG > 2.65 = Quartz. And stones with SG > 2.6 are usually considered finishers. So my thought is that Ark/Washitas, to the extent that they are not quartz, contain dense materials. But its not necessarily correct. After all gold and lead have very high densities and they are both very soft.
If the above assumption is correct, then that would say that the value of SG is that it gives a good indication of speed since a stone with SG = 2.2 clearly has either a good amount of porosity, or a decent percentage of softer material, which might contribute to it being friable. In both cases the stone would be fast and coarse. But if the lower SG is due mainly to porosity, then it is possible that the stone will also be fine when light pressure is used, correct?
If true the fact that porosity and softness both have a similar impact on SG explains why SG can only give some idea of how a stone will work but in the end the only real test is to rub a piece of steel against it!
Thanks,
Marty
Looks right to. I've got some that are very soft but still very fine. They are faster and have greater range because of the friability but with a light touch are much finer than my harder ones.Thanks David and Oli and @Empire straights
So trying to take it a step further - We often talk about Arks in terms of hardness, and also in terms of Specific Gravity, but the latter is really a measure of density, not hardness. I know from woodworking that there is actually a separate test for hardness, is there for minerals as well? I assume since people don’t talk about it, its not as easy to perform as a SG test. But now on to my main question.
For Arkansas/Washita stones, is it a good assumption that any mineral content that makes it less hard would also make it less dense?
Where this is coming from is that clearly, increased porosity will lower the SG of an Arkansas stone. For some novaculites (e.g. Llyn, Idwal) I understand that impurities actually raise the SG. But you never seem to hear of an Arkansas stone with a SG > 2.65 = Quartz. And stones with SG > 2.6 are usually considered finishers. So my thought is that Ark/Washitas, to the extent that they are not quartz, contain dense materials. But its not necessarily correct. After all gold and lead have very high densities and they are both very soft.
If the above assumption is correct, then that would say that the value of SG is that it gives a good indication of speed since a stone with SG = 2.2 clearly has either a good amount of porosity, or a decent percentage of softer material, which might contribute to it being friable. In both cases the stone would be fast and coarse. But if the lower SG is due mainly to porosity, then it is possible that the stone will also be fine when light pressure is used, correct?
If true the fact that porosity and softness both have a similar impact on SG explains why SG can only give some idea of how a stone will work but in the end the only real test is to rub a piece of steel against it!
Thanks,
Marty
Umm... well the classic one is the Mohs hardness scale which is done by seeing what something will scratch and what it gets scratched by. Silica / quartz has a Mohs hardness of 7; it will scratch minerals below that, but not those above, which will scratch it.
That doesn't massively help us with natural whetstones though, because it doesn't give an indication of how hard the structure of the stone is. A soft ark and a translucent can both be effectively considered to be 100% silica, but the trans is more novaculite-y, with a tighter, firmer, cryptocrystalline bond. Which makes it less friable, even though the Mohs hardness of their mineral composition is 7 in both cases.
I'm sure there are standardized tests for friability, which might involve how quickly something can be abraded by a particular substance. What loss of weight is experienced after five minutes on a diamond plate at consistent pressure, type thing.
As I said, it's probably best to think of all Arkansas stones (and other novaculites) as being 100% silica, with the hardness of the stone's structure being a separate property. But even apart from that - no this probably isn't a good assumption to make, because silica isn't particularly heavy, especially for how hard it is.
Little bit o' googling and these are the 6 most abundant minerals in the earth's crust, the first number(s) are SG, the second number(s) are Mohs. You can see that most of the others are heavier than silica, while not being as hard.
Feldspar: 2.6 / 6
Silica: 2.65 / 7
Pyroxenes: 3-4 / 5-7
Amphiboles: 2.9-3.6 / 5-6
Micas: 2.76-3.2 / 2.5-4
Olivene: 3.2-4.5 / 6.5-7
Yes, this is precisely correct.
It can get slightly muddied in terms of old Washitas, because you can get very porous but non-friable stones that are still astonishingly quick with SGs around 2.3 - 2.35, and then finish exceptionally fine because they're hard too.
But yeah - what you've said there is basically exactly right in terms of how I perceive / understand things.
Last edited:
