[sebell]

I've noticed that the Shapton Glasstones have a significantly higher tendency to load up
with steel than naturals such as Belgian Blues, Coticules, and Japanese finishing stones.

Since they also cut so fast, I can notice small amounts of steel (in an x-pattern mostly)
after only a few razors. I'm hesitant to break out the lapping plate after only several
razors since these are fairly hard ceramic stones. I've had some success with cleaning
the stones using the following method (as directed by Spyderco for their hones):

- On a wet stone, deposit a fairly generous amount of abrasive powder such as Comet
- Using a plastic scouring pad, rub the stone in a circular fashion until visibly clean
- Repeat if necessary

Keeping the stones surface free of deposits in this manner should prolong periods
between lapping, but then again, many have said that these stones wear much slower
than Nortons so more frequent lapping may be feasible.

Does anyone else perform anything similar on their stones (Shapton or not)?

Regards,

- Scott

[Chris L]

The instructions I have with my Shaptons say don't use soap or detergent for cleaning.

You're right, they cut so fast, it's swarf city very quickly. The higher grit stones (6, 8, 16K) clean pretty well with just a cloth rubbed on the stones under running water followed with a very generous rinsing to ensure to lint stays behind. That's what I've found.

Now the lower grits.....I refresh them quite often. They're a bit more porous and after not much honing are gray with swarf. I've found though that drawing a pencil grid and refreshing only until the grid is gone, the coarser stones are not as clean as new. They can still have a dull color. I don't think this is a problem because I think the dull that's seen is swarf that's in the recesses of the stone's surface rather than the surface. I figure what doesn't come out after a thorough rinsing probably won't be flushed out with a bit of water during honing to potentially work against the honing process.

Chris L

[jwoods]

i have the 2000 grit i bought to set bevels, takes way too long as well as getting dirty fast, i use a 600 grit diamond plate under running water to clean it, i cant seem to set a bevel with this stone for crap, i dont know why shapton doesnt want you to use detergents on these hones maybe it will break the bond between glass andceramic im guessing over time

[Chris L]

Originally Posted by jwoods

i cant seem to set a bevel with this stone for crap,

Bummer. What kind of razors are you trying to set bevels on using the 2K? vintage restos needing quite a bit of work? How many passes have you done on a razor trying to set the bevel on the 2K?

Chris L

[kevint]

I usually just wipe them off under running water with my fingers. It also helps to find ways to use the whole surface. As well spray it clean if it "blacks out" while honing, which of course sounds like a lot of swarf for a razor...just sayin'
--
I don't have a 2000 but one would imagine it'd set a bevel fairly easily. Do you have enough water?

[kaptain_zero]

I keep meaning to drag out my fake Nagura stone to see if it will clean up the surface of my Shaptons. It should... after all it's only loosely bound fine grit and rubbing the slurry on the surface of a Shapton hone should clean it promptly.... but ACK, as it's not a $300 GDLP so it will probably ruin any chance of accuracy in sharpening!

2k is about the finest hone you could use for "sharpening", anything finer than that is polishing. If you need to remove a fair amount of steel, rather than just tweaking a slightly dull razor you'll probably want to drop back down to 1k or even 500 and work your way back up. You can't equate hones made of different materials just based on the grit rating.... diamonds are very aggressive when new and widely spaced but will slow significantly as they wear in. Shaptons with their tight packed ceramic particles will tend to load up sooner and may cut finer than a comparable diamond hone if you are comparing grit for grit but they ARE aggressive hones that will cut very quickly.

Regards

Christain

[kevint]

I have to say I disagree with your distinction between sharpening and polishing Kaptain zero. the 8000 shapton is cutting steel and thinning the edge. I have few finer stones and feel the same can be said for them.

or it could be that polishing is hard for me to define

[Russel Baldridge]

We generally refer to the higher grits (1k and up) as polishing grits because the actual edge width doesn't get significantly finer after that.

I've recently been thinking that this kind of notion can be taken as far down the scale as 300 or 400 grit. I can get an edge to cut hair at those grits and if the edge is thin enough to grab hair, it can't possibly get that much thinner, so everything from there on up is polishing the edge into a smooth, even, bevel that can be used for a comfortable shave.

The higher grit stones are definitely removing metal, but the term sharpening looses it's meaning once the edge meets at that single line, from then on you are honing, or polishing, out the irregularities.

Correction: the Verhoeven sharpening experiments document shows an improvement from about 3 microns edge width at 200 grit (from one high ridge to another, not accounting for the valleys that are closer together) to 1 um EW at 1000 grit, to 0.5 um EW at 8000 grit, to 0.35-0.4 um EW after stropping with CrO pasted leather strop. So an increase in sharpness of at most 3 microns can be expected after the initial bevel is set. To me, an improvement of 0.003 mm isn't sharpening, per se, but then this is just a difference in terminology.

[JimmyHAD]

Perhaps I am bring apples to a discussion of oranges but I have the Shapton Pro series. I like the 1 & 2K very much. I am not so fond of the 5 and 8K. The 12, 15, and 30 are really good for polishing an already sharp edge. If I had it to do over again I would not have gotten the 12 as the 15 is close enough.

My stones don't load up too quickly. The 1 & 2k do load up more quickly then the finer grits but that is to be expected as I am using a bit of pressure setting a bevel or honing out micro chips. On the higher grits I am using almost no pressure. Lapping with the GDLP is easy. No problems with the plate yet (knock on wood) I rinse the stone when I am through with it and if I think it needs it I give it a going over with a nylon bristle brush under running water. No soap. Not saying soap is bad just that I haven't found it necessary.

Not to argue the point as I am a relative newbie at the fine art of honing razors to scary sharp but one of my main honing mentors says that setting bevels on a 1 or 2k is the way to go and sharpening ends on a 4k. Anything above that is polishing to improve an already sharp edge. That is if I understand him correctly.

[kevint]

I tried to account for a difference in terminology. To me polishing refers to an aesthetic value. True, polishing metal removes material as well but the intent is different. polishing is to create clarity/ sharpening is an attempt to create nothing. - the zero edge

Of course we are talking micrometers, however, imho a reduction of 1/2 and greater is substantial no matter the subject.

I guess you could say I'm splitting hairs, but isn't that the point.

[Russel Baldridge]

This discussion could really use it's own thread, but it seems there are only three of us really interested in it ATM so...

The edge width figures from the Verhoeven document were measured as a maximum width from one peak to another, on what looks like a zig zagging line. The valleys of that zig zag are much closer together than the 3 um, or even the 1 um, measurement (and especially if diamond abrasives are used).

So there is still a sub micron edge at those lower grits, it's just out of alignment and mostly unusable in that condition.

(One could also make a case that sharpening stops where a usable edge is obtained for the intended cutting media i.e. a pocketknife does not need the edge that a razor has.)


As for cleaning stones, I rinse my stones off with water. Hones (artificial stones), on the otherhand, (ceramic but not Shapton) require periodic scrubbing with a stiff nylon bristled brush under running water, or a good lapping; mine are cheap so lapping is usually the preferred method.

[gssixgun]

Here are some of the things I do and I haven't had a problem with build up on the Shaptons or the Nortons...
I hone in 10 lap sets so every ten laps I dunk the stone swish it with my fingers and then reverse the direction of the stone (spin it) so that each 10 laps I am honing on the opposite side of the stone, I just don't let the swarf build up at all.....
Yes the Nagura stone will clean the Shaptons, the slurry is not needed though, so dunk it and rinse it (IMHO)
Using this system I hone 10 razors then lightly lap the stones, and I mean lightly it takes maybe 10-20 seconds per stone to clear the grid lines....

As to sharpening vs polishing it has always been my belief that stones break down this way
Under 1k = that's a problem razor
1k-2k = Bevel setting stones
3k-6k = Sharpening stones
7k-9k = Polishing stones
10k and up = Finishing stones

That's my story and I'm sticking to it

[PonderingTurtle]

Originally Posted by kevint

I tried to account for a difference in terminology. To me polishing refers to an aesthetic value. True, polishing metal removes material as well but the intent is different. polishing is to create clarity/ sharpening is an attempt to create nothing. - the zero edge

The problem here is that useing your definitions, a stone can be both a sharpening stone and a polishing stone, because the difference lies in the the intent of their use not in any properties of the stones.

[kevint]

Originally Posted by PonderingTurtle

The problem here is that useing your definitions, a stone can be both a sharpening stone and a polishing stone, because the difference lies in the the intent of their use not in any properties of the stones.

Of course I am using my definitions, as those are the ones I perfer; others are welcome to their incorrect use of language as they see fit I understand semantics.

These terms are nearly interchangeable. But the way you suggest breaking it down by user intent is an entirely different subject matter, and perhaps least concise. As it may be your intent to sharpen a razor with the pummice and french polishing pad but it likely won't work too well... There are stones with inherent properties that make them far better at polishing than sharpening.

Further examples of the distinction of terms sharpen and polish:The name for Japanese sword sharpener is most often interpreted as "polisher" as his attempts are to produce clarity allowing one to see fine details of crystalline structure. A glass lens is polished, allowing one to see through it clearly. Sharpening is about creating crisp definition as in: The image detail has been sharpened. Similarly polishing urushi lacquer is often refered to as honing or sharpening as it should be flat, crisp - not washed over

Semantics. I can see your pov can you see mine

[Chris L]

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Under 1k = that's a problem razor
1k-2k = Bevel setting stones
3k-6k = Sharpening stones
7k-9k = Polishing stones
10k and up = Finishing stones

That's my story and I'm sticking to it

I like Glen's terminology.

Chris L

[Russel Baldridge]

We can break down the terminology into subsets with different labels (polishing, honing, refining, finishing, etc.), but the underlying goals are:

1) Form an edge
2) Make that edge usable for the context of the given tool

So, to me, sharpening ends at whatever grit you choose to use in forming the initial bevel and everything beyond that is polishing.

This kind of distinction is also important for using natural stones, as they don't have predetermined grit ranges that make them specific to any one purpose. The level of coarseness that is acceptable has to do with the intended purpose of the tool and nothing else.

[sebell]

Glen, I have experienced some minor loading after just 10 strokes on the Shapton
16k. After 10 strokes I go to the sink to rinse well, but just with my hand. Perhaps
a cloth or nylon brush would help keep the steel at bay. Just to clarify, what I see
after a few razors is very subtle -- I generally have to look closely and hold the
stone to the light to see the glint of the steel.

Regards,

- Scott

[PonderingTurtle]

Originally Posted by kevint

Of course I am using my definitions, as those are the ones I perfer; others are welcome to their incorrect use of language as they see fit I understand semantics.

These terms are nearly interchangeable. But the way you suggest breaking it down by user intent is an entirely different subject matter, and perhaps least concise. As it may be your intent to sharpen a razor with the pummice and french polishing pad but it likely won't work too well... There are stones with inherent properties that make them far better at polishing than sharpening.

Further examples of the distinction of terms sharpen and polish:The name for Japanese sword sharpener is most often interpreted as "polisher" as his attempts are to produce clarity allowing one to see fine details of crystalline structure. A glass lens is polished, allowing one to see through it clearly. Sharpening is about creating crisp definition as in: The image detail has been sharpened. Similarly polishing urushi lacquer is often refered to as honing or sharpening as it should be flat, crisp - not washed over

Semantics. I can see your pov can you see mine

Not quite, I was pointing out that any stone could be used for pollishing as well as sharpening by the definitions you are using.

Think about lapping compounds, they are all essentialy pollishing if they are 220 grit or .25 micron. But classifying stones over that range as all being polishing stones is also wrong.

[kevint]

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

We can break down the terminology into subsets with different labels (polishing, honing, refining, finishing, etc.), but the underlying goals are:

1) Form an edge
2) Make that edge usable for the context of the given tool

So, to me, sharpening ends at whatever grit you choose to use in forming the initial bevel and everything beyond that is polishing.

Nope not buying into that Russ. What I meant in response to Pondering Turtle regarding intent as a different subject is much what you are saying. Example: Depending on how you use a given stone you can produce a variety of finishes -that would be polishing.

It was said that beyond 2000 one is only polishing. As you pointed out, the dimension of the edge is continuously decreasing; you are trying to create a very thin, straight line of crystals- that is sharpening. I think if you looked up the definition what is referred to as "polishing" is perhaps the proper definition of honing

my list: 0-800+ ( erosion stone)
>1000-16000+ (cutting stone)
>20000-40000+(zen stone)

It's not even that big a deal, even to me. Even in the catalog fine stones are called "polishing" and "finish"

Ok now can we define: loading; glazing

[kevint]

Originally Posted by PonderingTurtle

Not quite, I was pointing out that any stone could be used for pollishing as well as sharpening by the definitions you are using.

Think about lapping compounds, they are all essentialy pollishing if they are 220 grit or .25 micron. But classifying stones over that range as all being polishing stones is also wrong.

Ahhh. We are in agreement afterall then oh wait maybe not...

yes, think about lapping compounds, what are they but prepared slurries? They can do both polish and sharpening. you can polish with compound on a soft yeilding cloth, but you cannot exactly sharpen.

You can't really say that calling a broad range of abrasives, sharpening or polishing wrong as both come in degrees, levels. which is really the whole point of my original comment. I'm sorry you cannot see the distinction.