Why Water Stones?

A perhaps controversial take: I believe most of the popularity of Japanese water stones over the last decade stems from fetishization of them by big personalities in the culinary and woodworking worlds rather than the specific advantages and disadvantages that they have. Rather than delving into the technical reasons for selecting them, those personalities have tended to laud them in very broad terms that aren't unique to those stones, but the masses have largely bought into that marketing angle.

To be clear, they're great stones, stylistically, but just one of many options available to you that are capable of producing high quality polished edges on modern high-hardness steels. The abrasive grain they use is no different from the range of various formulations of aluminum oxide and silicon carbide used in oil stones, and instead what differs is the bond type and strength and the grit size, which affects the grit/bond ratio, and inevitably also the hardness of the stone. Over ~400 ANSI grit (~700 JIS) you start butting up against an interesting issue: the grit becomes so fine that it is essentially more like flour or corn starch in consistency, and less like sand. The finer the grit the more binder must be used, which is less structurally durable than the abrasive grain, and so you inherently end up with a softer stone than the same grit type and bond with a larger grit size. This is part of why water stones tend to lose their advantages as you get into the coarse end of the spectrum.

Soft stones cut quickly for a given grit rating, and muddy stones will give three-body abrasion to polish up bevel surfaces and help prevent burrs from developing, but are liable to gouge under much more than light pressure, wear and dish out faster (be vigilant about using the full stone face to stave off the need for flattening!), and are difficult to create a crisp apex on using edge-leading strokes because of the free grit plowing into your edge (this is also what helps prevent burr formation.)

So much of stone selection simply comes down to what qualities you want out of it. As mentioned, broad bevels or flats tend to need soft stones because of how much they diffuse pressure, and so soft stones are great for that. But in terms of performance qualities it's important to know the context of use you're shopping for, and then translate that into the features and benefits you need in order to optimize the match of stones to tasks. For some knives and tools fine, soft stones are just the ticket--at least for some parts of the process. Muddy stones in particular usually are of greatest benefit as intermediary stones, for cosmetic surface finishing, and for sharpening broad bevels or flats.

This is all less organized or in depth than I'd like, but I felt it necessary to comment on the core of the question in the OP, as I hadn't really seen it dug into thoroughly.
 
willc said:
Depending on the stone 220 is usually where I start with a new knife to get rid of the factory grind.
So I am curious and looking forward to how the 220 Glass does.
Click to expand...
I think the Pros are a good value starting point, but they also got me looking around.
I was lucky to discover the SG500 when Mark had a sale years back. That's the Shapton that's consistently part of my line up when I go that low.

Yeah, a lot of people don't realize that first edge on a J-knife might need to get rid of the brittle layer.
 
FortyTwoBlades FortyTwoBlades

Very good points Benjamin. Understanding that they are all the same basic abrasives just with different bonding and approaches is very liberating.

Realizing that it is perfectly fine, if not desirable, to mix and match stones of various "types" really opens up potential and actually lessens confusion.
 
Last edited:
My concise thoughts, itemized for your convenience. ;-)

Eli Chaps said:
Long post, so if you don't feel like wading through it, why do you recommend water stones?
Click to expand...
I don't see a single advantage to water stones vs. modern diamond abrasives.



Eli Chaps said:
As some of you will know, my Japanese knife desires have again been ignited. ... the seemingly obligatory water stone sharpening, I've always found myself a bit overwhelmed and somewhat intimidated.
Click to expand...
I see no reason why Japanese water stones and freehand sharpening would be obligatory, just because the knife is Japanese. Don't fall for it!


Eli Chaps said:
The first thing I needed to do was up my free hand game. ...
Click to expand...
Again, I don't buy this. Why, particularly, must sharpening be done freehand? If you want it to be a sub-hobby or to develop that skill, I understand. But otherwise, you're just making it hard on yourself. I went through this phase as a young 'un, developed enough skill to satisfy myself that I could do it if I needed to, but quickly found that it's faster and wastes less steel and time to have some kind of guide. (exception being ceramic rod-type sharpeners, where I only have to hold the knife vertical)

Eli Chaps said:
So, I found myself in this circle of, I want more Japanese knives but I need water stones and I'm not sure I want water stones or am not sure I can adjust so I'm not getting more Japanese knives... and round and round...
Click to expand...
See how simple that is if you don't tie yourself down to Jap water stones? ;-)

Eli Chaps said:
But this time as I was thinking I had a bit of an epiphany... Japanese knives aren't somehow impervious to my current sharpening stones. I know that sounds stupid simple, but I just, I don't know, somehow thought, that maybe an India stone was just too, um crude maybe? I know... But, that's what has been in my brain. Like somehow there was this intrinsic bond between the knife and stone and to not use water stones would be somehow bad for the knife... I know, I know...
Click to expand...
Don't bother with India stones either. Get yourself a KOWS and a Sharpmaker = job done. Heck, for kitchen knives, you don't even need the KOWS; Sharpmaker alone will do you fine.

(snipped the rest)

You can bet that if they had our sharpening means, the ancient Japanese would NOT have messed around with their water stones. If they REALLY wanted to be arty and do it freehand, they'd use DMT diamond stones. Otherwise, KOWS.
 
Exception for single bevel knives. I use machine for most but single bevel are a different animal.
 
Smaug said:
My concise thoughts, itemized for your convenience. ;-)


I don't see a single advantage to water stones vs. modern diamond abrasives.




I see no reason why Japanese water stones and freehand sharpening would be obligatory, just because the knife is Japanese. Don't fall for it!



Again, I don't buy this. Why, particularly, must sharpening be done freehand? If you want it to be a sub-hobby or to develop that skill, I understand. But otherwise, you're just making it hard on yourself. I went through this phase as a young 'un, developed enough skill to satisfy myself that I could do it if I needed to, but quickly found that it's faster and wastes less steel and time to have some kind of guide. (exception being ceramic rod-type sharpeners, where I only have to hold the knife vertical)


See how simple that is if you don't tie yourself down to Jap water stones? ;-)


Don't bother with India stones either. Get yourself a KOWS and a Sharpmaker = job done. Heck, for kitchen knives, you don't even need the KOWS; Sharpmaker alone will do you fine.

(snipped the rest)

You can bet that if they had our sharpening means, the ancient Japanese would NOT have messed around with their water stones. If they REALLY wanted to be arty and do it freehand, they'd use DMT diamond stones. Otherwise, KOWS.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate you taking the time to respond, I'm actually a good free hand sharpener and also have extensive experience with a KME. I'm also a big fan of India stones and am not a fan of the Sharpmaker and although I have recommended and gifted Work Sharps, I do not want a powered sharpener and find them limited.

It's also been quite a while since anyone mistook me for a "young 'un".

The intent of this thread was my brain dump on water stones specifically and my thinking/decision process.

I'm not going to give up free hand sharpening. In fact, this adventure is just further fueling my love for it.

Also, the Japanese do have access to all the same tools you do. You realize that right?
 
Last edited:
FortyTwoBlades said:
A perhaps controversial take: I believe most of the popularity of Japanese water stones over the last decade stems from fetishization of them by big personalities in the culinary and woodworking worlds rather than the specific advantages and disadvantages that they have. Rather than delving into the technical reasons for selecting them, those personalities have tended to laud them in very broad terms that aren't unique to those stones, but the masses have largely bought into that marketing angle.

To be clear, they're great stones, stylistically, but just one of many options available to you that are capable of producing high quality polished edges on modern high-hardness steels. The abrasive grain they use is no different from the range of various formulations of aluminum oxide and silicon carbide used in oil stones, and instead what differs is the bond type and strength and the grit size, which affects the grit/bond ratio, and inevitably also the hardness of the stone. Over ~400 ANSI grit (~700 JIS) you start butting up against an interesting issue: the grit becomes so fine that it is essentially more like flour or corn starch in consistency, and less like sand. The finer the grit the more binder must be used, which is less structurally durable than the abrasive grain, and so you inherently end up with a softer stone than the same grit type and bond with a larger grit size. This is part of why water stones tend to lose their advantages as you get into the coarse end of the spectrum.

Soft stones cut quickly for a given grit rating, and muddy stones will give three-body abrasion to polish up bevel surfaces and help prevent burrs from developing, but are liable to gouge under much more than light pressure, wear and dish out faster (be vigilant about using the full stone face to stave off the need for flattening!), and are difficult to create a crisp apex on using edge-leading strokes because of the free grit plowing into your edge (this is also what helps prevent burr formation.)

So much of stone selection simply comes down to what qualities you want out of it. As mentioned, broad bevels or flats tend to need soft stones because of how much they diffuse pressure, and so soft stones are great for that. But in terms of performance qualities it's important to know the context of use you're shopping for, and then translate that into the features and benefits you need in order to optimize the match of stones to tasks. For some knives and tools fine, soft stones are just the ticket--at least for some parts of the process. Muddy stones in particular usually are of greatest benefit as intermediary stones, for cosmetic surface finishing, and for sharpening broad bevels or flats.

This is all less organized or in depth than I'd like, but I felt it necessary to comment on the core of the question in the OP, as I hadn't really seen it dug into thoroughly.
Click to expand...

Observation re the midrange muddy stones is spot on.
The Suzuki Ya stones are all VERY hard and generate only a small amount of mud, except for the 2k, which is nearly as soft as the Norton 1k. The final set-up stone before the 4k and up.

End of day, every sharpening stone has to deal with abrasive refresh (unless diamond/CBN) and removing the spent metal off the surface. Waterstones do a good job of this.

I guess this thread is a good place to discuss the pro and con, is a long discussion.
 
HeavyHanded said:
Observation re the midrange muddy stones is spot on.
The Suzuki Ya stones are all VERY hard and generate only a small amount of mud, except for the 2k, which is nearly as soft as the Norton 1k. The final set-up stone before the 4k and up.

End of day, every sharpening stone has to deal with abrasive refresh (unless diamond/CBN) and removing the spent metal off the surface. Waterstones do a good job of this.

I guess this thread is a good place to discuss the pro and con, is a long discussion.
Click to expand...

Chances are they have a very hard binder formulation worked out! Looking them up it appears they use a vitrified bond, but they must have worked out a suitably hard mix.

Arguably, even diamond stones can wear out on ya' eventually depending on how you use them and whether they're made of monocrystalline or polycrystalline diamond, or a mix of both. You *usually* don't run into that issue with using them on steel, but when using them to condition bonded abrasives they can eventually blunt like any other abrasive eventually does.
 
At least ya know what you like.


There are things that coated diamond stones can't do.

They create deeper scratches which are detrimental to push cutting and finish progression and have to be used a certain way with light touch or will be easier to damage the stone and cause tear out and premature wear.

The Sharpmaker is convenient but if one is more discerning with angles and stone options then the convenience is at the cost of some limitations.

I've spent several thousand dollars over the years exploring all the curiosities that have have come up from time to time.

From pull through to crock sticks to ceramic hones, worksharp systems, hardware store stones, Smiths trihone, arkansas stones, lansky system, Norton oil stones, etc

Was quite the journey but I know what I like now.

I enjoy quality waterstones in a variety of abrasives best for knives.
Both freehand and with the Edge Pro.







Smaug said:
My concise thoughts, itemized for your convenience. ;-)


I don't see a single advantage to water stones vs. modern diamond abrasives.




I see no reason why Japanese water stones and freehand sharpening would be obligatory, just because the knife is Japanese. Don't fall for it!



Again, I don't buy this. Why, particularly, must sharpening be done freehand? If you want it to be a sub-hobby or to develop that skill, I understand. But otherwise, you're just making it hard on yourself. I went through this phase as a young 'un, developed enough skill to satisfy myself that I could do it if I needed to, but quickly found that it's faster and wastes less steel and time to have some kind of guide. (exception being ceramic rod-type sharpeners, where I only have to hold the knife vertical)


See how simple that is if you don't tie yourself down to Jap water stones? ;-)


Don't bother with India stones either. Get yourself a KOWS and a Sharpmaker = job done. Heck, for kitchen knives, you don't even need the KOWS; Sharpmaker alone will do you fine.

(snipped the rest)

You can bet that if they had our sharpening means, the ancient Japanese would NOT have messed around with their water stones. If they REALLY wanted to be arty and do it freehand, they'd use DMT diamond stones. Otherwise, KOWS.
Click to expand...
 
HeavyHanded said:
For freehand I vastly prefer waterstones. When using my guided setup the diamond plates are more convenient.

I still will use diamond plates freehand as well, but only if convenience is important.
Click to expand...

Tying in with the mix and match discussion, in researching all of this I came across the well-known Korin Knives on YouTube and found they quite often start out on a diamond stone and then go to the more "traditional" water stones.

All about preference and what works for your immediate needs and desired end goals.

I agree about the water stones for guided systems. I remember when the Choseras came out for the KME and thinking, wow, what a freakin' mess that must be...
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Chances are they have a very hard binder formulation worked out! Looking them up it appears they use a vitrified bond, but they must have worked out a suitably hard mix.

Arguably, even diamond stones can wear out on ya' eventually depending on how you use them and whether they're made of monocrystalline or polycrystalline diamond, or a mix of both. You *usually* don't run into that issue with using them on steel, but when using them to condition bonded abrasives they can eventually blunt like any other abrasive eventually does.
Click to expand...
They are almost as hard as the Jumma Cobalt stones, which are about as hard feeling as a diamond plate.
They are the best waterstones in my collection for harder steels.
 
There have been some nice advancements with stones for fixed systems.

Metallic bonded stones have been a lifesaver.
Notably the 125 micron and the 40 micron stone.

Removes the problems with the plates cutting too deep and wearing out fast and can be used dry and has a renewable surface that is 3mm thick.

They were crucial to the Massive CATRA steel testing project I was a part of for measuring the edge rentention of now over 48 different steels and multiple conditions.

I did all the grinding and some of the heat treatment and had to set the initial edge geometry with the edge pro and sharpen each one once.

Those stones really helped especially since I had to sharpen all the blades by hand to eliminate variables for testing such as possible heat damage from the grinder shaping a small radius and tear out/fatigue from ceramic interacting with very hard MC type Carbides at the apex radius

https://www.instagram.com/p/B_GYPjDjfax/?igshid=1wvthwihmh8c5



HeavyHanded said:
For freehand I vastly prefer waterstones. When using my guided setup the diamond plates are more convenient.

I still will use diamond plates freehand as well, but only if convenience is important.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Smaug said:
Why, particularly, must sharpening be done freehand? If you want it to be a sub-hobby or to develop that skill, I understand. But otherwise, you're just making it hard on yourself. I went through this phase as a young 'un, developed enough skill to satisfy myself that I could do it if I needed to, but quickly found that it's faster and wastes less steel and time to have some kind of guide. (exception being ceramic rod-type sharpeners, where I only have to hold the knife vertical)
Click to expand...

I only sharpen freehand but it doesn't matter to me how people sharpen their knives. The important thing is that knives are maintained well and kept sharp.

If I keep my knives sharp in the first place, which I always try to do, I can touch up an edge freehand in seconds. I doubt if that's slower than using a guide or machine, especially if they need set-up time, and I doubt if I'm wasting more steel.

Other advantages I find to freehand sharpening over using guides/machines is saving storage and work space, almost no set-up time, and freehand is much less expensive. I can also sharpen or touch up edges anywhere with just a small SiC stone or folding, lightweight diamond abrasive, without carrying around bulky equipment. This is especially important when I'm traveling or in the wilderness. Then there is the satisfaction I get from having learned and understood a skill that I once found confusing and mysterious, and getting sharp edges that I created myself.
 
Last edited:
I'm not putting down freehand sharpening. It certainly is less equipment-intensive than any kind of fixtured sharpening.

The reason I said it is less efficient is that as a human, there is human error with regards to maintaining the angle, so in order to get it sharp, it takes more grinding. ...unless you're saying that you're more efficient than a machine, on which the angle is mechanically maintained?
 
Smaug said:
I'm not putting down freehand sharpening. It certainly is less equipment-intensive than any kind of fixtured sharpening.

The reason I said it is less efficient is that as a human, there is human error with regards to maintaining the angle, so in order to get it sharp, it takes more grinding. ...unless you're saying that you're more efficient than a machine, on which the angle is mechanically maintained?
Click to expand...

I can honestly say there is no real difference in edge quality between the two, and going from freehand to a guided system it does not take much work to true the bevel. There is not a huge difference in precision.

In light of CATRA research that showed longer life from a slightly convexed edge, is tough to say there is a performance advantage of any kind. I've actually been intetested in creating some slop to make it more like my freehand with a few degrees of deviation.
 
Smaug said:
I'm not putting down freehand sharpening. It certainly is less equipment-intensive than any kind of fixtured sharpening.

The reason I said it is less efficient is that as a human, there is human error with regards to maintaining the angle, so in order to get it sharp, it takes more grinding. ...unless you're saying that you're more efficient than a machine, on which the angle is mechanically maintained?
Click to expand...

Actually, it takes less grinding since it's convexing/blending the apex more than cutting in a straight line with a fixed angle.
 
Smaug said:
I'm not putting down freehand sharpening. It certainly is less equipment-intensive than any kind of fixtured sharpening.

The reason I said it is less efficient is that as a human, there is human error with regards to maintaining the angle, so in order to get it sharp, it takes more grinding. ...unless you're saying that you're more efficient than a machine, on which the angle is mechanically maintained?
Click to expand...

I know you read my KME review thread so you know I'm not against sharpening systems. If that is what you, or anyone else wants to use, I'm all for it.

But, for me, free hand sharpening provides significantly more versatility, freedom, simplicity, and beautiful edges. Your previous mention of systems being faster is just not accurate, they aren't.

As for edge quality, my post-sharpening edge test is cross-cutting a free hanging paper towel. Gotsta have a pretty good edge for that. And even if it is a little ragged on the cut, I know it's an edge that will serve me well. I don't need anything more than that. While I agree with HeavyHanded HeavyHanded about the comparable edge quality, for the sake of argument if I concede you're right and a system provides some slight edge advantage, for me, it would be so slight as to not outweigh my perceived cons of using a system and I would gladly make that trade off.

Now, again, this thread is not intended to be a discussion of free hand vs. systems, or what works best for each individual. It's a discussion about water stones and where, and if, they fit into our sharpening arsenal.

Did you have something you wanted to talk about around that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top