Old "vintage" sharpening stones

coyote711

coyote711

Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
1,679
I guess at this point I'm more curious than serious, but I've read that the "newer" arkansas stones aren't as good as the older ones. Something related to the good stone being mined out a long time ago, and that what comes out of the mines, or quarries, now isn't as good as it used to be.

Anyone use an old arkansas stone, and is there any truth to the above statement?

BTW, I haven't used ANY arkansas stones, so I have no basis for comparison.

Are the older arkansas stones superior to a man-made Norton India Combo stone?
 
Are the older arkansas stones superior to a man-made Norton India Combo stone?
Click to expand...

IMO absolutly.

Man the things we regret. My grandpa Fries gave me his old stone , it was in it's own wooden , fitted box. I lent it to a friend years and years ago and he 'lost' it. Man I pine for that stone sometimes.

That said , I do not know if new stones are inferior to older stones since I have quite a few I inhereted from my best friends grandpa and have not had the need to buy a stone in a long time.

Tostig
 
the novaculite is millions of years old, a few decades either way isn't an issue. Arkansas stones and India stones are also not terribly close is abrasive action - the coarsest grade, Washita, being finer than fine India.
 
People that make the claim that the newer stones aren't as good usually base their statements on the uniformity of grit size and uniformity. If this IS the case (and there really isn't any laboratory testing that backs it up,) then the new man-made stones ought to be better. The man-made stones are the same mineral, just ground up and pressed together using a different matrix to bind it, be it novaculite in its differering hardnesses, corundum, calcite, or silicon carbide.

When it comes to mining the various rocks used for sharpening, it's good to remember that most minerals are found in 'layers.' Quite often, over time, a layer is used up in a particular mining area, and what remains might not be as consistent in quality. Although novaculite has been mined since pre-history for use as projectile points, fire-starting material, and sharpening stone, it does vary in quality with the depth of the mine. The upper layer of novaculite is usually used as ground-up powder for making tripoli compound, and the solid rock is of little use for sharpening as it's too inconsistent in grit size. The lowest layers makes some of the hardest 'Arkansas' stones, both black and white, but is a very thin layer as it's been compressed more than the upper layers.

The stones for waterstones are the most fragile, and have suffered the most from mining. Many deposits in Europe and Asia are known for their consistent grain size and have been mined for hundreds of years. Waterstones wear out quite quickly, and the supply of high quality stone has been steadily depleted over the years. The stone from the top quality areas has been mined heavily since discovery, and is getting close to depletion.

Of course, all this still doesn't tell us if the natural stones work better than the man-made stones. Personally, since the man-made stone has a more consistent grit size, and the matrix holding the abrasive particles is harder than the natural stone, I'd assume that the man-made stones will last longer and cut more smoothly than natural stones. I can't make any assumptions about cutting speed. And, I'll assume that there will be as many different opinions about it as there are people who use them!! :D

In my collection I have several pieces of oddly shaped waterstones, some quite expensive, some cheap. I don't think they work any better or worse than the man-made stones in my collection. They all work well. That's all that's important to me.

Stitchawl
 
As a coarse stone, the manmade stones are worlds ahead. As a finishing stone, I find the manmade stones to be slightly better. I used Arkansas stones for 10 years before switching to diamond and ceramic and wouldnt go back willingly. I had an Arkansas stone for a long time, then one day it broke. When I replaced it, the new one just didnt seem to cut as well or get knives as sharp. I dont know if this was due to the stone or me, so I cant for sure say the newer stones arent as good, but that is the impression I am left with. I also went from 425 Modified steel from Buck to cast 440C from David Boye and regular 440C from a kit maker. There is a world of difference between the 2 steels when sharpening.
 
I grew up using a Washita stone in the 60's. I lost it when I was in college and left the stone at home and my parents moved. I later bought a Norton India combo stone that I still use on occasion.

I think the comparison also depends on the alloy being sharpened. I had problems using a Washita on 440C, but not with 440A. For D2 and such, I'd guess I'd have problems with that on a Washita as well. D2 on a Norton India works good though.

I have heard that the natural stones being mined today are not of the quality of the older Washitas. I do not know from personal experience if it is true.
 
Arkansas produces a lot of quartz. A lot. I really don't know how much the mines have been depleted, but the good producers grade on density. It's probably just more people buying cheaper stones, since a much larger market can be serviced. There is no binder in arks, so that isn't an issue. I believe the same holds for the Tom O'Shanters, but Thuringians have a quartz abrasive in chalk binder, and there was a range of quality there, with the Eschers bringing the highest premium for collectors. Japanese naturals also uses quartz as the abrasive, but the clay binder had a different effect. The famous mines were shut down decades ago, and the prices have headed skyward for larger sized stones of particular quality, such as kiita, asagi, karasu, etc. Coticules had jumped in price, as the only company to mine them bought new equipment to go deeper. They have standard and select grade, based on appearance, plus kosher grade, which is pretty pricey. They feel really nice, and garnet is the abrasive. I like the consistency of synthetics, but there is an allure of naturals, just like some exotic cutlery.
 
Coyote, Comparing Norton's India stones to Arkansas stones is like comparing apples to oranges . The Arkansas has a different grain structure and no binder other than great pressure and heat . The blacks are the finest and hardest and can't sharpen all steels. Whereas the India are much harder, of different grain structure and has a binder that hold the grains together to help in cutting . Hence, it wears little and sharpens quicker but doesn't polish like the Arkansas . I've heard that the good Arkansas stones have long since been mined out . I've seen and used some from the 60's and my good ones are from the early 80's . Of these I don't see much difference . However, I bought some 2yrs. ago and there is a big difference . Their not the same color or appearence as the earlier stones and may not be as hard . Norton being the oldest distributor of Arkansas stones still has some of the high quality ones but are going . Knives sharpen slow on Arkansas stones 1) thats the way it cuts and 2) cutlery steels are harder and better than in the 60's and the naturals are softer . There are some tricks one can do to enhance this . I think a fine ceramic may compare closer to a black Arkansas as they both polish and cut slow . But thats about as far the similarities go . The ceramic will cut any steel well and not wear . Today I use my Arkansas's on kitchen cutlery and man made stones on better steel pocket and sheath knives . Just my 2 cents . DM
 
The amount of knowledge available on this forum, and the willingness to share that knowledge, just blow me away! I believe if any college or university in the country offered a course about knife sharpening, knife steels, the history of various knife patterns (or anything even remotely knife related), that a lot of the members of BladeForums could "test-out" of the course, or more likely, teach it! Thanks for the responses so far guys! :thumbup:

I'm totally satisfied with my Norton India Combo stone. Having said that, I've seen some older Norton Arkansas stones for sale on the bay, and was just curious about them. I may pull the trigger on one or two of them, purely in the interest of scientific (or rather, unscientific) comparison. ;)

(Now, don't ya go running over there and bid against me!) :D
 
Coyote, Thanks . I think owning a hard Arkansas stone is a good idea it will give you first hand experience during use . A good thing . I hope you get it and enjoy using it . DM
 
I love my best Arkansas stones. There is a lot of crap out there, but if you spend a little money on a Norton (Pike) hard Arkansas stone (essentially translucent or black) you will be very happy. They really don't cost anything when you figure they will last essentially forever. Get an 8" or larger.
 
Howdy,

For more "standard" carbon steels such as 1095, I start with a Norton combination stone course/fine to set the primary bevel and start to sharpen. I then move to a Soft Arkansas, and then a Translucent Arkansas. The final step is stropping on leather with green compound. My Arkansas stones are "new", 8"x2" and I have found the Translucent to be a better quality stone (it was also much more expensive). It just "feels" consistant when using and "cut" good. The Soft Arkansas has a slight variation across the surface and actully does not seem to have as much "bite" as the harder stone. I also really like the feel of the the orange India fine stone. It has a very good "bite" and is consistant.

For any stainless or tool steel blades, I use DMT diamond stones, 8"x3" with the same leather stopping to finish.

Either way gets you a sharp, mirror polish edge that push cuts paper easy.
 
Nothing like an edge created from a combination of Norton stones on the low end, finishing with good quality arkansas stones. It takes a good long time as opposed to using synthetic water stones or diamonds, but man those edges just feel great. It kinda makes me feel old school doing it too.

I have tried a few vintage, older and modern India stones from Norton, and I will say for sure the vintage Nortons from the 50s are the best. The Nortons that came in the grey card board blister style box are good too (the last of the USA made Nortons)

I recently bought a couple vintage medium Indias, and they are well finer than even the most recent USA made "fine" india, and waaaaay finer than the mexican made "fine" india.
I know what you guys are thinking "their old stones so their just glazed over or need to be roughed up"
both of the vintage mediums I bought had the exact same surface, and one of them was in almost new condition. They not only used to be a lot finer, but they also released much less grit. The current Mexican india expel grit like crazy, especially the medium.
My favorite is a vintage medium followed by a hard ark, then possibly a black or translucent if need be. The medium cuts fast, but leaves a very good edge, allowing you to use your hard arkansas more effectively than your soft stone.
idk about arkansas, but older Norton synthetics are waaaaaay better! They are worth a try if you can get one for a good price.
 
I have both the 1970-80's U.S. made Norton India stones and the Hecho en Mexico stones from 2005. The U.S. made India stones are finer, slough off very little grit and give a better edge with less work. Whereas Norton's newer stones slough grit (not like crazy) more, they are not as fine as Norton's earlier stones and leave a more coarse edge. To me they are 2 different products. Plus, my Mexican made stones takes a long time to break them in. This leads me to think the American made stones used a higher grit and a different mfg. process than the newer made stones. Toward the Arkansas stones the jet black Arkansas stones are getting hard to find and command a higher price than in the 80's. DM
 
One thing to consider in comparing natural (Arkansas) stones to India stones is, the man-made aluminum oxide abrasive in the India is nearly 3X as hard as the novaculite in the Arkansas stones (AlOx = ~2100 Knoop; novaculite = ~700-820 Knoop). For actually cutting steel efficiently, especially higher alloy & more wear-resistant steels (India will be better with this), as opposed to burnishing & polishing (Arkansas stones can do this very well), there's no basis for a meaningful comparison, as they're not going to perform the same way, even in comparing stellar examples of each. Would be similar to expecting the same performance in comparing an AlOx stone to a diamond hone, between which there's a similar ~3X comparison in hardness of the abrasive doing the cutting.


David
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top