[Bart]

Originally Posted by PonderingTurtle

As for proper double blind experiment it would be pretty hard to do. You would need identical razors, and randomly assign each razor to any given shave, and make sure no one involved with gathering the data knew which one was which.

We have purchased 8 new and identical "Double Arrow" Razors. I have removed the smiles on all 8 of them, because honing a smiling blade is more likely to suffer from slight honing inconsistencies.
Then we divided those 8 in two groups of 4. We choose 4 different honing paradigms. I randomize the first group, hone them, and hand them to Chris, together with the used hones. He then hones the group of razors that I will test-shave with. We compare, without knowing which razor was honed with which paradigm, 2 razors per test shave: n°1 with n°2, next n°3 with n°4, n°1 with n°3, n°2 with n°4, n°2 with n°3, n°1 with n°4. And then again. Over a period of 12 shaves, each razor is used 6 times. We use a standardized assessment sheet, judging several performance points. Only after finishing the complete test run, we reveal to each other the used honing paradigms.
Does that sound blind enough to you?
Our findings on the two first experiment runs have been surprisingly consistent. (the third experiment is still going on)

[blaireau]

Bart, an excellent experimental design! Please give us the results as soon as you can.

[hoglahoo]

Originally Posted by Bart

Our findings on the two first experiment runs have been surprisingly consistent. (the third experiment is still going on)

Bart, would you mind directing me to those results?
And are you and Chris proficient at shave quality consistency? I have the ability to seemingly go through the same shaving prep and process each morning with the same equipment and yet get different results each time!

[Bart]

Originally Posted by blaireau

Bart, an excellent experimental design! Please give us the results as soon as you can.

The details being in the original thread, the conclusions so far are:
1. For finishing with water only, there is very, very little difference between coticules, both in speed as in the resulting edge.
2. A Belgian blue with slurry is a good and meaningful mediator between a DMT1200 and a coticule with water.

Perhaps pretty obvious, but we felt like starting with basic things, and take it from there to more controversial methods.

3. Not entirely confirmed, because the tests are still running: [DMT1200 + 50 laps on blue with slurry + 100 laps on coticule with water] versus [DMT1200 + 50 laps on blue with slurry + a secondary microbevel (2 layers of tape added to the spine) of 20 laps on coticule with water]. The latter is noticeably keener than the former. There's no real difference that I can discern between the coticule-produced microbevels and one produced with the same method on my Nakayama.

Best regards,
Bart.

[Bart]

[quote=hoglahoo;268321]Bart, would you mind directing me to those results?/quote]
They're in a thread called "Scratch Pattern Pictures", in which I ended up posting about my experiments. Scratch pattern pictures and another post in the same thread: Scratch pattern pictures
All suggestions for further testing are more than welcome.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

And are you and Chris proficient at shave quality consistency? I have the ability to seemingly go through the same shaving prep and process each morning with the same equipment and yet get different results each time!

No, we are not. I like to think sometimes about us, straight razor shavers, as athletes: within certain limits, we have good days, better days and super days.
We do try to keep all things as constant as possible, though: for testing neither Chris or I change our stropping sequence, lathering brand and method, or other shaving variables. And we always compare 2 razors against each other, left side of face against right side of face. When test shaving, I only do two passes (one N/S and one S/N) and skip my usual 3th pass doing touch-ups and additional strokes where needed. I also do most of my test shaves on a 2 day beard, at night when I have plenty of time. If the circumstances are different, I enjoy shaving with one of my other straights.

Best regards,
Bart.

[Russel Baldridge]

That's great Bart! I'm looking forward to the results as well.

But it really surprises me to hear that you couldn't discern much difference in the edges from your various coticules. Granted that most of mine are very comparable as well, there are still two that define the boundaries; one is just slightly improving on the Belgian Blue and the other is up there with the Thuringers.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Chimensch

OK, here comes the "troublemaker" ... a lot of these hone discussions remind me of audiophiles arguing about equipment that reproduces frequency ranges that the human ear (or at least mine) is not capable of hearing.

Did you know that Shapton makes all their glass hones in 2 types? They have a separate line of hones specifically for white and blue steel which is used for traditional japanese tools and knives.

And it is true that natural stones all behave differently. Possibly.
I have 3 coticules which behave very differently.

[Bart]

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

It really surprises me to hear that you couldn't discern much difference in the edges from your various coticules. Granted that most of mine are very comparable as well, there are still two that define the boundaries; one is just slightly improving on the Belgian Blue and the other is up there with the Thuringers.

It surprised me too. Allow me to emphasize again that we're talking only about the use of coticules as a finisher without slurry. But even so, I can clearly see differences in the scratch patterns under 40 X magnification. But, when it came to actual shaving, neither Chris or I found any real difference in performance of the razors. Maybe someone else could (there goes the audiophiles analogy again) On the other hand, we were perferctly able to identify the razor that was only honed till the DMT1200 level in the first experiment, and the one that was only honed till the blue with slurry level in the second experiment.
With our third experiment (still going on, so it's really too early to tell much) it seems like minor differences are showing up in the feel of that secondary microbevel, but it is unconfirmed whether Chris notices the same differences (which might add some significance to that observation). Even then, the differnce seems only in the perceived keeness of the blade. I called my wife in the bathroom, for close inspection of both face halves after shaving one half with razor A and the other with razor B. She could not see, feel, smell or hear any difference.
Please note also, that so far, we've only compared three coticules, the same in each experiment.
I deliberately chose them out of my collection leaving out the most stray of the dogs.
Something I like about the secondary microbevel method, for the sake of experimenting is that,it really reveals the potential of the final hone. I would like to do another series with the same method, using 4 other stones. Maybe bigger differences will emerge from that.

There's even a more controversial thought that has entered my mind. Belgian hones cut with round particles. This leaves a rather gentle, wavy scratch pattern. Theoretically, if the blue has larger particles, it's possible that it produces a wider but also more shallow scratch pattern. If I understand correctly, the Belgians do the actual cutting with the segments of those rhomboid particles. A larger sphere also means less acute segments. This all leaves me wondering about the capablities of a microbevel from a blue with water only. Something I'm planning to try in the nearby future. If it turns out promising, I'll add one of those edges to the next "double blind" experiment. That's part of the fun of doing this: I can fumble a bit around with the hones, and if I think I'm on to something, it can be fully tested in the experiment.

Thanks for discussing this with me,

Bart.

[Russel Baldridge]

I totally agree with the secondary bevel thing. There's no use in polishing the entire bevel with a finishing stone if the microbevel is all that matters.

I could see that happening with the Blue, but there are other factors involved like wieght distribution over the abrasives etc., my guess is that since it doesn't really do well with a traditional bevel, it may not make a difference on a microbevel, but then again, you never know till you try.

[English]

Just for the record and I don't own one .............. but ........


The people who sell the Belgian coticule who should (?) know what they are talking about say that the size of the cutting particles on both the blue and the yellow are the same. There are more of the particles released for cutting on the yellow than the blue.

Also a slurry will release even more cutting garnets on both types of hone.

[PonderingTurtle]

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Audiophiles are an entirely different subject.

We're talking about stones that are used by people in varying fields of interest with entirely different goals in mind, but still come to the same conclusions about how those stones interact with various types of steel.

If the top woodworkers in the world, the most renouned knife sharpeners, professional chefs, and "experienced" straight razor honers all agree that stones from a given geographic area and geological layer have X or Y abrasive qualities, it's pretty safe to assume that they are not making it up, or being decieved by fanciful whims and wishful thinking.

Yes. But it is the claims about needing 12 step sharpening techniques, changeing stones repeatedly and the like. These at least here often seem to be taken as proveable statements.

Besides that, you can't make these kinds of claims without having tried the items in question for yourself. Not to be elitist or anything, but it's common sense that I could never judge whether an experienced coffee taster can trully discern the specific plantation in the specific country and region of growth of the coffee he is tasting, not to mention the factors of amount of roast that the beans had and how long they ago they may have been roasted in combination with how fine the grind was and the time that the coffee took to brew (if we're talking espresso). I could just never make that distinction until I amass a comparable repertoir.

But it is easy to say you can feel the distinction when you know what the distinction is.

Furthermore, what do any of us have to gain by playing into this conspiracy?

I am not claiming any conspiracy. I fully accept the people believe all their statements. So it seems likely that at worst people are honnestly mistaken.

So while you claim wine tasters can taste all kinds of things, and sure they can, but in wine there is also an incredible ammount of false claims as well. The only way to ever demonstrate such remarkable ability to make such perceptions is with well blinded testing.

With conformation bais you can not ever be sure that if you would have said a razor was a particular hardness and when tested you where right, well if you don't keep track of your hits and you misses you can not be sure if you are right.

[PonderingTurtle]

Originally Posted by Bart

We have purchased 8 new and identical "Double Arrow" Razors. I have removed the smiles on all 8 of them, because honing a smiling blade is more likely to suffer from slight honing inconsistencies.
Then we divided those 8 in two groups of 4. We choose 4 different honing paradigms. I randomize the first group, hone them, and hand them to Chris, together with the used hones. He then hones the group of razors that I will test-shave with. We compare, without knowing which razor was honed with which paradigm, 2 razors per test shave: n°1 with n°2, next n°3 with n°4, n°1 with n°3, n°2 with n°4, n°2 with n°3, n°1 with n°4. And then again. Over a period of 12 shaves, each razor is used 6 times. We use a standardized assessment sheet, judging several performance points. Only after finishing the complete test run, we reveal to each other the used honing paradigms.
Does that sound blind enough to you?
Our findings on the two first experiment runs have been surprisingly consistent. (the third experiment is still going on)

Sounds pretty good.

And by that I mean I could not come up with a better design with out useing even more people or resources.

[kevint]

Long thread: I didn't read of anyone saying this or that one is a bad finish stone. For me at least the secret is to have only a few different stones and only few different razors (3 finishers and 5 razors is my version of few) and get to know them well.

I think if you are going to evaluate a stone, you should shave off that stone. Going on to a paste only muddies the water.

[Bart]

Originally Posted by English

Just for the record and I don't own one .............. but ........


The people who sell the Belgian coticule who should (?) know what they are talking about say that the size of the cutting particles on both the blue and the yellow are the same. There are more of the particles released for cutting on the yellow than the blue.
Also a slurry will release even more cutting garnets on both types of hone.

As a matter of fact, I have asked this directly to Maurice Celis, mine engineer and proprietor of Ardennes Coticule. He said garnet size of the Coticule is within a range of 5 to 15 micron and the Blue Whetstone within 10 to 20 micron. Let's assume that the largest particles define the hone's fineness. That still leaves us with a 33% particle size increment from the blue to the yellow. One also needs to bring into account that there most likely are differences in agressiveness between the garnets.

At the same time, the speed difference between any blue with slurry and most coticules with slurry is so obviously big that they really are to be considered two different hones. A coticule can be put to use as a bevel setter, while that same task would take eons on a blue.

Bart.

[Bart]

Originally Posted by kevint

I think if you are going to evaluate a stone, you should shave off that stone. Going on to a paste only muddies the water.

A huge +1.

[Russel Baldridge]

Originally Posted by PonderingTurtle

Yes. But it is the claims about needing 12 step sharpening techniques, changeing stones repeatedly and the like. These at least here often seem to be taken as proveable statements.


But it is easy to say you can feel the distinction when you know what the distinction is.

I, for one, never claim that you need anywhere near that many steps. I've said that you need a bevel setting stone (around 1k), a medium stone that is fast cutting enough to remove the scratches from whichever stone you chose for bevel setting (for me, this is up to 8k) and a finishing stone that is fine enough to shave off of. I usually don't use more than 4 stones/hones from start to finish. And neither do most other guys around here. The fact that we may have more stones doesn't meean that they are necessary, just that at certain times, it's helpful to have different kinds of stone to work with. More is nice, but not necessary, I will never tell someone that they MUST have X stone to get a good shave (you can search these forums for the kind of simple, customized advice that I, and most of the other guys, give to folks with issues if you want).

Also, you haven't shown how one is supposed to know the distinction prior to using a stone. How am I supposed to be able to bias myself in favor of a stone that is unidentifiable? How am I supposed to bias myself in favor of one coticule rather than another? The fact is that there are differences that are detectable, maybe most are within a range of diminishing returns, but there are stones out there that perform very differently from others of the same compostion and location.

And you mentioned earlier that Audiophiles commit a logical fallacy when they claim that they can hear tones even if you can't. This isn't a logical fallacy, maybe an invalid proof, but not a fallacious argument. They do have more authority than the average person, you would have to show them using their expertise in a field that does not apply to them for that argument to be fallacious.

You may in fact be commiting an "undisputed middle" fallacy with this conversation, the premise that sensations are influenced by preconcieved notions has disputable elements between it and your conclusion that rock-hounds are mistaken in their assessment of natural stones because of that bias. You'll have to resolve those elements before your case is air-tight.

Anyway, I don't intend to make this into an "I'm right and your wrong" conversation, I've acknowledged that you are speaking from a truthful basis and that it may be a factor in some cases. But you have, thus far, not shown how it happens to the extent that you are claiming.

[PonderingTurtle]

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

And you mentioned earlier that Audiophiles commit a logical fallacy when they claim that they can hear tones even if you can't. This isn't a logical fallacy, maybe an invalid proof, but not a fallacious argument. They do have more authority than the average person, you would have to show them using their expertise in a field that does not apply to them for that argument to be fallacious.

I would really dispute that. It is saying that someone who has studied homeopathy for years knows more about medicine than the average person.

You are totaly ignoreing that your perceptions are bias. THis is shown by the audiophiles well, but it is a constant. This means that if you want to make statements that X is better than Y, such baised methods of determining it are very poor, something you still do not admit.

It is something that effects all perception. This is the problem that people claim that animal studies of homeopathy prove that it works, because animals will not be subject to their perceptions to create the placebo effect. This is wrong because the placebo effect also effects how people observe the animals and change their enterpretation of the events. This is why people sell water to spray into a pets water to releave their pain.

All perceptions are subject to such bias. This is why in any serious science the sort of subjective statements being used here as evidence are known to be useless for proving a claim.

[hoglahoo]

Maybe the razor itself is just a perception. Why don't we just perceive our faces as bbs each morning? And why don't we perceive others' objections to our perception as agreement to ours?

No, this thread hasn't been hijacked. That's just your biased perception