DMT diasharp versus Ultrasharp

M

maximus83

Joined
Nov 7, 2011
Messages
2,104
About to upgrade my diamond stones to get continuous surface ones. I'm looking at a set of several grits in either DMT, or the less expensive but popular Ultrasharp set. Cost is not the primary factor, so I'll get DMT if I need to. But seeing a fair amount of positive feedback for the Ultrasharp.

Has anyone use both, recently, and could give comparative comments?
 
I have the ultra sharp XL 400/1200 grit stone, it's fast and produces a very good edge but I don't like the diamond pattern on the surface. Mine rusted easily and some of the patches of diamond fell off. They will also catch the edge if you are making a slow stroke and damage the Apex.

Overall I think it's pretty good but I would buy the continuous surface next time. The 300-1200 combo stone might be a good buy.
 
Since I have the DMT duosharps already and have 4 of those grits covered if I need them, decided to try a slightly different combo of things that includes the Ultrasharp as part of the solution. I'll see how the Ultrasharp compares to the DMT's results in similar grits and post back to the forum about it. If the Ultrasharp doesn't work out, it's low risk, about $68 for the 2-sided bench stone and that includes a nice stone holder. I can always go back and grab the DMT diasharp continuous stones in coarse, and extra-fine.

* Atoma 140 (for heavy profiling, and for lapping AlOx stones)
* Ultrasharp II 2-sided 8x3" continuous surface 300/1200 stone. Details here.
 
FYI, in my experience the Ultra sharp plates are rated in JIS (my guess) not Mesh like the DMT plates. So, expect slightly coarser and more aggressive than the DMT plates.
 
Jason good point, but that's actually OK with regard to the grit. I wouldn't mind if the coarse side is in reality is somewhere between mesh 240 and 300, and the fine side is somewhere between 1000 and 1200. Slightly coarser is fine, for my usage, as long as it gets great cutting performance and edge retention.

I'll try some mix-and-match stone progressions and see how they come out. All of these assume the use of the Atoma 140 for profiling, if necessary.

* Ultrasharp (300) > Ultrasharp (1200) > Ptarmigan (6K JIS)
* Arctic Fox (400) > Ultrasharp (1200) > Ptarmigan (6K JIS)
* Ultrasharp (300) > Ultrasharp (1200)
* Arctic Fox (400) > Ptarmigan (6K JIS)

Really curious to see what difference the greater number of grits might make.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top