After using the Scary Sharp method of sharpening for many years, I am wanting to experiment with waterstones. Research, (and cost), have me believing that I can use a hybrid involving the use of both methods. Using sandpaper and a known flat surface, I have always been able to get a truely flat back on all new cutting blades. It’s the final honing that I feel lacks in my method. Therefore, I am looking at buying a Norton 8000.
Questions:
I have read several places where there is concern regarding the stones made in Mexico vs the USA. Does anyone have any experience regarding this?
Depending on where you get your information, I see the Norton 8000 listed as a 1.2 micron, OR a 3 micron stone. Can anyone straighten this out for me?
Thanks,
Doug
Replies
Closer to 3 micron I 'spect
I would recommend skipping the Norton stones and buying Shapton. I have both the Norton old/American stones and the Shaptons. This on line vender is top notch in my experience. Good price, ships fast, packs the stones super well. Has what I want in stock. Some silliness is keeping me from leaving a direct link here though it works on my end so go here then click on Hand Tools then Sharpening then Shapton Pro Stones or cut and paste the second link directly bellow
http://www.craftsmanstudio.com/index.htm
http://www.craftsmanstudio.com/html_p/Q!0P0000.htm
My thoughts experience etc in a novella :
http://forums.finewoodworking.com/fine-woodworking-knots/general-discussion/pro-sharpening-stone-info
The short story is :
Yes there seems to be some range in the grading systems. I have seen in various charts for JIS / Micron for an 8000 stone any where from 1 micron to 3 microns.
Shapton doesn't seem to have an on line info any longer, to quickly determine what they call 8000 in microns, though I once ran across it. There seemed to be more and better info on other sites about Shapton. I find that fairly common. For instance if I want to know some thing abut the specs of say . . . a Sony product I don't even waste my time at the Sony.com site. Not singling out Sony; I like their products it is just that most manufactures seem to have lame consumer product info sites.
Ok I was going to make this short . . .
The Shapton 8000 leaves a finer finish than the old (American ) Norton 8000
The Ice Bear brand 10000 stone leaves a less polished surface than either the Shapton or the old Norton. All this is an extremely subtle difference in any of these three stones. Edges produced by them all cut wood exceedingly well (assuming the edges have been prepared by using proper angles and coarser grits).
You can do pretty darn well in wood working with a 4000 or a 6000 stone and the 8000 may be over kill.
I go to 8000 and 15000 because I like to look at the polished blades.
I may be part raven (fascinated by shiny objects).
What about flattening?
Hi roc,
Thanks for the reply. I have gone to the links you listed, and for the slight price difference I believe the Shapton is the way to go.
Now, for the next issue....my budget doesn't include purchasing an expensive device to flatten the stone. Will I be able to use wet/dry sandpaper and my granite slab? I have seen it done before, but don't know what grit is needed.
Any thoughts or comments?
Thanks,
Doug
> Now, for the next issue....my budget doesn't include purchasing an expensive device to flatten the stone. Will I be able to use wet/dry sandpaper and my granite slab? I have seen it done before, but don't know what grit is needed.<
Oh yes the Wet / Dry will work. The diamond plate I use is 220 and 325 grit. The pink stone is 100 grit . The Shapton stones are a lot harder than the Nortons when it comes to flattening. Just takes longer to flatten but stays flat longer. Interestingly the most difficult/hardest stones to flatten are the natural Arkansas stones. In the same breath they don't sharpen the harder modern blades for beans so I don't recommend getting one.
The problem I foresee when flattening the Shapton (or other water stones ) on the surface plate with sand paper would be getting the slurry off the paper with out a big mess. Quite a bit of sand paper clogging grit comes off the stone when flattening it.
That is where being able to take a small and portable flatening stone to the sink to rinse off the slurry is handy. What I use is an extra coarse 10 inch DMT diamond stone and the pink aluminum oxide flattening stone with the deep channels for the removed grit to go.
The darn pink stones
http://www.japanwoodworker.com/product.asp?s=JapanWoodworker&pf_id=01%2E090&dept_id=13122
aren't flat so one needs the diamond stone
http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/dmtduo-sharp10diamondstoneextra-coarsecoarse.aspx
, which is very flat ( or maybe your Wet / Dry ) to flatten the pink stone. Your sand paper may be a good way to go if you can deal with the grit removal mentioned above.
I think it would be a bad idea to not use water and sweep or vac the fine dry grit; might be very unhealthy to breath this dust. The grit is so fine it may pass through your vac filter and go into the work shop air.
Do you know the trick of putting a few pencil lines lengthwise and cross wise on the stone you want to flatten so you can see where the high spots and low spots are? When all the lines are quickly sanded off the stone is flat. Probably apply the lines two or three times.
Hope this helps
If you are just starting out with waterstones
You might be better advised to try the King brand or similar. They are much cheaper than the Shaptons and cut faster. They are softer and will require more flattening but this is easily done and quick using your granite plate and some sandpaper. I also have a couple of Nortons (I have had for a while), don't know where they were made but I like them very much, they seem to be a better compromise between a hard and soft stone than the Shaptons. That said, I seem to always go back to my soft Japanese stones when sharpening.
In my opinion the shaptons are over rated and over priced. But you know what they say about opinions,........everybody has one, and you will get a lot of them when it comes to sharpening.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled