Hand techniques

[Brian]

Interesting that you ask because it's going to change very soon. After 15 years of sun tigers (800, 1000 and 6000) I'm receiving a Naniwa Snow White (8000) this week.

The sun tigers are fine in low grits, but the 6000 is a pita.

[Chris Hall]

Hmm, well, I would observe that given that you are using synthetic stones, jumping from a #1000 to #6000 or (#8000) doesn't seem efficient. The scratches from the #1000 would take longer to remove with a finish stone than if an intermediate stone were used in between. A three stone sequence is generally the most efficient, IMO.

A #1000-#2000-#8000 sequence would be a good choice. Just a suggestion.

I mention 'synthetic' stones particularly, as the particles which break off do not break down any smaller. Whereas if you were using a natural stone of around #4000 grit, then you could keep working the tool on the surface, working it on the slurry, which is gradually breaking down into finer particles, and achieve good results with a two-stone sequence.

Personally, I use a three stone sequence, with a Chō-Sera #1000 and #3000, followed by a natural finishing stone. I've tried various other arrangements, and have a bunch of other stones sitting around, but this gets the job done for sure and I've been happy with how well it works.

[Brian]

I will add a 3k Cho-sera to my next tool order, thank you for the suggestion. Hasn't been a problem that I can't remove the scratches, but they do take longer than preferred on backs.

My approach currently achieves a razor sharp edge and flat facets, but my 6k stone loads up straight away which drives me nuts when polishing a flattened back.

[Chris Hall]

(After reading Brian's post prior to it being edited...) Yeah, I'm not suggesting anyone obtain a natural stone or any other product - if that was conveyed it was unintentional. I encourage people to try a variety of stones or various types, as their budget allows.

I managed fine - no pun intended -without a natural stone for a long time. Before I got it I was following the #1000 and #3000 by using a Sigma Select II #6000 followed by a Sigma Power #13,000, a four-stone series. It worked great. You can get extremely good edges with synthetic stones.

The natural stone I obtained has certain appealing qualities, and now that I have it I find myself using it every time. It's an expensive investigation, but after the cash was spent I in no way find myself ruing the decision.

[Brian]

Sorry for the many edits!

Yes, my plan is to put some serious time on this finish stone before considering any changes in finish stones. I feel I need to put a year into this stone before I have a worthwhile opinion of it.

Natural stones appeal to me, but it's a rabbit hole I'm not inclined to run down just yet.

[Dennis]

I have a number of natural stones, but not ones that I consider finish stones. Long experienced woodworkers having used both natural and synthetic, will often say that natural stones have very appealing results for them. One thing to keep in mind when shopping natural stones, the appearance of the stones is also reflected in price. Prettier ones will generally cost you more, though the sharpening effects may not be any improvement over plainer looking stones of the same order. A beautiful looking stone when wet is a treat, however.

[AntoineLaMothe]

Personally, at the point where I am, the thought of using natural stones wouldn't feel right. I think you've got to take the time to learn how different metals with different hardness grind work on basic stones. I've been using the same synthetic stones Chris used (Stuart's kit, no?) for two years and I can hardly say if they're good or not, or if I like them...

[Chris Hall]

That's a bit different than my experience I guess. I can usually tell within a few minutes of use whether I like a stone or not. Its the 'cutting taste'. Part of it relates to your particular sharpening technique. I don't tend to like gummy or greasy stones, like some of the Besters I have tried. It's like sushi - some people like the oily fishes, some like the roe, etc.

Other stones might cut well and seem good at first, but after a time defects arise. They wear too fast, or tend to warp, or fragment easily, or load up and are hard to clean. So, it is true that certain qualities are latent, but I don't even get to that point if my initial experience with the stone was not pleasant.

There are stones, I might add, that a beginner in sharpening, with less developed technique, might find difficult to use that an experienced sharpener might prefer, so there is that as well.

It's good to try out different stones. I tend to like, in the world of the synthetic rocks, the ceramic-based stones. I used to like Shaptons, but not so much anymore. They're still decent. but I don't reach for them typically. Personal preferences in this regard develop partly due to how one sharpens of course.

[Dennis]

I think that I would agree that people that don't have a lot of experience sharpening, don't require expensive stones. The basic King stones will suffice and give a very decent edge. Learning how your hand pressure control gives results and reduces sharpening time, and the importance of maintaining the stones, including ones that wear fast, are good basic steps up the learning curve of sharpening. If one was starting out in woodworking and only stood over their stones practicing for the first six months, it would be a wise use of the time.

[ernest dubois]

I wonder at the sitting posture while sharpening. It seems the least practical given a choice between kneeling, standing and sitting.