Sharpening stones

Marvin, I like the ceramic stones for the reasons you mention . They do cut slow but when I progress up to that level I want something to cut slow .
Hoosier, I agree with you on sharpening supplies . John gives good, consistent customer service .
Joe, Going from a Norton fine India (320 grit) up to a fine ceramic 1800 grit is a long jump so you do need something in between . But for many reasons I just wouldn't go to the Arkansas stone . The med. Spyderco ceramic (600 grit)is a good middle stone for many reasons . It also depends on what your going to sharpen . For all non-vanadium steels this is fine . DM
 
The fine Spyderco will work, but you might want to consider using micro-bevels. The grit difference is a large jump like DM said, but a micro-bevel can minimize the issue. There is a whole thread on them above.
 
Natural-Outlaw said:
After 45-years of knife sharpening, I havE forsaken natural stones and now use exclusively diamond plates. They can be used dry or with water. They simply need to be scrubbed with a bursh and water to unclog them. They cut faster and so not wear unevenly. They are just as good with high carbon as with various stainless steels. Ragnar at ragweedforge has a number of choicesl. They will serve you well.

yours truly,
the outlaw
Click to expand...

Thanks for that rec. His surgical black sure looks reasonable.
I too love mono diamonds fast and easy, my duosharp c/f treats me well
 
The Spyderco will be just fine. In fact if you have a Sharpmaker you already have a med and fine bench hone just place them in the base. In fact a good coarse hone or even the cheap black hone and the two Sharpmaker hones and your set up with all you really need. I have one of the cheap black two sided hones from Sears and it works great. Not as fast as my DMT XXC but just as fast as anything else and only costs $6 or so. A good coarse hone is the most important hone to have. Heck when learning to free hand sharpen I'd go as far as saying don't even use any other hone until you get a good edge with a coarse hone. If you don't get a pretty good edge on the coarse anything finer isn't going to get you any sharper.
 
cj65 said:
I start with DMT coarse, then Spyderco medium, fine and ultra fine ceramics. They all cut nicely. No oil, just rinse with dish soap and water when done, and let dry. I also built a jig at 12 degrees for a 24 degree inclusive, but will be building a 15 degree also, because the 12 sometimes is too acute, now that I have used that angle.
Click to expand...

I was doing some research and just found this old post. It seems like a really nice system to start with, but is the DMT coarse at 325 low enough for a damaged blade? Would it be too large of a jump to go from their 220 extra coarse to the Spyderco medium at 600? Which would I generally use more? I'm trying to decide if I need both the coarse and extra coarse or could get away with just one.
 
Fuori said:
I was doing some research and just found this old post. It seems like a really nice system to start with, but is the DMT coarse at 325 low enough for a damaged blade? Would it be too large of a jump to go from their 220 extra coarse to the Spyderco medium at 600? Which would I generally use more? I'm trying to decide if I need both the coarse and extra coarse or could get away with just one.
Click to expand...

The 'Coarse' 325 DMT is easily enough for that, especially in a bench-sized format. The upside is, that same hone will also be useful for general maintenance, and can leave a great, toothy working edge by itself, with little or no additional refinement needed. An XC will obviously be faster, but not really necessary for anything other than completely regrinding bevels on very large & thick blades. Otherwise, you might not find much use for the XC; I've almost never used mine, except in experimental 'tinkering' with them. The main thing that steers me away from the XC, most of the time, is knowing that it'll take a good amount of additional time removing and refining the deep scratches left by it. The 'accidental' scratches further up the side of a polished blade will really stand out.

If you're considering one or the other, get the Coarse first and use it for a while. You might not see much need for a coarser hone, after that.


David
 
Fuori said:
Is there a huge difference using the DMT 8" and 6" stones?
Click to expand...

Might depend on who you ask. My habits are geared mostly around hones of 6" or less, though I do have an 8" Duo-Sharp Coarse/Fine from DMT, and I like that one quite a bit. I also have the double-sided 6" x 2" Dia-Sharp hones in XC/C, F/EF, and like those just as much (and using them more often than the 8" hone). Unless you're doing heavy grinding on very big, thick blades like large kitchen knives or heavy fixed blades, the 6" hones will get a lot of work done, and quickly. Most refining tasks don't need nearly as much surface area or grinding time, so the smaller hones can still be very easy and convenient for maintenance sharpening. I do almost all of my upkeep sharpening on pocket hones of 4" or less, for perspective. Occasionally using my 6" x 2" Dia-Sharp hones feels almost like a luxury, by comparison. :)

Some people's sharpening habits and styles are geared around longer sweeping strokes on large bench hones, so their preferences might be geared in that direction anyway.


David
 
Last edited:
Thank you again, David. I bought the 2x6" stones, but was going to buy a few more and I wasn't sure if I'd regret not spending the money. After your reply I should be alright.
 
I want to buy a few more stones and could use some advice. Is the Spyderco Ultra Fine 2,000 grit and the Fine 1,800? If there is really only a 200 grit difference is it worth the money for them both? Is the only difference between the UF 2x8 and 3x8 the size?

I'd also like to try a DMT Dia-Sharp in the coarse 325 or the fine 600. Which would I probably use more?
 
Fuori said:
I want to buy a few more stones and could use some advice. Is the Spyderco Ultra Fine 2,000 grit and the Fine 1,800? If there is really only a 200 grit difference is it worth the money for them both? Is the only difference between the UF 2x8 and 3x8 the size?

I'd also like to try a DMT Dia-Sharp in the coarse 325 or the fine 600. Which would I probably use more?
Click to expand...

Most would use the 'Fine' (600) more often, in all likelihood. It'll work well as a regular maintenance tool, leaving a great working edge on it's own, and could be used in a pinch to repair edge damage as well, or even to re-bevel smaller or medium-sized blades. The Coarse 325 is obviously faster for major edge repairs or rebevelling; but, presumably you wouldn't be doing that as often. Might also consider the 8" Duo-Sharp (interrupted surface) Coarse/Fine combo; it's a very versatile combination, if you're considering these grits mainly for edge repairs or for building new edges on blades. IF you're considering keeping a bench hone available for bigger grinding jobs only, an XC could be ideal for that.

I haven't used the Spyderco UF, so I won't speculate on whether it's worth buying, or how it's spec'd grit rating compares to the others. I'm sure some others here could contribute more on that topic; might wait for them to chime in... :)


David
 
Last edited:
I looked at the Duo-Sharp and read a few topics on here about them. I already have a few of their 6" stones, so I was going to mix it up with the continual. I know the Duo-Sharps have a small continual sharpening area on them. Does that in any way cause problems going from the interrupted surface to the continual? Would I have to stop my sharpening stroke short of it?
 
Believe it or not I found a post from you from a while back about the grits. I'm not sure what it means that it's just lapped differently, but it seems to be very similar. It seems no one knows the exact grit, so I'm wondering if it's worth the $50?

Obsessed with Edges

Actually, all three of Spyderco's ceramics (medium, fine, uf) use the same abrasive grit. The medium uses a different binder material (hence it's different color). The rest of their effective 'grit rating' is solely dependent on the surface finish created during manufacturing (firing and surface grinding).

A couple of quoted comments from Sal Glesser, in Spyderco's own forum ( http://www.spyderco.com/forums/showt...257#post395257 ):

(from post #6 in the above-linked thread)

(...) All of the ceramics use the same micron size (15-25). the different grits are created by different carriers, different firing techniques and diamond surface grinding.

sal



(from post #10 in the same thread as above):

We've spent a great deal of time trying to determine grits for our stones. The manufacturer has also worked with us, to no avail. A guess seems to be best.

Most abrasives are measured by the grit size used in the matrix. Our ceramic doesn 't work that way. Grit size is constant.

We've tried to compare scratch patterns as Cliff mentioned and this is probably the closest, but nothing that we can say "This is blah blah". Then the Japanese water stones jump into the equation and suddenly there is whole new set of numbers.

So where we end up is:

Our diamonds are a 400 mesh (measureable). (600 on the Duckfoot)

Our gray stone is "medium". (Same material as fine but different carriers and heat treat).

Our fine stone is fine.

Our extra fine is a surface ground fine.


Last edited by Obsessed with Edges; 06-18-2013 at 06:46 PM.
Click to expand...

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...-the-Spyderco-3-x-8-ceramic-stone-need-advice
 
Fuori said:
I looked at the Duo-Sharp and read a few topics on here about them. I already have a few of their 6" stones, so I was going to mix it up with the continual. I know the Duo-Sharps have a small continual sharpening area on them. Does that in any way cause problems going from the interrupted surface to the continual? Would I have to stop my sharpening stroke short of it?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be any issues using the interrupted-surface, either with or without the continuous-surface 'pad' on the newer ones (my older Duo-Sharp didn't have that feature, and I've never missed it). It's occasionally been mentioned that some worry about snagging a sharp tip in the 'dots' on the interrupted surface, but good technique virtually eliminates that possibility (keep the tip oriented in a slightly trailing direction, opposite the direction of the sharpening stroke). I've never snagged a tip that way, and I use interrupted-surface hones much more often than the continuous ones. Even on a continuous-surface hone, a tip oriented in the direction of the stroke can 'dig in' on the surface and be damaged, if not careful; so it's always good practice to keep the tip 'following' the rest of the edge, so that never happens.


David
 
Fuori said:
Believe it or not I found a post from you from a while back about the grits. I'm not sure what it means that it's just lapped differently, but it seems to be very similar. It seems no one knows the exact grit, so I'm wondering if it's worth the $50?



http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...-the-Spyderco-3-x-8-ceramic-stone-need-advice
Click to expand...

Whether it's worth it or not, is purely subjective to the user. For my own uses, I wouldn't feel the need for a bench-sized UF for that higher degree of refinement or polish. Bench-sized hones in coarser grit are worth every penny for heavy grinding (surface area rules, for fast metal removal). But, if polishing is the goal, getting the earlier steps right with a tight sequence of grits will make the last step or two much, much easier, and finishing could be done with something simpler, like compound on a hard strop of wood or similar substrate (paper over wood, etc). At higher grits, I seldom have use for bench-sized hones anyway; I have the Spyderco medium and fine ceramics in the bench-size (purchased back in the early '90s), and I've almost never used them.

That quoted reference from Sal Glesser, about Spyderco's grit ratings, is part of the reason why I deferred to others in providing input about how they perform in actual use. Trying to gauge 'grit' of ceramics is tricky anyway, because the actual size of the abrasive particles used is often not nearly as important as how the hones are made (like sintered ceramic vs use of binders) or surface-finished (per Sal's description). Regarding the exact grit itself, Spyderco's Medium, Fine and UF all are made starting with the exact same grit stock; I think it's somewhere around ~15µ or so. Their use of different binders (for the brown/grey Medium) and individual surface treatments literally makes ALL the difference, in their hones.


David
 
Last edited:
I got the 2X8" Spyderco fine ceramic stone and sanded one side finer. It works well but I wouldn't recommend it for a new free hand sharpener. Heck, for a new hand sharpener I wouldn't even get the stone. I'd just go to the fine India level. Good luck, DM
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top