Thread: Cheap water stone is that false advertising

You're not alone in that issue mate. I'm pretty sure we all can relate, especially regarding stones. What makes it even more complex is that everyone's skill level is going to differ, as well as their tools, as well as what they call 'sharp'. It is mostly based on a very subjective opinions. Someone who sharpens their tools on the workshops concrete floor will find the Dollar Store oil stone to be a real gem.

I'm fairly certain that 'King' is classed as the entry level stones that give very acceptable results, even for seasoned pros. If you have more coin, there are other brands.
Cheaper stones are fine for some tools and tasks. Some of them are going to be pearlers but you're really not going to know unless you take the risk.
My personal experience with cheaper stones is that you generally 'get what you paid for'. I would probably not call it false advertising... maybe more like 'false economy'.... and I'm a thrifty old bugger!
I hope some of that rambling helps mate.
All the best

Synthetic stone quality depends on a mix of grit size, grit hardness, adhesive hardness and proportions of grit and binder.
How carefully was the screening done for nominal particle size? I can tell you anything and be as sloppy as I like in preparation.
There's a long code set used by industry, described by Leonard Lee in his book.

Some cheap stones aren't even labelled!
I bought several carborundum stones for rough shaping and repairing edges.
Comparing "feel" to grades of sandpapers with my eyes shut, I might have 80, 120 and 220 stones. Maybe.

For the majority of my wood carving tools, I need abrasives on mandrels of different radii. Even a tennis ball.
Silicon carbide fine automotive finishing wet&dry sandpapers (3M) 600-1500 grits are satisfactory.

The Shapton Pros (kuromaku) are cheap enough on Amazon to overcome the allure of the cheap stones.

Sent from my Nokia 4.2 using Tapatalk

king stones are not really cheap particularly considering the quality difference between a king stone and say a shapeton stone.

From memory when I got my shapeton stone it was only $20 more than a comparable king stone

Explore the available ideas that are available, some that cost less than $20 and give very good results or some that require a bit if money and give far faster results which I think is more important. There has been a lot of comment on the Unicorn method on the Wood Central forum as well as here that gives very experieced woodworkers spectacular results in a very short time. There were some doubters that took some convincing at first but they are now true believers it seems. My take on any method is if it is going to take a long time I will avoid sharpening while working but if it is quick and easy then keeping the edge sharp is not a chore.

Waterstones are messy and some people reject them on that alone and there are two different types, synthetic and natural stones. There is at least one good book written on the subject but none are up to date on the latest ideas AFAIK and it is possible to spend thousands on pursuing perfection when hundreds or less will do.

I agree that sharpening stuff can soon add up. I am still refining my unicorn method and a little reluctanct to reduce initial bevel angles by so much. Sure improves sharpening my solitary incannel gouge.

Originally Posted by justonething

If you do a search on Amazon AU for Japanese water stones, you see a myriad of choices,
I would probably stick to the brands that I know and probably only those that were made in Japan. But I'd intersted in knowing others thinking.

Trouble is there are so many forgeries getting sold on various platforms. I remember a few years ago there were nasty copies of Mitutoyo measuring tools floating around.
Rgds,
Crocy.

I have a 400/1000 diamond stone, mostly using only the 1000. I then follow up with 3000 and 6000 King (I think) water stones. Pretty happy with it but after watching Rob Cosman's sharpening video I might think about getting either a 12000 or 16000 Shapton to replace the two Kings.

Scanning electron microscope images indicate that going above 1500 grit is of little incremental benefit.
The iron is so very plastic, the edge is always shredded.
I stop with 1500 then hone my wood carving edges with CrOx/AlOx.

Originally Posted by Robson Valley

Scanning electron microscope images indicate that going above 1500 grit is of little incremental benefit.
The iron is so very plastic; the edge is always shredded.
I stop with 1500 then hone my wood carving edges with CrOx/AlOx.

I have been saying that there is no practical benefit going above 4000~6000 grit. But I feel that there is a difference between 1500 grit and 4000 grit. Of course, our definition of 1500 grit may be different. Do you have any images showing how after the first use, it makes no difference in how much finer you sharpen beyond your threshold grit size?

I was taught a fairly dogmatic ritual for free-hand sharpening of gouges and such for wood carving.
The end was a 4K waterstone then hone on a strop with CrOx/AlOx.

This has always been entirely adequate to carve the very soft woods of western red cedar and yellow cedar.

Question: just how much of that was really necessary?
Answer for me: Turn to Leonard Lee's Sharpening book and look at all the SEM images.
I concluded that the soft plastic nature of thin steel (aka the edge) was not served by any work above 1500 grit.
Lee Valley and 3M specify nominal particle size in micrometers for their 1500 grit. I take their words for that.

Experience reveals that those edges last me about 30 minutes of steady hand work.
I can "feel" the edge going away. That can be restored by simple honing.
The CrOx is 0.5 micrometer and the AlOx is 0.25 micrometer, nominal particle sizes.

My only proof is entirely subjective = me and a piece of western red cedar.
I can't tell the difference between 1500 and hone when compared with 4,000 and hone.
3M wet&dry silicon carbide sandpapers do as I need.

As this sharpening forum is on a woodworking site, it is assumed that we are discussing waterstones from the perspective of sharpening woodworking tools. However, it is worth mentioning that waterstones are also used to sharpen edges for other uses that have quite different requirements.

For example, sharpening knives for culinary use or large convex and curved beveled tools, such as axes and adze. Those have quite different requirements to most woodworking edge tools.

Keeping soft waterstones flat is a factor when woodworkers sharpen their straight edge tools, but that is not anywhere near as significant for some other uses of waterstones, like knife and blade sharpening. For example, there isn't a flat stone anywhere to be seen in this 1915 photo of a Japanese sword sharpener.

Sharpener_working_on_Japanese_swords_(1915_by_Elstner_Hilton).jpg

In Japan, where most waterstones come from, there are far more 'toishi' being used in kitchens and paddocks than by carpenters, etc. So, don't assume that any waterstone you can buy will meet your requirement just because it is called a waterstone. A cheaper soft muddy waterstone that needs to be pre-soaked may be the last thing a flatware woodworker wants, yet could be a very acceptable option for another user.

When waterstones first came into use in the west there were just a few stones available to us like King and Lobster. Whatever our intended use, that is what we got and used. We now have a very wide range to choose from to the point where it can be confusing. You just have to do your homework on what you need them for and look past the hype around some offerings. Not that that is an easy task.

Stuart Tierney, an Australian living in Japan and who had access to and sold many different waterstones made there, did some comparative tests and evaluations of different waterstones on different steels and reported on those results in some blogs that are fortunately still available, although sadly his shop, Tools from Japan, is now closed.

Waterstone testing, the results. Part I


Waterstone testing, the results. Part II


Waterstone testing; intermission. Some special steel as a snack.


Waterstone testing, the results. Part III


And, for those for whom flatness is important....

Waterstone testing part IV; how flat is ‘flat’?


I suggest reading all of them before rushing to a conclusion and dismissing humble brands such as King or Naniwa from your considerations.

At last count I have 13 man made and 11 natural waterstones... no I'm not a collector... more inquisitive than acquisitor... there is a lot to learn and there is always more to learn when it comes to any of the methods of sharpening! I'm very mindful that I might still have a long way to go with the 'Dunning–Kruger effect' before I really know what I'm talking about on any topic...

These are fascinating reading!

& I'd certainly agree that one shouldn't dismiss the likes of King or Naniwa. I have a similar no. of stones (also probably about half and half), and the one I use most, both on its own and in almost any progression for both sharpening and polishing, is a permasoaked King 1.2k - a truly excellent stone.

That is for kitchen knives... I'd be interested to learn more about how stones differ when using for tools.

Originally Posted by Robson Valley

Scanning electron microscope images indicate that going above 1500 grit is of little incremental benefit.
The iron is so very plastic, the edge is always shredded.
I stop with 1500 then hone my wood carving edges with CrOx/AlOx.

I jump from 1500 to 8,000 and the difference is very noticeable. But using your nomenclature, I would suggest that my sharpening at 8,000 is doing the same as your honing. I have always thought honing a non abrasive procedure. It is simply realigning the edge which has been bent out of shape. Once you introduce an abrasive and are removing metal, you're back to sharpening (and potentially honing at the same time).