[Bart]

I'd like to share a few pictures of the scratch pattern that different hones leave on a metal surface.

I produced the pictures in such manner to maximize comparability.
I have often witnessed that with the slightest variation in lighting direction, a surface can go from seemingly scratch-less to a miniature image of the Grand Canyon.
It really is important that the light source remains at a constant inclination and angle, in relation to the magnified bevel. The striations have to run in exactly the same direction for each mounted specimen. And the photographed surfaces need to be in the same horizontal plane.

After thinking a bit about it, I took an aluminium T-bar, and cut off some pieces of about 1 inch. I placed them on the hones resting stable on two points of contact. I honed each one of them 20 laps on a different hone. I used almost no pressure. Because of the aluminium being so soft, on the two points of contact a bevel developed very quickly. I devised a method to place them under the scope in such manner that one bevel ended up perfectly horizontal, which allows for a clean focus at 40X magnification. (see attached picture)

The tested hones were: A DMT-E (1200 grit), a Belgian Blue Whetstone, a pinkish coticule, a yellowish coticule, a cyanish coticule, and a vintage coticule. I don't reveal which picture corresponds to which hone yet, to allow you gentlemen to make some educated guesses

Bart.

[English]

Well Bart,

Interesting experiment. Using aluminium is a good idea.

Looking at the depth of the grooves, I would put the photo's in the following order.
B1...E1....A2......D1/F2....C1

B1 being the deepest looking groves.

B1 would be the 1200 grit. E1 the blue and as for the coticules, I have no idea, but I think I might send three of them back and ask for my money back.

I agree with all you say about the lighting. You can do anything with photography. What I do trust is that since you have seen the real grooves at all angles and in all lights, the order you give is factual whatever the pictures tell us.

But be careful though, if members find they have the wrong coloured coticule, it will be your responsibility if they are found sitting outside their backdoors crying a muttering obscenities under their breath.

[Bart]

Originally Posted by English

Well Bart,
But be careful though, if members find they have the wrong coloured coticule, it will be your responsibility if they are found sitting outside their backdoors crying a muttering obscenities under their breath.

B1 is a lightning fast coticule with a pinkish colour. I would have never guessed that one myself either. For absolute clarity: I used all hones with water only, no slurrys raised for this experiment.
I find the results very surprising: if they show us anything, it is that there's more to the coticules than the estimate of their grit-sizes. The way a scratch pattern looks under a scope does not tell everything about how the resulting edge feels to the skin and performs at cutting whiskers.
I consider all those coticules great hones, and I'm pretty sure their capabilities fall within the normal coticule limits. I've always been compelled to use Chromium Oxide after that pink one though, and I think I may have found out why, doing this experiment.

And yes, you got the vintage coticule right... I think. It looks a bit more out of focus than the other pictures, but actually it isn't. It looks the same when looking through the tubes of that scope as well.

Thanks for having a look.
Bart.

[Joelski78]

Once again a nice experiment, love your scientific and experimental approach towards honing.

Just some thoughts:
I've looked at the scratch pattern pictures but found it really hard to distinguish the different hones with the exception of the first pic being the DMT 1200 (but I could easily be wrong on this one).

Without wanting to be a pain in the ###, the scratch pattern and light contrast in the first picture is very noticeable and the others are not which is why it gives me the impression that the others are out of focus (again, I could easily be wrong).

Looking at the microscope photograph I assume it is not capable of digital imagery and had to shoot the pictures thru the eye piece.

You mentioned the consistent light angle on the subject, as for I can see the light source is attached (magic arm/ tripod?) and there for not able to move freely.
But I am wondering how you managed to achieve this with the aluminium object lying freely on the glass support of the microscope?

Due to your experiments with light you might find this interesting. Although the pics in the book are a bit old fashioned,
this is a very good, if not the best book on lighting principles there is:

Light: Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting

Maybe there is updated version available.

[Bart]

Joël,

E1 indeed is the DMT 1200. You got it right.

You're also right that my equipment and setup leaves a lot to be desired. That said, I do think that my pictures are consistent enough for them have at least some significance.
The light source is mounted on a swivel-type of attachment. I adjusted it for a shearing lighti angle, to maximize contrast in the scratch patterns. I placed all the specimen free hand on the base plated. Due to the shape of the T-bars, and the way they are resting on it, my honed surfaces end up parallel with the base plate, at a fixed height. Of course there are tolerances, and some of the specimen are a tiny bit more honed down than others, so I had to readjust the focal point of the scope for each specimen. That is something that can be done very precisely with any quality stereo microscope, and I'm sure there was no noteworthy difference in focus between the different samples. The weak link is that my scope lacks a picture tube, and that I shoot with a very generic digital camera (a Canon Digital Ixus V2). I left the camera's settings untouched for all shots and allowed the lens to rest against the hard plastic of one of the scope's eye pieces. I shot all of them twice. There was only very marginal difference between any of those two pictures.

I think it's no coincidence that the DMT looks better focused. What the pictures don't really show, as opposed to looking with both eyes through the tubes and seeing depth, is that the coticule scratches are way more shallow than the DMT pattern. It looks to me as if the coticule leaves very rounded scratches with soft corners, while the DMT leaves a far more harsh, "squared" scratch pattern. After all, the coticule's abrasive particles are little spheres. That makes the DMT's pattern more something like "uuuuuuuu" and the coticules more like "~~~~~~"
It's a pity that I couldn't throw in a DMT-EE (8000grit) or a Norton 8K into the experiment, it sure would be very interesting to do a professional version of this experiment on a larger test group of hones in a real lab with all the right equipment.

Best regards,
Bart.

[kelbro]

I received a few samples of USB scopes at a trade show this past spring. This post has created an urge to do some scratch pattern comparisons. I've used the 'digital camera against the scope lens' method for too long .

[Bart]

For those gents who care to know, here 's the line up, ordered visually from coarsest to finest:

DMT 1200 (E1)
pinkish coticule (B1)
Belgian Blue Whetstone (F2)
cyanish coticule (D1)
yellow coticule (A2)
vintage coticule (C1)

Of course, the questions remains whether real life shaving tests would yield the same results.
To find out, I have set up another experiment:

8 identical Double Arrow razors will be divided in two groups of 4. I will hone group A and my straight shaving pall Kris will hone group B.

In both groups:

razor 1 will be honed on a DMT1200 only, till it passes our standardized version of the HHT (my youngest daughter was proud to donate a freshly washed strand of her thick, coarse hair for a just cause) It will be stropped 100 laps on clean leather

razor 2 will be honed, toe leading X-stroke, on a DMT 1200, till HHT positive, and next regular X-strokes on the BBW with water, till the underlying DMT pattern is completely wiped out (checked at 40X magnification, the toe leading X-stroke causes the underlying pattern to run in another direction, which makes it easier to see when the job is done)
It will be stropped 100 laps on clean leather.

razor 3 will be honed, toe leading X-stroke, on a DMT 1200, till HHT positive, and next regular X-strokes on the pinkish coticule with water, till the underlying DMT pattern is completely wiped out. It will be stropped 100 laps on clean leather.

razor 2 will be honed, toe leading X-stroke, on a DMT 1200, till HHT positive, and next regular X-strokes on the vintage coticule with water, till the underlying DMT pattern is completely wiped out. It will be stropped 100 laps on clean leather.

The razors will be labeled randomly and Kris and I will exchange groups, so that we won't know what we're shaving with. We'll use 2 razors during each test shave and fill out a performance data sheet (still under construction, but I'll post it for peer review here, before we 'll start using it). We will conduct 6 shaves in total, hence each razor gets to be used 3 times. Each razor will be stropped 20 on linen and 40 on leather before each shave. It will be dried and oiled afterwards.

After the last shave, we're gonna compare the date sheets and decide on the next round of experimental edges.

If you guys think we've missed something, please share. We're open for all suggestions.

Thanks for your attention,

Bart.

[JoshEarl]

Bart,

This is a really interesting thread. Promise me you won't do more than a few strokes when you realize you're shaving with the 1200-grit edge...

I agree with what you're saying about the V-shaped grooves of the DMT vs. the rounded grooves left by the natural hones. I think that's why a coticule or escher edge is more comfortable than an edge from an artificial hone. There's also a connection between the shape of the abrasive particles and how easily a hone creates a wire edge--I can't proove it, but I know it.

Keep up the good work,
Josh

[Bart]

Originally Posted by JoshEarl

This is a really interesting thread. Promise me you won't do more than a few strokes when you realize you're shaving with the 1200-grit edge...

Let's just hope my face is able to tell the difference. I secretly hope that it shaves really bad. Otherwise I might be publicly crucified by a posse of fine-hone owners.

[quote=JoshEarl;232101 I agree with what you're saying about the V-shaped grooves of the DMT vs. the rounded grooves left by the natural hones. I think that's why a coticule or escher edge is more comfortable than an edge from an artificial hone. There's also a connection between the shape of the abrasive particles and how easily a hone creates a wire edge--I can't proove it, but I know it.

Keep up the good work,
Josh[/quote]

Thanks for the encouragement. You make a good point about the wire edge. Being a typical coticule honer, I actually never met such a wire edge, and I do check all my edges under magnification.

For the moment, I'm tuning those 8 Double Arrows, to make them ready for the experiment (softening the hard edges of the tang and tightening those sloppy scales a bit). They all came new from Stamps22 with a smiling edge. I wonder if I should remove the smile first. Not that I don't like a smiling edge, but I do think they are more prone to uneven honing than razors with a perfectly straight edge. When honing a smiling blade, I sometimes have to go back to the hones after a test shave, because the heel or the toe is not entirely up to my (high) standards. With a straight edge, I can practically hone a razor and know I get consistent results every single time. What do you think?

Bart.

[Bart]

I decided to go ahead and remove the smile on those Double Arrows. I took me almost a full day, and heavy backache the next day , but I now have 8 razors that are easily "honeable" in my drawer, all HHT-positive after the DMT 1200.

I've also put a razor-performance-sheet together, that we can use to compare the differently honed razors. I call upon anyone reading and caring about this experiment to review the document (see attachement). I would like this thing to be as solid as possible, before we start using it.

Thanks for your attention,

Bart.

[joke1176]

Originally Posted by Bart

I decided to go ahead and remove the smile on those Double Arrows. I took me almost a full day, and heavy backache the next day , but I now have 8 razors that are easily "honeable" in my drawer, all HHT-positive after the DMT 1200.

I've also put a razor-performance-sheet together, that we can use to compare the differently honed razors. I call upon anyone reading and caring about this experiment to review the document (see attachement). I would like this thing to be as solid as possible, before we start using it.

Thanks for your attention,

Bart.

hey Bart, I really like your attached form. A great way to systematize things. Looking forward to the results.

[Bart]

We finished the first round of test shaves.

After some consideration we decided to hone the razors with the following progressions:

Razor 1: DMT1200 till HHT positive / 100 laps on clean leather
Razor 2: DMT1200 till HHT positive / 100 laps on Coticule A
Razor 3: DMT1200 till HHT positive / 100 laps on Coticule B
Razor 3: DMT1200 till HHT positive / 100 laps on Coticule C

All coticules were used with water only (+ a drop of dishwashing soap)
As explained before, there are 2 groups of 4 razors and they are randomized in order to do all shave tests without knowing which razor received which treatment. A standardized form is used to keep track of results. I've attached a picture of the Coticules.

The first results are not impressive. With exception of the DMT-edge, all razors performed more or less the same: they felt smooth to the face, rather promising with the grain, but not living up to that when going against the grain. There was a very mild pull. No post shave irritation. All within acceptable limits. The real downside was closeness. The razor left something like a 5'O clock shadow. (We decided up front to do one pass WTG and one pass ATG, and leave it there)
The DMT edge performed similarly, but with a bit more pull and some mild irritation. Closeness was the same. (I compared my well used DMT to a new, freshly broken in, DMT recently. The difference between those two was strikingly: The new DMT was much coarser, even after lapping a coticule with it and honing razors all night. Under magnification, both scratch patterns looked very different, we even wondered for a while if the new one had a defect.)

Trying the interpret the results, I'd say that the Coticule edges were all (equally) smooth, but they all lacked keenness. I suspect the edge width of the DMT being not fine enough for great shaving results. The coticules performed well on polishing the bevel, but not on refining it. I have banished the Belgian Blue to my woodshop some time ago, assuming it could not do anything that the Coticule couldn't do better. I suspect to improve the keenness of the above honing paradigm, we need to add some mediator between the DMT1200 and the coticule with water. Could be a coticule with slurry (but that would introduce the slurry-effect in the process), or a DMT-8000 (not in our possession), or the Belgian Blue (reported to display less of the slurry-dulling effect than his big sister Coticule). In a later phase we'll compare those three possibilities in one experiment, but for now, we are focused on the differences between the three Coticules.
Hence, for experiment 2 the honing plan is this:
Razor 1: DMT1200 till HHT positive / 50 laps on BBW
Razor 2: DMT1200 till HHT positive / 50 laps on BBW/ 100 laps on Coticule A
Razor 3: DMT1200 till HHT positive / 50 laps on BBW/ 100 laps on Coticule B
Razor 3: DMT1200 till HHT positive / 50 laps on BBW/ 100 laps on Coticule C

All coticules are used with water only (+ a drop of dishwashing soap). The Belgian Blue Whetstone is used with a slurry (milk-like consistency).

This second experiment is still in its early stages, but the first results show a very clear improvement in closeness of the shave, and also seem to reveal some differences between the coticules. It is too soon to draw any real significant conclusions, though.

regards to all,

Bart.

[Philadelph]

Are those custom razor boxes? I'd like to see more of those! lol

[Bart]

Yes, they're custom. Just a solid block of Merbau, with 4 deep pockets for the razors. Finished with a quick coat of yacht varnish.
They're made in a few minutes with a stationary chain mortiser.

I could make them for you, if you like.

Bart.

[Bart]

Series 2 of the hone experiments is closed.

I present the results in a PDF attachment.

The resulting edges are definitely better than the edges of series 1, that we only honed with 100 laps on a coticule with water after the DMT-E.
The 50 laps on Belgian Blue with slurry in between the DMT and the Coticule make a clear difference.
The Blue-only edge (1D) is slightly less keen and causes some irritation.
One of the three coticules might be performing slightly less, although the difference is not big enough to be of much significance. It might very well be that it's just a slower hone, and that 100 ultralight laps, simply is not enough .

All in all, these are certainly decent edges.
But we're not yet at the end of the scale, and we are setting up the next experiment, that opens horizons for better edges. The hyphotesis of this new experiment is that 50 laps on the Blue and 100 on the coticule is not enough to completely remove the coarser marks of the DMT. If, for the sake of science, you hone with a toe leading X-stroke on the DMT and with a normal heel leading X-stroke on the Blue and the coticule, it is fairly easy to see under magnification that the 50 on the blue and the 100 on the coticule are not enough to completely remove the scratch marks from the DMT (that run in the other direction for a better visual). Doubling the amount of work on the blue and the coticule, however better, still does not completely remove the DMT-scratch marks.
I occured to me that the easiest way to make sure a cutting edge is build by nothing else than the final hone, is to use Tim Zowada's tape honing method. So, after the DMT and the Belgian blue, I added a double layer of tape to each spine and performed 20 laps on one of the coticules per razor. This creates a small, but clearly visible (at 40X magnification) secondary bevel, carrying only the scatch pattern of the hone in question, and in therory also offering the maximum keenness that particular hone can provide.
I have compared two such edges during one shave, and the results are impresive enough to go ahead with a full experimental round. The score of the razors improved with about 4 to 5 points, going from 19/30 to 24/30. We'll see if more test schaving comfirms these promising results.

Together with the results of the closed series, I'm also attaching a picture of a secondary bevel edge.

Bart.

[FloorPizza]

I hate to revive a long dead thread, but when it's this good...

[joke1176]

Actually, I dredge this thread up and look at the pictures every few weeks. That and the TZ bevel pics...and the Microscope analysis of the Japanese hones.

[Bart]

Originally Posted by FloorPizza

I hate to revive a long dead thread, but when it's this good...

Well Sir, it's not dead, just dormant till Kris and I find time to analyze the test results on the last experiment.

Thanks for the encouragement,

Bart.