# The Washita Thread



## Desert Rat

Lets discuss the Washita here. History, sharpening experiences or sharing pictures of your stones. 

I'm not an expert on Washita's or any stone for that matter but I know enough that I would like to dispel a very common myth that is perpetuated by some self proclaimed experts that should know better if they had half the experience they claim.

One of the things you will hear is the Lilly White is the finest of the Washita's. 
Lily White was a grade of stone that checked all the boxes for purity of color and free from all defects, uniformity. It was further graded by hardness, fine, coarse, medium or speed. They can be found in coarse grades as well as fine.

Some good information on Washita's and Arks can be found in some of the old geological surveys of Arkansas.

Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Arkansas - Arkansas Geological Survey, Geological Survey of Arkansas - Google Books


----------



## cotedupy

Well I'll play! Been feeling a lot of love for novaculite stones recently, and my recently acquired cheap-old-ebay stone is remarkable...

I would have been happy enough just to have a little bit of sharpening history, as I understand the original Pike-Norton mine hasn't been operational for a while, but it's a genuinely excellent sharpening stone. Very fast, and with a massive range of effective grits - it can probably be used anything from 1-5k+ at a very random guess. Though one impression I get is that the 'speed' doesn't change much; used coarsely it's slower than the 1Ks I've used, but toward the top end it's a lot quicker than 5Ks. (Dunno if that's just me - I'm very new to these stones.)

Anyway I've used this stone pretty much every day since I got it, in what I will loosely term a 'professional' capacity. It obviates a number of my synthetic stones.


----------



## cotedupy

I received another dirty, ebay special today, which I’m fairly certain is also an old Washita. I was wondering if DR, or any other experts, could shed any light on the colour differences between the two...?

First pic shows it wet after cleaning. 2nd dry after a bit of lapping (hence the whiter appearance), next to the first one. 3rd is a phone light shone through the new, dark red / brown stone. 4th is through the previous, light yellow / beige stone.


----------



## Desert Rat

Nice stones!
I think the majority of vintage Washita's were white. Even the rosy red was mostly white so what we are seeing is old oil in the stone.
Dirty stone.




Over night in Simple Green.


[url=https://flic.kr/p/2m1fFg1]



A couple of weeks in Simple Green.


[url=https://flic.kr/p/2m5fG6h]


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> Nice stones!
> I think the majority of vintage Washita's were white. Even the rosy red was mostly white so what we are seeing is old oil in the stone.
> Dirty stone.
> 
> 
> 
> Over night in Simple Green.
> [url=https://flic.kr/p/2m1fFg1]
> 
> 
> A couple of weeks in Simple Green.
> [url=https://flic.kr/p/2m5fG6h]



Ah cheers, nice pics to show the progression. I did actually do a soak in degreaser last night. Initiall just for a few hours, and it has noticeably lightened the colour. So yes I think will get to somewhere near white with longer.

A really interesting thing happened to my Turkish Stone which I soaked at the same time. I shall post some pics...


----------



## Desert Rat

Norton released some Washita's last year. Norton is setting on a closed mine that is not mined out, but I don't believe them stones came from their mine. They appeared to be the colored Washita's. Probably from the same source as the old Smith's.

The colored Washita's are mentioned in one of the old geological surveys of Arkansas. They had no market and in typical government fashion they claimed that the stone was fine.

Here are two colored Washita's with a vintage Norton between them. The highly figured Washita wears like a weathered hard wood stump with the white being harder than the colored portion. I would lean towards a less figured one like the one at the top. They are fast stones with tooth that I really like for some of my knifes, they lack the range of the vintage Nortons though. 

Despite the inferior quality of the colored Washita's I would trip over a pile of soft Arks to pick one up.


----------



## schutzen-jager

i am probably wrong but , i was always taught that the hardest + finest stones were black + the white ones were a medium grit -


----------



## captaincaed

This thread and the "touch up" thread have sent me back to eBay and etsy, darn it.


----------



## coxhaus

Here are some of my sharpening stones. I just don't use them much anymore. I use the Worksharp as it is faster. The long black one was my father's grandfather. It is old.


----------



## Desert Rat

coxhaus said:


> Here are some of my sharpening stones. I just don't use them much anymore. I use the Worksharp as it is faster. The long black one was my father's grandfather. It is old.
> View attachment 138291


Wow, what a nice collection! 
Are they labeled? Looks like the third one from the left is a dark translucent?


----------



## childermass

I think it doesn‘t really matter where I ask this question so I might as well do it here:
Does any of the members in the german speaking part of Europe know a good substitute for Simple green?


----------



## captaincaed

Looks like a great box of rocks!


----------



## Desert Rat

schutzen-jager said:


> i am probably wrong but , i was always taught that the hardest + finest stones were black + the white ones were a medium grit -


Arks can't be judged by color alone. There is some inconsistency in the blacks but it's kind of an on going debate in which is finer, a black or translucent.


----------



## coxhaus

Desert Rat said:


> Wow, what a nice collection!
> Are they labeled? Looks like the third one from the left is a dark translucent?



Yes, it is a translucent. My black is finer than my translucent.

I have more stones but they are probably in my hunting gear and out in my shop.


----------



## cotedupy

childermass said:


> I think it doesn‘t really matter where I ask this question so I might as well do it here:
> Does any of the members in the german speaking part of Europe know a good substitute for Simple green?



Oh sorry! I should have mentioned this in my message - Any water-based degreaser will do, ime. Simple green is nice because it doesn't smell like it's going to kill you, and works just as well as anything else. But even the really hardcore motor engine ones don't stay in the stone and affect it.


----------



## Steampunk

childermass said:


> I think it doesn‘t really matter where I ask this question so I might as well do it here:
> Does any of the members in the german speaking part of Europe know a good substitute for Simple green?



I would recommend a strong, automotive-grade degreaser.

Bilt-Hamber Surfex HD is an excellent one, and can be found in EU automotive detailing shops that sell Bilt-Hamber. There is also the 1Z Einszett/Nextzett W99 Industrie Reiniger, which is a German product, and also very good. I believe this can be purchased on Amazon in Germany, but can also be found in online auto detailing stores.

Both are vastly superior in effectiveness to Simple Green, in my experience, and are more dilutable. You won't need to, and shouldn't use them neat. Neither smell bad.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Desert Rat

childermass said:


> I think it doesn‘t really matter where I ask this question so I might as well do it here:
> Does any of the members in the german speaking part of Europe know a good substitute for Simple green?


I have wondered if a citrus based cleaner wouldn't do the same thing. Not sure...

I didn't see the other answers as I was typing. I think they have it covered.


----------



## cotedupy

coxhaus said:


> Yes, it is a translucent. My black is finer than my translucent.
> 
> I have more stones but they are probably in my hunting gear and out in my shop.



Seriously nice! Is your great grandfather's one a black ark too? That's an incredible looking stone.


----------



## cotedupy

Steampunk said:


> I would recommend a strong, automotive-grade degreaser.
> 
> Bilt-Hamber Surfex HD is an excellent one, and can be found in EU automotive detailing shops that sell Bilt-Hamber. There is also the 1Z Einszett/Nextzett W99 Industrie Reiniger, which is a German product, and also very good. I believe this can be purchased on Amazon in Germany, but can also be found in online auto detailing stores.
> 
> Both are vastly superior in effectiveness to Simple Green, in my experience, and are more dilutable. You won't need to, and shouldn't use them neat. Neither smell bad.
> 
> Hope this helps.



Haha! Snap. Yeah I've used proper engine degreaser with good effect, and even ones that smell rubbish don't stay in the stone like that if you put them in water for 15 mins after. (Though I did find SG to work just as well when I've used it).


----------



## Steampunk

cotedupy said:


> Haha! Snap. Yeah I've used proper engine degreaser with good effect, and even ones that smell rubbish don't stay in the stone like that if you put them in water for 15 mins after. (Though I did find SG to work just as well when I've used it).



Surfex HD in particular is a very free-rinsing product. As you said, these are not going to hang around in the stone if properly rinsed or soaked in a bucket of pure water after.


----------



## childermass

cotedupy said:


> Oh sorry! I should have mentioned this in my message - Any water-based degreaser will do, ime. Simple green is nice because it doesn't smell like it's going to kill you, and works just as well as anything else. But even the really hardcore motor engine ones don't stay in the stone and affect it.





Steampunk said:


> I would recommend a strong, automotive-grade degreaser.
> 
> Bilt-Hamber Surfex HD is an excellent one, and can be found in EU automotive detailing shops that sell Bilt-Hamber. There is also the 1Z Einszett/Nextzett W99 Industrie Reiniger, which is a German product, and also very good. I believe this can be purchased on Amazon in Germany, but can also be found in online auto detailing stores.
> 
> Both are vastly superior in effectiveness to Simple Green, in my experience, and are more dilutable. You won't need to, and shouldn't use them neat. Neither smell bad.
> 
> Hope this helps.



Thanks guys! I think I will order the Nextzett W99 and try it on my recent acquisition once it’s here.


----------



## Desert Rat

coxhaus said:


> Yes, it is a translucent. My black is finer than my translucent.
> 
> I have more stones but they are probably in my hunting gear and out in my shop.


That has been my experience also, the black being slightly finer. I do think the translucents are faster though. 
Either way translucent or black they are both better than I am so I will never get all they have to offer.


----------



## cotedupy

I logged on to Facebook for the first time in a while the other day to find someone had posted this on an Aussie woodwork group. I hope clever Mr. Zuckerberg and his fancy algorithms throw up more of the same next time I'm there...


----------



## coxhaus

cotedupy said:


> Seriously nice! Is your great grandfather's one a black ark too? That's an incredible looking stone.



Yes, and it was my great grandfather's. No power tools back then. He was a wood worker.


----------



## stringer

How do the Queer Creek oil stones compare to Washitas?


----------



## captaincaed

I looked up Chagrin Deerlick stones yesterday, and a woodworker compared them and others like somewhat unfavorably to Washita. Said they're like a second tier Washita. Not bad, just not as good. Haven't found much more info so far. Not sure if Queer Creek was mentioned. 






OldTools Archive







swingleydev.com


----------



## captaincaed

Here it's compared directly to a Deerlick. 





Queer Creek / Clear Creek / Ohio Blue Whetstone


Has anyone ever used a Queer Creek / Clear Creek / Ohio Blue Whetstone? They were originally called "Queer Creek" by Pike / Norton. That trademark expired in 2006 and they changed the name to Clear Creek. They are also called Ohio Blue Whetstones. I am curious if anyone has ever used...



sawmillcreek.org




Sounds like it actually might be nice for a kitchen knife, esp softer steel.


----------



## stringer

captaincaed said:


> Here it's compared directly to a Deerlick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queer Creek / Clear Creek / Ohio Blue Whetstone
> 
> 
> Has anyone ever used a Queer Creek / Clear Creek / Ohio Blue Whetstone? They were originally called "Queer Creek" by Pike / Norton. That trademark expired in 2006 and they changed the name to Clear Creek. They are also called Ohio Blue Whetstones. I am curious if anyone has ever used...
> 
> 
> 
> sawmillcreek.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like it actually might be nice for a kitchen knife, esp softer steel.



Yeah I will probably have to get one to try. The price is right. I am also going to buy some Arkansas slip stones unless someone can talk me out of it. They wear so slowly anyway if you are just using them to finish razors, then what does it matter? They usually go for 1/3 to 1/2 the price of a bench stone of the same surface area.


----------



## captaincaed

If you got industrious and mounted it in an angled box, could be a slick setup.


----------



## Steampunk

stringer said:


> How do the Queer Creek oil stones compare to Washitas?



Queer Creek are not Novaculite. These are Sandstone grinding stones from Southern Ohio, that some roughly estimate around 600-2000 grit. 

Queer Creek Ohio Blue | TomoNagura.Com | Keith V. Johnson

These are a very different animal to a Washita. They have a lower and narrower cutting band than a Washita; not as much head-room for refinement. Closest I could compare them to is a Binsui in terms of how they cut, but they aren't as good at wide/single bevels as Binsui. Edge character is also a little different than Binsui (Not quite as smooth; a little rougher feeling. Kind of like how SiC edges feel different than AlOx edges at the same grit.), but 'sharpness' is in a similar range.

Interesting stones. They cut a little faster on some steels, but the edges aren't as keen as Soft Arks.


----------



## Steampunk

stringer said:


> Yeah I will probably have to get one to try. The price is right. I am also going to buy some Arkansas slip stones unless someone can talk me out of it. They wear so slowly anyway if you are just using them to finish razors, then what does it matter? They usually go for 1/3 to 1/2 the price of a bench stone of the same surface area.



Don't do it. Slips aren't flattened or finished as well as bench stones from a good company like Dan's. Arks - especially black/translucents - are a nightmare to lap yourself. Your time and abrasives are probably worth more than getting a well lapped bench or pocket stone out of the box. I've spent enough time trying to lap/smooth Arkansas slipstones for carving tools that I can attest it isn't worth it. Burnishing them, sure... Getting them straight, nope.


----------



## schutzen-jager

checked all mine + the blacks are all much finer then the translucent + white Arkansas stones that i have -


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

stringer said:


> Yeah I will probably have to get one to try. The price is right. I am also going to buy some Arkansas slip stones unless someone can talk me out of it. They wear so slowly anyway if you are just using them to finish razors, then what does it matter? They usually go for 1/3 to 1/2 the price of a bench stone of the same surface area.



At the risk of detracting from the thread theme, have you considered a Spyderco Double Stuff? I don't have one but a lot of folks swear by them. Just an alternative thought.


----------



## coxhaus

You can make a stone holder really easy. I made my first in high school. I cut off a piece of 2x4 and chiseled out around my first stone to where it was inset. I then sanded and refinished the 2x4 with varnish. I have it here somewhere. It is not in the picture above. 

The 2x4 gets it up off the table to where it is more comfortable to sharpen on.


----------



## captaincaed

Steampunk said:


> Don't do it. Slips aren't flattened or finished as well as bench stones from a good company like Dan's. Arks - especially black/translucents - are a nightmare to lap yourself. Your time and abrasives are probably worth more than getting a well lapped bench or pocket stone out of the box. I've spent enough time trying to lap/smooth Arkansas slipstones for carving tools that I can attest it isn't worth it. Burnishing them, sure... Getting them straight, nope.


Thanks for the double knowledge bomb. 

Similar experience flattening a translucent Ark. Plate killer.


----------



## cotedupy

My new lucky Facebook find arrived today, and even better than I thought. Basically untouched NOS Lily White with all the original packaging. I can't decide whether I want to use it or not!

















And a family pic:


----------



## captaincaed

Only if you shoot a short vid for the thread


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> Only if you shoot a short vid for the thread



Needless to say I couldn’t resist and did give one side a quick try last night - they are _seriously _fast and good when completely new. I will do again and film it, then might degrease and leave it as a pretty thing to look at for a while.

Though tbh I’m vanishingly unlikely ever to want to sell, so it probably doesn’t make much difference what I do.


----------



## Desert Rat

Great find cotedupy. 
If it was mine I couldn't really use it much. So many used washita's out there with out labels that surly you can find one with any characteristic you desire.


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> Great find cotedupy.
> If it was mine I couldn't really use it much. So many used washita's out there with out labels that surly you can find one with any characteristic you desire.



Yep I’m going to leave one side completely untouched, and probably just use the other a couple of times before retiring it for a little while. But it’d be nice to do a little vid with some impressions I reckon 

As you say - Equally good stones that have lost their labels are relatively easily available still. So there doesn’t seem much point in using a mint 5x2 when I already have a great unlabelled 8x2.

I have made my peace with it now... this is my induction to becoming a fully-fledged, pretentious, ‘stone collector’.


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> Yep I’m going to leave one side completely untouched, and probably just use the other a couple of times before retiring it for a little while. But it’d be nice to do a little vid with some impressions I reckon
> 
> As you say - Equally good stones that have lost their labels are relatively easily available still. So there doesn’t seem much point in using a mint 5x2 when I already have a great unlabelled 8x2.
> 
> I have made my peace with it now... this is my induction to becoming a fully-fledged, pretentious, ‘stone collector’.


Looking forward to a video!


----------



## cotedupy

A poorly-shot iphone video of the LW, as requested. I am even worse talking on camera than in real life. (You may need to change the settings at the bottom up to 1080 to make it better quality.)



https://drive.google.com/file/d/17SmRvtiCOFhHZkCzEWUYp-F65g82zxq4/view?usp=sharing



---

And (as requested on the other thread ) HHT off the edge. I had to strop it more on my sleeve to get there - the edge was pretty agressive at the end of the main video.






Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## Desert Rat

That's impressive cotedupy. You have taken to Washita's like a duck to water.


----------



## PotterMcMuck

Just found this thread! I picked up a vintage washita earlier this year. I've been crazy busy, so I haven't finished cleaning it up yet. I degreased it a bunch, but there's still quite a lot of oil in there. I only lapped one side (even though it was glued into a box, both sides were heavily dished, so I'm guessing at some point it was flipped over in its box), I'm not sure when I'll get to the other side. But I did enough work to test it out a bit, although not very in-depth. I finished a few kitchen knives on it, and it worked really well - a nice, polished edge. It seemed to finish stainless steel a little better, but at the same time it hasn't been burnished that much yet so maybe it will handle carbon steel better eventually. 

I want to try it in a progression with my razors soon, using the washita as a mid-range stone and my black ark as a finisher, but I'm just too wrapped up in my Jnats whenever I have a few spare minutes to hone, so I'm not sure when I'll actually get around to it. But I'm super happy to have the washita in my collection.


----------



## memorael

As far as I know, novaculite stones are not hard enough to sharpen some of the harder steels. Also, the structure of the stones makes them not as abrasive, take this with a grain of salt, and thus they burnish edges. Can you get a killer edge, yeah, is it worth it? if you like working a knife or any edged item for a couple of hours. Would I use one? no.


----------



## cotedupy

memorael said:


> As far as I know, novaculite stones are not hard enough to sharpen some of the harder steels. Also, the structure of the stones makes them not as abrasive, take this with a grain of salt, and thus they burnish edges. Can you get a killer edge, yeah, is it worth it? if you like working a knife or any edged item for a couple of hours. Would I use one? no.



Umm... So they can vary quite a lot. Purer novaculites are almost 100% Silica; almost all natural whetstones get their abrasive properties from Silica/quartz, so they'll abrade any steel that other natural stones do. The knife I was using in the video above wasn't some mega-hard 67 HRC steel (I don't have much experience with that kind of thing tbh), but not a very soft one either - it was Blue 2.

Because of the high SiO2 content novaculites will often abrade remarkably quickly too, but as you said - it certainly depends on the structure of them. Some novaculites are quite incredibly hard, if you read about cutting hard arks with diamond saws in the 19th century they'd be measuring progress in inches/day. But this extreme level of hardness, while making a stone finer, also makes it less friable and considerably slower. Softer novaculites can be extraordinarily quick - Washitas and Turkish are by some distance the fastest cutting natural stones I know.

(That's my experience/understanding anyway. And as I say - I'm not an expert on some of the mega hard steels. I sharpen almost exclusively Shirogami 2, Aogami 2, and Aogami Super.)


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> That's impressive cotedupy. You have taken to Washita's like a duck to water.



Ta... Helped in no small part by all the thoughts and info you've given me!

Love 'em .


----------



## memorael

cotedupy said:


> Umm... So they can vary quite a lot. Purer novaculites are almost 100% Silica; almost all natural whetstones get their abrasive properties from Silica/quartz, so they'll abrade any steel that other natural stones do. The knife I was using in the video above wasn't some mega-hard 67 HRC steel (I don't have much experience with that kind of thing tbh), but not a very soft one either - it was Blue 2.
> 
> Because of the high SiO2 content novaculites will often abrade remarkably quickly too, but as you said - it certainly depends on the structure of them. Some novaculites are quite incredibly hard, if you read about cutting hard arks with diamond saws in the 19th century they'd be measuring progress in inches/day. But this extreme level of hardness, while making a stone finer, also makes it less friable and considerably slower. Softer novaculites can be extraordinarily quick - Washitas and Turkish are by some distance the fastest cutting natural stones I know.
> 
> (That's my experience/understanding anyway. And as I say - I'm not an expert on some of the mega hard steels. I sharpen almost exclusively Shirogami 2, Aogami 2, and Aogami Super.)


I too am no expert but do recall trying to sharpen some of the newer steels and belgian coticules, novaculite stone I had and some of the water stones being used in the day would have a really tough time or not sharpen at all. Choseras were the way to go, I hear sigmas would also do a good job. I am sure theres new stones that do the trick with no issues, I also recall someone using a small "nagura dmt XC" to form a slurry on novaculite stones and getting better results.


----------



## M1k3

memorael said:


> I too am no expert but do recall trying to sharpen some of the newer steels and belgian coticules, novaculite stone I had and some of the water stones being used in the day would have a really tough time or not sharpen at all. Choseras were the way to go, I hear sigmas would also do a good job. I am sure theres new stones that do the trick with no issues, I also recall someone using a small "nagura dmt XC" to form a slurry on novaculite stones and getting better results.


It's not just about the steels hardness, it's also about the amount and type of carbides in the steel.


----------



## 77kath

I inherited this stone, which was in the same box as my grandfather’s straight razor. I soaked it in water and lapped both sides. One side has a ridge; the other is smooth. I’m not an experienced sharpener, but it put a good edge on a Sabatier stainless paring knife. It seems discolored on the ridged side. Can it be converted to a water stone for kitchen knives? I’m the wrong gender for a straight razor.


----------



## childermass

Nice stone.
It looks pretty clean, not sure if it was used with oil before. Did you use it with oil or water for the paring knife or dry?
If it doesn’t repell water when you try to make it wet it can be used as water stone right away. 
Else you will have to clean out the oil by some means, a few of which have been mentioned some posts before, but there are more experienced people here that can help with that.
But there is also nothing wrong with using it as an oil stone for sharpening kitchen knives.


----------



## 77kath

I used it with water. It was dirty before I lapped it, but didn’t seem oily. I liked the feel.


----------



## coxhaus

The Smith's Washita were sold as oil stones. Whether they work as water stones I don't know.

I sharpen my kitchen knives with oil stones for years. After sharpening just wash with soap to get the oil off. If it is carbon steel then use an oil you can live with.


----------



## childermass

77kath said:


> I used it with water. It was dirty before I lapped it, but didn’t seem oily. I liked the feel.


That’s what I was expecting. If you like it with water and it works you can just use it this way. It might be possible that it would work better with oil though but I can also understand if you don’t want to try that. It could be a bit tricky to move back to water once you used oil.


----------



## 77kath

I think I will try it with water again, on an old Opinel. That should give me a better idea how it works. Thank you both.


----------



## childermass

Trying it with different knives is a good idea. It will give you a feeling for the stone and it’s capabilities.


----------



## captaincaed

Also, things like windex, lightly soapy water and spit (ew) are actually pretty effective lubricants on stones with oil in them already. Using a stiff toothbrush and Barkeeper's friend will also help clean swarf out, if it starts to load up too much. Good luck, glad you have a family heirloom!


----------



## 77kath

Thanks, captaincaed. I want to use it for that reason


----------



## memorael

77kath said:


> I inherited this stone, which was in the same box as my grandfather’s straight razor. I soaked it in water and lapped both sides. One side has a ridge; the other is smooth. I’m not an experienced sharpener, but it put a good edge on a Sabatier stainless paring knife. It seems discolored on the ridged side. Can it be converted to a water stone for kitchen knives? I’m the wrong gender for a straight razor.
> View attachment 139529
> View attachment 139530


Nice stone, as many mentioned if it isn't already oiled up I don't see why you couldn't use it with water, IDK if it is recommended but I always like using slurries via a diamond nagura. You could use your late grandfathers razor as a leg shaver, just make sure your not hung over, also remember to strop. Let us know how it goes.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

77kath said:


> I inherited this stone, which was in the same box as my grandfather’s straight razor. I soaked it in water and lapped both sides. One side has a ridge; the other is smooth. I’m not an experienced sharpener, but it put a good edge on a Sabatier stainless paring knife. It seems discolored on the ridged side. Can it be converted to a water stone for kitchen knives? I’m the wrong gender for a straight razor.
> View attachment 139529
> View attachment 139530





77kath said:


> I think I will try it with water again, on an old Opinel. That should give me a better idea how it works. Thank you both.



Yes, you can use it with water. I wouldn't. No, you're not going to ruin it by using water a couple times, but the stone will load up much quicker with water than if you use oil. Laxative grade mineral oil from the grocery store works well here and you don't need to douse it like you would with water. Just let the surface soak it in. Rub it around with your finger and let the stone absorb the oil. Now the swarf will be suspended in the oil. It will still load over time but will much easier to remove than if you'd been using just water.

When you're done sharpening, rub a little more oil on the dark streaks, wipe with a paper towel and then wash the stone with dish soap and hot water and let dry. 

That's a great looking stone and even more awesome that it was grandpa's. It will last many more years.


----------



## 77kath

Progress report: Everyone seems to be leaning towards using it as an oil stone, so I tried mineral oil on the discolored side to work on the Opinel. I can testify that it cuts much better, though I didn’t quite get cutting-paper sharpness.


----------



## 77kath

memorael said:


> Nice stone, as many mentioned if it isn't already oiled up I don't see why you couldn't use it with water, IDK if it is recommended but I always like using slurries via a diamond nagura. You could use your late grandfathers razor as a leg shaver, just make sure your not hung over, also remember to strop. Let us know how it goes.


It would take a braver woman than I am, hung over or not, to use the razor. Think I will stick with the stone, thanks!


----------



## cotedupy

77kath said:


> Progress report: Everyone seems to be leaning towards using it as an oil stone, so I tried mineral oil on the discolored side to work on the Opinel. I can testify that it cuts much better, though I didn’t quite get cutting-paper sharpness.
> View attachment 139733
> View attachment 139734



This has absolutely been my experience with Washitas and other novaculite ‘oilstones’ too. As well as oil cleaning them better they also seem to cut better and work faster with oil.

Really nice thing to have! I was always slightly jealous of people in the US who had old stones belonging to their parents and grandparents, as I knew I’d never get anything like that...

Until the other day when my dad back in the UK went through one of my grandfather’s sheds and found this . Looks to be a slate of some kind. Probably Welsh I imagine.


----------



## 77kath

It‘s a good feeling, using something Grandad used.


----------



## coxhaus

I hope my grandkids think the same way.


----------



## Desert Rat

77kath said:


> I inherited this stone, which was in the same box as my grandfather’s straight razor. I soaked it in water and lapped both sides. One side has a ridge; the other is smooth. I’m not an experienced sharpener, but it put a good edge on a Sabatier stainless paring knife. It seems discolored on the ridged side. Can it be converted to a water stone for kitchen knives? I’m the wrong gender for a straight razor.
> View attachment 139529
> View attachment 139530


Here is the instructions that came with some Smith's Washita's recommending a light oil or water.
I use both with mine but I like my water with dish soap added. The stones I use with water show no more loading than those with oil, probably because I wash them off under the faucet after use.


----------



## 77kath

That’s useful. Thanks. Neat little case!


----------



## captaincaed

Dan's makes a honing oil for stones a bit thinner than mineral oil. Not too pricey either!








Dan's Honing Oil ~ 3 oz


'Dan's Honing Oil ~ 3 oz' helps preserve your stones & prevents your stone from clogging from metal shavings. 3 oz bottle size. Made in USA.




hardwickandsons.com


----------



## captaincaed

My favorite hardware store ever. Sadly priced out of the big city when Amazon moved out. Now looking for a reason to drive to Idaho for their new spot. If any of you tool nuts make it to Idaho, this is where I got all my old Arks. Plus they have everything, in every style, and 14 versions of each new and used. Miss them so much. It's like someone dumped out Ebay into a store.


----------



## 77kath

This is dangerous information


----------



## Desert Rat

77kath said:


> That’s useful. Thanks. Neat little case!


It's not mine just a picture I sniped off the net.

I can approximate oil by adjusting the amount of soap or just add dish soap directly to the stone and then add water with a small spray bottle. I'm not saying it is as good as oil but it's pretty user friendly especially since I like to hone in hand. Everything stays pretty clean too! I use oil on my stones out in the shop, it's just better than water in that environment and keeps my tools well oiled which prevents rust.


----------



## Desert Rat

captaincaed said:


> My favorite hardware store ever. Sadly priced out of the big city when Amazon moved out. Now looking for a reason to drive to Idaho for their new spot. If any of you tool nuts make it to Idaho, this is where I got all my old Arks. Plus they have everything, in every style, and 14 versions of each new and used. Miss them so much. It's like someone dumped out Ebay into a store.



I love places like that, sadly they are extinct in southern Idaho. I don't make it that far north much anymore but I will keep them in mind should go up that way.


----------



## captaincaed

Desert Rat said:


> I love places like that, sadly they are extinct in southern Idaho. I don't make it that far north much anymore but I will keep them in mind should go up that way.


They have a decent online selection, but the real gems are all in person. Used stuff priced very reasonably for a store. Like an every day swap meet. 

Favorite pickups were a Zyliss vise, saws, stones obviously. Also great knowledge of how to fit a tool to a job. The staff saved me money steering me away from the WRONG tool.


----------



## 77kath

Desert Rat said:


> It's not mine just a picture I sniped off the net.
> 
> I can approximate oil by adjusting the amount of soap or just add dish soap directly to the stone and then add water with a small spray bottle. I'm not saying it is as good as oil but it's pretty user friendly especially since I like to hone in hand. Everything stays pretty clean too! I use oil on my stones out in the shop, it's just better than water in that environment and keeps my tools well oiled which prevents rust.



Good information


----------



## cotedupy

Pike LW 8x2 arrived for me today. This one I will be using - it's the reason I was happy to have the other LW left pristine.











Currently in for a bit of degreasing having steamed the label off. Kiridashi coming into its own for this one 






Here with my other two. The new Pike is a bit denser at 2.40, the Norton is 2.32, and the unlabelled one on top almost identical at 2.33.


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> Pike LW 8x2 arrived for me today. This one I will be using - it's the reason I was happy to have the other LW left pristine.
> 
> View attachment 140026
> 
> 
> View attachment 140028
> 
> 
> Currently in for a bit of degreasing having steamed the label off. Kiridashi coming into its own for this one
> 
> View attachment 140029
> 
> 
> Here with my other two. The new Pike is a bit denser at 2.40, the Norton is 2.32, and the unlabelled one on top almost identical at 2.33.
> 
> View attachment 140027


Have you cleaned your new LWW? Just curious if it has turned white.


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> Have you cleaned your new LWW? Just curious if it has turned white.



Good question... I have, and it didn't. Which slightly surprised me.

Every other old oilstone that I've left in degreaser for a day or so, has at least changed colour on the surface, even if it needed repeated soaks to get out of the middle. I had this in SG for maybe 48hrs total and the colour didn't budge. It just doesn't have dirt on the surface anymore.

I asked about this over on B&B and a couple of the experts there said they had occasionally seen this kind of translucent 'butterscotch' type Washita, which was something I'd only heard about with regards to hard Arks before.

Was there something about it that made you think it might not go white...?


----------



## cotedupy

In case anyone's interested I did a little comparison of how two Washitas at different ends of the scale compare. The one above - 2.45 sg, next to one at 2.08.









A Tale of Two Washitas


[Let's preface this by saying I have nothing like the level of experience using Washitas that some people here do, but I have a bit; I use them as part of my work pretty much every day. Nevertheless some of the things below surprised me.] The last two Washitas I got were chalk and cheese, if...




www.badgerandblade.com


----------



## Bear

Can you get a good idea of hardness from color?

This is on its way


----------



## gordyt

Greetings Folks,

I'm a new member (as of today). The two stones on the left are Washitas. I bought the Leichtung about a year ago from Ebay. It's a great stone and sharpens pretty fast for an Arkansas stone. I got the one on the bottom left from an overseas Etsy seller. It is supposed to be a Washita but doesn't seem to be as fast as the first one.

The stones on the right are all from Dans. From top-to-bottom: soft, hard, black.

I use a mixture of:

- 1 part food-grade mineral oil
- 4 parts water
- about 1/2 part Dawn dish soap...just enough to keep everything mixed.

-- gordon


----------



## stringer

gordyt said:


> Greetings Folks,
> 
> I'm a new member (as of today). The two stones on the left are Washitas. I bought the Leichtung about a year ago from Ebay. It's a great stone and sharpens pretty fast for an Arkansas stone. I got the one on the bottom left from an overseas Etsy seller. It is supposed to be a Washita but doesn't seem to be as fast as the first one.
> 
> The stones on the right are all from Dans. From top-to-bottom: soft, hard, black.
> 
> I use a mixture of:
> 
> - 1 part food-grade mineral oil
> - 4 parts water
> - about 1/2 part Dawn dish soap...just enough to keep everything mixed.
> 
> -- gordon



Welcome aboard

The one on the bottom left certainly looks like what I'm familiar with being Washita. I am not familiar with Leichtung. But that stone doesn't look like other washitas I have seen. They generally range from very white to sort of brown\tan mottled like the one you have there (especially if they have been used with oil). I'm not used to seeing that blue color or stripes. Doesn't mean it isn't washita, but that bottom one is more like what they usually look like.


----------



## captaincaed

Howdy, welcome to the small Arkansas corner of the forum


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

gordyt said:


> Greetings Folks,
> 
> I'm a new member (as of today). The two stones on the left are Washitas. I bought the Leichtung about a year ago from Ebay. It's a great stone and sharpens pretty fast for an Arkansas stone. I got the one on the bottom left from an overseas Etsy seller. It is supposed to be a Washita but doesn't seem to be as fast as the first one.
> 
> The stones on the right are all from Dans. From top-to-bottom: soft, hard, black.
> 
> I use a mixture of:
> 
> - 1 part food-grade mineral oil
> - 4 parts water
> - about 1/2 part Dawn dish soap...just enough to keep everything mixed.
> 
> -- gordon



Welcome.

As @stringer said, my experience is stones of that color are typically graded as soft and not Washita. I've never seen one like that but it still looks like a really cool stone!


----------



## stringer

So I did a little hunting. Still can't find much of anything on Leichtung. Washita is a pretty vague term that gets used to describe a lot of different soft novaculite stones. Really all you can do is see how it works for you. Vintage washitas are highly desirable because they can be used to do lots of different types of sharpening tasks. They can do the work of coarse and mid range synthetic stones but leave less of a burr and create a nice stable edge very quickly. They work ok with water but great with mineral oil or a hybrid like you mention. Soft Arks are on the same continuum and the nomenclature is completely random across different times and spaces. But use it and see what it does for you. And compare it to the other one because that definitely looks like a classic vintage washita to me.


----------



## gordyt

HumbleHomeCook said:


> I've never seen one like that but it still looks like a really cool stone!



Thanks HHC! I completely agree about the unusual coloration on that top-left stone. It does seem off for a Washita. 

I sure have enjoyed using all of them. It's a way different experience sharpening with Arkansas stones than, say, with Japanese whetstones (which I also like).

My wife tells me that it is my personal form of meditation or relaxation, and I cannot disagree.

Glad to be on the forums!

-- gordon


----------



## gordyt

stringer said:


> So I did a little hunting. Still can't find much of anything on Leichtung



@stringer I could not either. I don't know if you would find this interesting or not, but the following is a scan of the paperwork that came with the stone.


----------



## stringer

gordyt said:


> @stringer I could not either. I don't know if you would find this interesting or not, but the following is a scan of the paperwork that came with the stone.



That's really neat. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## gordyt

You bet! I took a chance on that one because of the documentation, the nice wooden box, and the condition of the stone.

I sure wish I could talk Dan into parting with one of his secret stash of Washitas!

----

Disclaimer: I don't actually *know* that Dan has a secret stash of Washitas


----------



## stringer

gordyt said:


> You bet! I took a chance on that one because of the documentation, the nice wooden box, and the condition of the stone.
> 
> I sure wish I could talk Dan into parting with one of his secret stash of Washitas!
> 
> ----
> 
> Disclaimer: I don't actually *know* that Dan has a secret stash of Washitas



You have a very nice collection there. I wish I had full size bench stones like that. Most of my arks are smaller.


----------



## Rangen

stringer said:


> So I did a little hunting. Still can't find much of anything on Leichtung.



I could swear that I used to buy woodworking stuff from a business called Leichtung Workshops, back a long time ago when I used to do woodworking.


----------



## stringer




----------



## gordyt

Rangen said:


> I could swear that I used to buy woodworking stuff from a business called Leichtung Workshops, back a long time ago when I used to do woodworking.



As I recall from back when I had purchased that stone, I had a heck of a time finding anything at all about Leichtung. I'm glad that @stringer was able to dig up that info from 2002.


----------



## stringer

gordyt said:


> As I recall from back when I had purchased that stone, I had a heck of a time finding anything at all about Leichtung. I'm glad that @stringer was able to dig up that info from 2002.



You gave me the clue I needed, Ohio.


----------



## cotedupy

Bear said:


> Can you get a good idea of hardness from color?
> 
> This is on its way



I don't believe so, but might be wrong...

Once you get - If you take the weight in g and divide it by the volume in cm3 - that gives you the SG of the stone.


----------



## cotedupy

gordyt said:


> Thanks HHC! I completely agree about the unusual coloration on that top-left stone. It does seem off for a Washita.
> 
> I sure have enjoyed using all of them. It's a way different experience sharpening with Arkansas stones than, say, with Japanese whetstones (which I also like).
> 
> My wife tells me that it is my personal form of meditation or relaxation, and I cannot disagree.
> 
> Glad to be on the forums!
> 
> -- gordon



Greetings! And welcome to our enlightened resistance against the never-ending tide of jnats .

To explain a bit about colours, and new vs old Washitas...

If you talk to people who are very geeky about / are collectors of Washitas (and there are lots of them!) they will make a distinction between the new ones and the old. In a nutshell; old Washitas were only quarried and produced by Pike, later Pike-Norton-Behr-Manning, and production stopped some time ago, so prices have been on the the increase. When brand new these stones were pure white, however most have been used with oil for decades and it's soaked into the stones meaning they tend to come up grey-brown and usually slightly mottled-looking. If you soak them in degreaser extensively you can return them to something approaching the original colour, but that's only really an aesthetic thing.

Here's a picture of my four old Washitas, to show the kind of cream-brown colour they are when cleaned up a bit. The third one down though is something of a rarity - a completely unused NOS Norton Lily White Washita - the other stones would have been a similarly bright white colour when new:






Nowadays many other companies market stones as Washitas (including Dan's). These are often, but not always, prettily patterned and coloured like your one. These stones are called Washitas because they're selected to work similarly to the old Pike-Norton quarried Washitas.

The sorts of people who are very into Washitas, would regard these newer ones as a type of soft Ark, and not a 'proper' Washita. I've never used a newer type so can't compare them first hand, but the general verdict is that the newer ones are a bit different and don't possess the wide range of the stones from the P-N quarries. One of the things that makes a Washita almost unique is the extraordinary range of working grit levels you can get out of them, depending on the _pressure _you use them with - a single stone could work from the mid 100s to mid 1000s. Whereas the newer ones might have a far narrower range, somewhere toward the bottom of that. Along with Turkish stones, old Washitas are only the only real 'one-stop-shop' stones I have that I can take a Tosa knife from fairly blunt factory setting, set the bevel, edge, and sharpen to this:



---

We here at KKF are non-discriminatory, and welcome Washitas of all stripes and colours, especially when they're as good-looking as your one in the top left. One day I'd rather like to get myself one of the newer type to compare (and because they're f-ing pretty!)

Your second, dirtier, stone could well be an older Pike-Norton one. It's a bit difficult to tell, but if you give the surface a bit of a scrub with some detergent to clean up, and then take a couple of closer pics, I should be able to give a reasonably informed opinion. What country did it come from? Outside of the US you're a lot less likely to find the newer soft ark type of Washita, so I'd hazard a guess that it is one of the older type. If it is, as I say - try working it with quite heavy pressure to start with, getting progressively lighter, and you'll reveal some of the low-end speed, and range, that makes these stones so well-liked.


----------



## gordyt

@cotedupy what an interesting post! I was just getting ready for bed when I saw it. But I did want to say that I snapped a pic of the shipping label off of the box the stone came in (the stone on the lower left). Over the next few days I'm going to see if I can degrease that old stone and see what is revealed. The Esty seller is Vintage Shaving Shop from Chernihiv, Ukrane.


----------



## cotedupy

gordyt said:


> @cotedupy what an interesting post! I was just getting ready for bed when I saw it. But I did want to say that I snapped a pic of the shipping label off of the box the stone came in (the stone on the lower left). Over the next few days I'm going to see if I can degrease that old stone and see what is revealed. The Esty seller is Vintage Shaving Shop from Chernihiv, Ukrane.
> 
> View attachment 146772



Ah cool! I've seen their etsy shop before while browsing through stuff, they have some very nice stones, and know their stuff.

That stone will pretty much definitely then be one of the older Pike-Norton types of Washita. One of the markets that's really driven the prices of them is actually in Russia, so if they were selling something as a Washita in that neck of the woods that wasn't the older sort - they'd get found out quite quickly.

If they've still got the original labels they can start getting very expensive, but one of the things about old Washitas is; because it was only Pike-Norton who produced them, even if it doesn't have a label you can still basically be certain that that is what it is. And quality control was high - they can vary a bit toward being coarser or finer, but all that I've tried have been excellent stones, with wide ranges.

Soak it for a day or two in Simple Green, or any kind of degreaser really, and see what comes out. It should get a fair bit lighter in colour. Refresh the surface on some sandpaper or something, then give a go. And yeah... if you want coarse- work with pressure, if you want fine- almost no pressure. Washitas should cut very well all the way through the range.

Enjoy! Look forward to hearing what you think of it once cleaned up...


----------



## gordyt

cotedupy said:


> Enjoy! Look forward to hearing what you think of it once cleaned up...



Thanks @cotedupy. I have it soaking in Simple Green now. After soaking, I'm going to make sure the stone is nice and flat. It's a bit of a pain, but I do have a good diamond plate that should get the job done.


----------



## gordyt

OK I have a quick follow-up report. After I got off work today, I took that stone from the lower-left side of this post out of the Simple Green. I flattened both sides with a diamond plate and test-sharpened a small neck knife:






I tried what @cotedupy suggested:

- Started sharpening with more pressure and quickly got the blade in decent shape. It wasn't _bad_ to start with, but was no longer shaving sharp, nor would it slice thin paper cleanly.
- Followed up with lighter pressure, and finished with light edge trailing strokes.

I can't show microscope pics quite yet (working on that), but in my jewelers loupe the edge looked really good. Can also shave what little hair I have on my arm (thyroid issues) and do clean thin-paper slicing.

Long story short: This stone performed surprisingly well and provided faster results than I am used to getting with and Arkansas stone.

Thanks all for the feedback on my earlier post. I really appreciate it. In the words of Valentine Michael Smith (obscure reference from Heinlein): "I am only an egg".

Loosely translated to mean: I still have a lot to learn!


----------



## cotedupy

gordyt said:


> OK I have a quick follow-up report. After I got off work today, I took that stone from the lower-left side of this post out of the Simple Green. I flattened both sides with a diamond plate and test-sharpened a small neck knife:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tried what @cotedupy suggested:
> 
> - Started sharpening with more pressure and quickly got the blade in decent shape. It wasn't _bad_ to start with, but was no longer shaving sharp, nor would it slice thin paper cleanly.
> - Followed up with lighter pressure, and finished with light edge trailing strokes.
> 
> I can't show microscope pics quite yet (working on that), but in my jewelers loupe the edge looked really good. Can also shave what little hair I have on my arm (thyroid issues) and do clean thin-paper slicing.
> 
> Long story short: This stone performed surprisingly well and provided faster results than I am used to getting with and Arkansas stone.
> 
> Thanks all for the feedback on my earlier post. I really appreciate it. In the words of Valentine Michael Smith (obscure reference from Heinlein): "I am only an egg".
> 
> Loosely translated to mean: I still have a lot to learn!



Ah great to hear! And congratulations on the proud owner of one of the very best natural stones ever quarried anywhere (for my money at least). And one that will only become increasingly scarce and sought after. It amazes me that they don't get more attention here because they are just superb stones for knives.

Yours looks in good condition, and a decent size - if that's larger than 8x2 - they're not that common. A _very _good Etsy purchase I think, and nice also to have one newer, pretty one, and one of the older P-N types


----------



## gordyt

Thanks @cotedupy !

That stone is right at 8x2. Listing here. It is more than a bit depressing that these have become a scarce commodity!


----------



## cotedupy

gordyt said:


> Thanks @cotedupy !
> 
> That stone is right at 8x2. Listing here. It is more than a bit depressing that these have become a scarce commodity!



Ah nice... looks a good 'un, with no big chips or anything. I used my 8x2 at the top of my pic above last night; just a wonderful stone, and very similar-looking to yours.

It is a bit sad that they're no longer still quarried, though they can still be found dirty, old, and cheap if you know what to look for. But that's becoming a bit less common in the US apparently, as people have realised quite how good they are.

Another thing to keep an eye out for are 'Turkish Oilstones'. You don't find many in the states because they got largely taken out of the market by the cheaper, local, Washita, but I do know a few people who've found old ones over there. They're incredible stones too.


----------



## gordyt

cotedupy said:


> Another thing to keep an eye out for are 'Turkish Oilstones'. You don't find many in the states because they got largely taken out of the market by the cheaper, local, Washita, but I do know a few people who've found old ones over there. They're incredible stones too



Fascinating, thanks! I had never even heard of these. Will definitely try and pick one up.


----------



## stringer

Hey,
What do y'all make of these orange stones. I had the one that's not mounted for a few years. Just got it's mounted twin. I think it might be washita. It's super porous and feels very similar to my non labelled lily white. Dry after simple green. The box on the mounted one looks like wenge.





Next to my white washita




And with mineral oil


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> Hey,
> What do y'all make of these orange stones. I had the one that's not mounted for a few years. Just got it's mounted twin. I think it might be washita. It's super porous and feels very similar to my non labelled lily white. Dry after simple green. The box on the mounted one looks like wenge.
> 
> View attachment 153189
> 
> Next to my white washita
> View attachment 153193
> 
> And with mineral oil
> 
> View attachment 153194



From here they look like India stones, but you reckon natural...?


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> From here they look like India stones, but you reckon natural...?



Hard to say. They could be India stones. I have never seen one in person. They look less red more yellow than the pictures on eBay but I am also very colorblind.


----------



## stringer

Double post


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

I don't know that they look like India's. Mine are more orange and maybe more granular.

An edge shot _might_ help but not sure.


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> From here they look like India stones, but you reckon natural...?



You were exactly right. I liberated the boxed one to look for more clues and found this on the bottom


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

Wow. That's awesome! Great eye @cotedupy.

Cool stones @stringer. Thanks for sharing and contributing to my education.


----------



## cotedupy

HumbleHomeCook said:


> Wow. That's awesome! Great eye @cotedupy.
> 
> Cool stones @stringer. Thanks for sharing and contributing to my education.



Ah cheers! Cleaning up and trying to ID old stones is something I do quite a lot.

(The colours on Norton Indias vary between fine medium and hard, and they also, confusingly, seem to have changed up which colour was which from time to time, and for different markets. They go from that kind of light yellow/tan colour, through browns, to orange/reddish).

That's very nice @stringer, especially with the stamp so well preserved. Don't know if you saw, but it was that very Norton Medium India that I chose recently as one of my two 'Stones to Tackle All Situations'. Really, _really_, good stone: Just one stone. Go


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

cotedupy said:


> Ah cheers! Cleaning up and trying to ID old stones is something I do quite a lot.
> 
> (The colours on Norton Indias vary between fine medium and hard, and they also, confusingly, seem to have changed up which colour was which from time to time, and for different markets. They go from that kind of light yellow/tan colour, through browns, to orange/reddish).
> 
> That's very nice @stringer, especially with the stamp so well preserved. Don't know if you saw, but it was that very Norton Medium India that I chose recently as one of my two 'Stones to Tackle All Situations'. Really, _really_, good stone: Just one stone. Go



Thanks.

Mine are more orange but maybe that's because they're newer (within the past decade) and I just don't remember what the older ones looked like. 

At any rate, cools stones @stringer.


----------



## stringer

The stamps looks really nice cleaned up. Do you think I could shellack them or something to preserve it?


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

Oh that is cool.

And all, please note the instructions on the stone.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> The stamps looks really nice cleaned up. Do you think I could shellack them or something to preserve it?
> 
> View attachment 153959



I imagine you could if you wanted, though ime those stamps tend to be quite hardy. I have a couple of Indias that were in considerably worse condition, but once cleaned up the stamps were still fine. As long as you don’t sharpen on that surface, obviously, I think you should be grand.

An interesting thing about this is that some India stones (I think earlier ones) came impregnated with oil, and others didn’t. No idea when that changed or if it happened concurrently, but yours clearly was not; hence it seeming quite porous, and the advice to use with loads of oil.

They’re much nicer without . I have one impregnated, which I’m still trying to soak the the oil out of, and it’s a pretty grubby affair!


----------



## stringer

I am winning a bid on another mystery one as we speak. And going antiquing today with my wife. Hopefully the picking gods will smile upon me.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> I am winning a bid on another mystery one as we speak. And going antiquing today with my wife. Hopefully the picking gods will smile upon me.



Haha... welcome to the addiction .

—-

Here’s an interesting stone I received last week... this is a Washita, but with two quite distinct compositions within the one stone:











The lighter parts at the end are fairly translucent for a Washita, but the darker centre is almost like a trans ark. Stone is remarkably fast even for a Washita, which are pretty quick already. With the end parts a little coarser/quicker than the centre. Very cool stone!





Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

stringer said:


> I am winning a bid on another mystery one as we speak. And going antiquing today with my wife. Hopefully the picking gods will smile upon me.



Be sure to report back if you find something cool.


----------



## stringer

HumbleHomeCook said:


> Be sure to report back if you find something cool.


My wife found a rug and light fixture for our dining room. But nothing cool. There was a bucket of old knives at one place. But nothing that I had to have.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

stringer said:


> My wife found a rug and light fixture for our dining room. But nothing cool. There was a bucket of old knives at one place. But nothing that I had to have.
> 
> View attachment 154039




Missed opportunity. You coulda spent 8-20 hours fixing up each of those knives and sold each one for at least like fifteen bucks!


----------



## captaincaed

Dipping my toe in the water. Hope it's a real washita.


----------



## KingShapton

stringer said:


> My wife found a rug and light fixture for our dining room. But nothing cool. There was a bucket of old knives at one place. But nothing that I had to have.
> 
> View attachment 154039


But not so bad for a chance find. There are minimum at least 5 knives made of simple carbon steel, looks like old Forge craft or Ontario Old Hickory, then that should be 1095 if I remember correctly. Nothing exciting, but fun to play with. Much better than the average flea market rubbish box here in Germany.


----------



## VICTOR J CREAZZI

Still trying to get me head straight on this. Is Washita a defined mineral or layer, or a marketing/grading term that separates them from other novaculites?


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

VICTOR J CREAZZI said:


> Still trying to get me head straight on this. Is Washita a defined mineral or layer, or a marketing/grading term that separates them from other novaculites?



Arkansas stones are categorized by density. The Washita's are the coarsest of the lineage. The quality Washita's are very hard to come by any more.


----------



## VICTOR J CREAZZI

HumbleHomeCook said:


> Arkansas stones are categorized by density. The Washita's are the coarsest of the lineage. The quality Washita's are very hard to come by any more.


I tried an Arkansas labeled 'soft' that was much coarser than one that I have that I've always thought of as a Washita.


----------



## Bear

VICTOR J CREAZZI said:


> Still trying to get me head straight on this. Is Washita a defined mineral or layer, or a marketing/grading term that separates them from other novaculites?



This is a pretty good explanation.


----------



## stringer

KingShapton said:


> But not so bad for a chance find. There are minimum at least 5 knives made of simple carbon steel, looks like Ontario Old Hickory, then that should be 1095 if I remember correctly. Nothing exciting, but fun to play with. Much better than the average flea market rubbish box here in Germany.



Tempting. But been there done that. I've got a bunch already. It takes something pretty special and it's gotta be cheap. That bucket was neither.





VICTOR J CREAZZI said:


> I tried an Arkansas labeled 'soft' that was much coarser than one that I have that I've always thought of as a Washita.



You really can't trust the labels. It varies so much across time periods and brands and quarries etc. My one definite old school washita is my favorite stone period. With pressure it cuts anything pretty quick. At least anything I have. The fanciest alloy in my collection is vg-10. But it can also finish in the 2-4k range. I wouldn't use it or a soft ark on razors, but there are definitely people who do. Easiest way to see how your stone will perform in relation to other novaculite is to measure the specific density with the displacement method. It's easier with grams. Since mass and volume of water are equal in metric. Weigh the stone dry. Then put water in a bowl on a scale sufficient to submerge the stone. Tare the scale. Dangle the stone completely into the water on a string or wire but don't let it touch the sides. The reading on the scale will tell you how much water is being displaced by the stone. Divide the dry mass by the mass of the displaced water. Generally, the coarser stones are less dense and softer. The classic washita stones had several grades. Lily white, which was white with no blemishes but could be soft or hard, coarse or fine. Then #1, #2, and #3. Each numbered grade was further graded hard or soft and/or coarse medium fine. There was a lot of variability. Other Arkansas stones started out being labelled just soft / hard. Later they added all of the other grades like surgical black, translucent, etc. Later releases of "washita" aren't from the same mines and don't have the same characteristics as the vintage stuff.


----------



## cotedupy

Staying with my sister for the week, checked out her local tool / antique shop yesterday, and found this 9x2 











After the Norton takeover in 1933 the standard offering of bench-size Washitas topped out at 8x2, so finding 9 or 10 inch stones is quite rare. This is likely an old Pike stone.

NB - that stone is *not* multicoloured - it'd be white as the driven snow if I left it in degreaser for half a year. Pretty much all old Washitas were pure white, or sometimes had small amounts of a kinda orange/pink blush, which occasionally can go through the whole stone.


----------



## KingShapton

@cotedupy : Lucky hand again


----------



## cotedupy

KingShapton said:


> @cotedupy : Lucky hand again



Yeah I was pretty pleased; I probably didn’t need another, but it’s the only one I have larger than 8”. It’s relatively soft / coarse too, which is nice.


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> Dipping my toe in the water. Hope it's a real washita. View attachment 154066



There are some people who use the term ‘Washita’ only to refer to stones produced from the Pike-Norton quarries, and might say that your stone is more similar to a soft ark. I’ve only ever used old P-N stones so can’t give you a first hand comparison, but it sounds plausible. Even softer P-N Washitas are quite hard, and it gives them a lot of range, and means you can work them to a much higher ‘grit’ level than the particle size might normally. You can tell the difference in hardness also by how few old Pike brand Soft Arkansas are still around in comparison to Pike Washitas, even though the latter were considerably more expensive. The soft arks have just got worn away over the years, whereas Washitas last a very long time.

But ‘Washita’ wasn’t a trademark. It was applied originally, in the early 19th century, to stones that were transported to market down the Ouachita river, and there were a number of quarries that produced them. In the 1890s Pike bought out the only other large company that marketed Washita stones (called George Reynolds I think). And then bought a number of the quarries; some if not all of the Sutton quarries, though there were others, and I doubt Pike bought all of them. What they did do is a very good job of monopolising the name Washita, and convincing everybody that PIKE WHETSTONES ARE THE BEST!

Smith’s who produced your stone were I think the first people after that to start marketing their own Washitas, not from the P-N quarries. Which I think makes your stone rather interesting. And obviously Smith’s, and Dan’s who also market a Washita, are well-respected companies that aren’t going to be turning out rubbish.

So yeah... it’s a ‘real’ Washita because that’s what they’ve called it. Just not a Pike-Norton one, so probably slightly different in use, and some people make a distinction. As I mentioned above - when new the P-N Washitas were almost always completely white, whereas other companies’ versions often had pretty colours and patterns like yours.

TBH I’d love to have a NOS Smith’s Washita like that to compare, so gimme a shout if you come across another! And keen to hear your thoughts when you use. (Note that it’ll be better with oil).


----------



## cotedupy

The link posted by @Bear above is a *very* good and well-researched explanation and history of Washita stones for anyone interested.

And for anyone wanting to get particularly geeky about Pike-Norton and American stones in general - I compiled links to quite a lot of old publications and price lists here:
Thread 'Depository of Information about Pike / Norton / American Novaculite'
Depository of Information about Pike / Norton / American Novaculite

Particularly good is the 1890 Geological Survey, which is probably the most in-depth look at natural sharpening stones ever written. And the various old Pike and Norton pamphlets are worth a read too; ‘How to Sharpen’, ‘History of Sharpening Stones’, ‘How to Select a Whetstone’ &c. Even if they are partial to the relentless self-aggrandisement and promotion that I mentioned above!


----------



## rocketman

Back in the 70's and living in Dallas, I was a virgin knife guy, but interested in all things knife. So naturally I went to Hot Springs Arkansas for several days in my trusty VW.. I just drove around and went to the mines...Many were a two man crew of "old men", probably in their 60's... First thing I noticed is that they were blasting with black powder... They said higher explosives shattered, not lifted.. Then they drilled into the giant boulders, and used wedges to split them into manageable pieces... Then into trucks to the factories where they were imbedded in grout, and a gigantic frame of parallel steel plates immersed in silicon carbide slurry spent a couple of days slicing the stone to size, at least one size, thickness. 
Lots of fun, learned a lot, and the miners gave me some chunks I could carry. Say 50-75#.
So recently, 5 years ago, I discovered the chunks in my barn, and I went to the Houston Gem and Mineral society lab, and made a bunch of sharpening stones...
I forge some so a natural outgrowth of the whole knife thing. 
In any event, the stones are around soft Arkansas or Washita in particle size, and a lot of fun to use with the knowledge of the whole experience. 
Maybe someone should organize a trip to Japan to the Jnat mines.... Surely would be a kick... Jnat and Chef's alley in Osaka , or Tokyo.. 
Then of course the fish market, and tuna swords.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

cotedupy said:


> There are some people who use the term ‘Washita’ only to refer to stones produced from the Pike-Norton quarries, and might say that your stone is more similar to a soft ark. I’ve only ever used old P-N stones can’t give you a first hand comparison, but it sounds plausible. Even softer P-N Washitas are quite hard, and it gives them a lot of range, and means you can work them to a much higher ‘grit’ level than the particle size might normally. You can tell the difference in hardness also by how few old Pike brand Soft Arkansas are still around in comparison to Pike Washitas, even though the latter were considerably more expensive. The soft arks have just got worn away over the years, whereas Washitas last a very long time.
> 
> But ‘Washita’ wasn’t a trademark. It was applied originally, in the early 19th century, to stones that were transported to market down the Ouachita river, and there were a number of quarries that produced them. In the 1890s Pike bought out the only other large company that marketed Washita stones (called George Reynolds I think). And then bought a number of the quarries; some if not all of the Sutton quarries, though there were others, and I doubt Pike bought all of them. What they did do is a very good job of monopolising the name Washita, and convincing everybody that PIKE BRAND ARE THE BEST!
> 
> Smith’s who produced your stone were I think the first people after that to start marketing their own Washitas, not from the P-N quarries. Which I think makes your stone rather interesting. And obviously Smith’s, and Dan’s who also market a Washita, are well-respected companies that aren’t going to be turning out rubbish.
> 
> So yeah... it’s a ‘real’ Washita because that’s what they’ve called it. Just not a Pike-Norton one, so might be slightly different in use, and some people make a distinction. As I mentioned above - when new the P-N Washitas were almost always completely white, whereas other companies’ versions often had pretty colours and patterns like yours.
> 
> TBH I’d love to have a NOS Smith’s Washita like that to compare, so gimme a shout if you come across another! And keen to hear your thoughts when you use. (Note that it’ll be better with oil).



Nice write up. Thank you!


----------



## captaincaed

cotedupy said:


> There are some people who use the term ‘Washita’ only to refer to stones produced from the Pike-Norton quarries, and might say that your stone is more similar to a soft ark. I’ve only ever used old P-N stones can’t give you a first hand comparison, but it sounds plausible. Even softer P-N Washitas are quite hard, and it gives them a lot of range, and means you can work them to a much higher ‘grit’ level than the particle size might normally. You can tell the difference in hardness also by how few old Pike brand Soft Arkansas are still around in comparison to Pike Washitas, even though the latter were considerably more expensive. The soft arks have just got worn away over the years, whereas Washitas last a very long time.
> 
> But ‘Washita’ wasn’t a trademark. It was applied originally, in the early 19th century, to stones that were transported to market down the Ouachita river, and there were a number of quarries that produced them. In the 1890s Pike bought out the only other large company that marketed Washita stones (called George Reynolds I think). And then bought a number of the quarries; some if not all of the Sutton quarries, though there were others, and I doubt Pike bought all of them. What they did do is a very good job of monopolising the name Washita, and convincing everybody that PIKE BRAND ARE THE BEST!
> 
> Smith’s who produced your stone were I think the first people after that to start marketing their own Washitas, not from the P-N quarries. Which I think makes your stone rather interesting. And obviously Smith’s, and Dan’s who also market a Washita, are well-respected companies that aren’t going to be turning out rubbish.
> 
> So yeah... it’s a ‘real’ Washita because that’s what they’ve called it. Just not a Pike-Norton one, so might be slightly different in use, and some people make a distinction. As I mentioned above - when new the P-N Washitas were almost always completely white, whereas other companies’ versions often had pretty colours and patterns like yours.
> 
> TBH I’d love to have a NOS Smith’s Washita like that to compare, so gimme a shout if you come across another! And keen to hear your thoughts when you use. (Note that it’ll be better with oil).



This is the best thread on the forum right now. You all rock. Leaving quickly for work, but yes I'll update on how it works out. 

Other fun stuff coming out of grandpa's garage. In bad need of cleaning, but I'm excited to get everything tunes up and ready for another generation.


----------



## cotedupy

Cheers @HumbleHomeCook and @captaincaed (I just find the histories of old types of stones fascinating, so often spend a silly amount of time reading up about them! Plus of course - Washitas are genuinely excellent )

—-

That Cco. hone looks cool too, I love the beautifully preserved label! Should also be an interesting stone; I have a few Cco. benchstones and they’re generally good quality examples of standard vitrified SiC, i.e. very useful, but relatively coarse. A razor hone though is going to be far finer than SiC stones normally are, so fun to try out.


----------



## cotedupy

At the risk of making @KingShapton ’s head explode, and of slightly derailing the Washita thread to include other types of novaculite, here’s a dirty old stone I found *very* cheaply at a local market yesterday:






From the feel and look of it I had an inkling what it might be. And indeed now cleaned up and flattened:











For those not au fait with some of the world’s more recherche sharpening stones - that’s a Charnley Forest, a very pretty green stone from Leicestershire, often with distinctive red stripes through them. They’re very fine and quite slow; far more comparable to a hard black or translucent Arkansas than a Washita, and nothing like as useful for most kitchen knives as the latter, unless you’re looking for super refined 10k + finishes.

They haven’t been quarried probably for at least 100 years, after being replaced quite quickly by the Washita, which is equally hard wearing but _far_ faster. Though recently were rediscovered by the straight razor community, and prices have exploded. That one above is a large and thick example at 270 x 47 x 28, and worth a pretty penny.


----------



## cotedupy

Here’s a contemporary account of the introduction of the Washita into the UK market:

‘All my father’s men used the “Charnley Forest”, a natural British stone resembling slate, and I have vivid memories of the incessant rubbing that was necessary before a keen edge on the tool could be obtained on them. They varied slightly in quality, but even the very best were dreadfully slow; and all demanded an abnormal amount of labour, to lighten which we sometimes applied fine emery powder to the surface. This quickened the process, but left a raw and unsatisfactory edge to the tool. Recourse to the grindstone was had immediately the sharpening bevel became wide.

In the year 1889 the “Washita”. An imported stone, appeared on the English market, and was hailed with delight by all woodworkers , who straightway discarded their “Charnley Forests” for ever. One old stone, that had till then been considered of supreme merit and priceless value, was then hawked round the workshop where I was serving a term of apprenticeship, and failed to find a purchaser at the proffered price of sixpence.’


----------



## rocketman

Cotedupy ,
Killer post!!


----------



## captaincaed

Damn you are a rock HOUND, every week you've got a new find. Serious congrats on the Charnley.


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> Damn you are a rock HOUND, every week you've got a new find. Serious congrats on the Charnley.



Haha, that CF was nothing more than blind luck! A lady selling various bits of kitchenware and trinketry happened to have got a load of tools from an old guy at the weekend. She said she maybe found half a dozen whetstones per year and they always sold very quickly, though she normally cleaned them up and asked more than £15.

Right place, right time, and a nice momento of a fun day out with my sister who I don’t get to see very often now that I’ve moved to Aus. (Though clearly I need to come back and raid the local markets on a more regular basis!)


----------



## stringer

I've got one coming in the mail. Fingers crossed it's not SiC. Other than that I don't care.


----------



## KingShapton

cotedupy said:


> At the risk of making @KingShapton ’s head explode, and of slightly derailing the Washita thread to include other types of novaculite, here’s a dirty old stone I found *very* cheaply at a local market yesterday:
> 
> View attachment 154479
> 
> 
> From the feel and look of it I had an inkling what it might be. And indeed now cleaned up and flattened:
> 
> View attachment 154480
> 
> 
> View attachment 154481
> 
> 
> For those not au fait with some of the world’s more recherche sharpening stones - that’s a Charnley Forest, a very pretty green stone from Leicestershire, often with distinctive red stripes through them. They’re very fine and quite slow; far more comparable to a hard black or translucent Arkansas than a Washita, and nothing like as useful for most kitchen knives as the latter, unless you’re looking for super refined 10k + finishes.
> 
> They haven’t been quarried probably for at least 100 years, after being replaced quite quickly by the Washita, which is equally hard wearing but _far_ faster. Though recently were rediscovered by the straight razor community, and prices have exploded. That one above is a large and thick example at 270 x 47 x 28, and worth a pretty penny.


Oh man, now you're going for it ...

My head is still in one piece, but I'm reaching the limit of the pressure load.

All jokes aside - congratulations on this beautiful stone of its impressive and enviable size. "Mr. Lucky Hand" again, you should really think twice about prospecting for gold or precious stones in Australia!

..... I am almost afraid of what you will find when you visit your old home ..... no, now seriously, I am very curious whether your "fund series" will continue like this


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> I've got one coming in the mail. Fingers crossed it's not SiC. Other than that I don't care.
> View attachment 154496



That looks interesting...

I’ve had a couple of ebay stones that looked a bit like that - with potential - but did turn out to be SiC. However one particular detail in your stone (which I imagine caught your eye too) looks very promising, and slightly unusual... the corners are rounded. And who the hell rounds the corners of SiC or AlOx stones?

Looking forward to seeing what comes out!


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> That looks interesting...
> 
> I’ve had a couple of ebay stones that looked a bit like that - with potential - but did turn out to be SiC. However one particular detail in your stone (which I imagine caught your eye too) looks very promising, and slightly unusual... the corners are rounded. And who the hell rounds the corners of SiC or AlOx stones?
> 
> Looking forward to seeing what comes out!



Yup. SiC usually has very square edges and corners. Even if extremely dished. The box is also pretty. Although I've been burned on that one a couple of times. There were evidently quite a few master woodworkers out there making beautiful boxes for craptastic stones. Like a figured koa saya for a Victorinox. Or I guess the original stone could have been replaced I guess.

But here's the box for this one. 8"X2" stone dimensions

A lot of promise. And I don't have too much invested in it.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> Yup. SiC usually has very square edges and corners. Even if extremely dished. The box is also pretty. Although I've been burned on that one a couple of times. There were evidently quite a few master woodworkers out there making beautiful boxes for craptastic stones. Like a figured koa saya for a Victorinox. Or I guess the original stone could have been replaced I guess.
> 
> But here's the box for this one. 8"X2" stone dimensions
> 
> A lot of promise. And I don't have too much invested in it.
> 
> View attachment 154506
> 
> 
> View attachment 154507



That is quite a nice box isn’t it! I too have had a couple of cheap stones in smart boxes, and it somewhat makes up for it - quite a few of my posher stones now sit in boxes that came with others.


----------



## cotedupy

Seeing as this thread is getting a bit of interest here’s are a couple posts with some info about things to look out for in an old Washita, in case you come across one at a flea market, or old relation’s shed, or something. You could find all this out by trawling through hundreds of pages about them on razor forums, but easier to have it all in one place...

As with anything that does its job well and is no longer produced, the prices of Washitas have been creeping up. However considering they’re one of the very best stones ever quarried anywhere, they are still remarkably cheap. The going rate for an unlabelled bench size Washita atm is about 60 bucks, maybe a little more, which is a screaming bargain. Though they can be found much cheaper if the seller doesn’t know what they’ve got, and they’re quite distinctive looking stones once you’ve got your eye in (and if you look at them under a scope, they’re wildly different from anything else).

If it hasn’t been cleaned; an old stone will be covered in grime and oil, making it look brown/grey/black, and feel quite smooth to the touch. Although the stones are very hard, they’re also quite porous so oil soaks in and affects the colour, and for novaculites they’re relatively heterogenous meaning that after time the surface might often take on a blotchy or mottled appearance. Here’s a pic of the one I got recently; it’s probably been wiped clean in this picture, but before I degreased it, this is unmistakably an old Washita:






At this point it’s popular to degrease them, by soaking in your preferred degreaser for as long as you want. Simple green is popular in the US, but any will do and the more hardcore the better - you want the kinda stuff you’d use to degrease an oil rig, and don’t dilute it. You can leave the stone soaking for anything from about a day to many months, and it’ll get progressively lighter, returning after time to something approaching the pure white that they were originally. This is really just an aesthetic thing, and they’ll discolour again once you use them, so I personally tend only to do it for a day or two, here’s the stone above after a day soaking. You can see the stone still has the distinctive mottled appearance:






And here for reference is what they look like new. This is something of a rarity - a completely unused NOS Washita from the 30s/40s. This stone doesn’t look mottled, that appearance of Washitas is a product of oil soaking into the stone.






TBC...


----------



## cotedupy

Some good news now... because this type of old Washita were only ever quarried and produced by Pike / Norton - if you’ve got one you can basically be guaranteed it’s going to be good. However they do vary. The most important thing that governs or indicates what a particular stone might be like is Specific Gravity - how dense it is. @stringer has talked about this above, and outlined how you measure it. But in short; SGs in Washitas run from about 2 to about 2.5, which is quite a wide range. All Washitas are pretty quick and have a large range of effective ‘grit’ levels depending on how much pressure you apply, but *in general* stones with lower SGs will be coarser, softer, and faster, and ones with high SGs finer, harder, and slower. And the various quality levels of Washitas _does not _generally have anything to do with their SGs.

Before about 1933 Washitas were produced by Pike in various grades; Lily White, Rosy Red, No.1, No.2, and these indicate how homogenous the stone is.

Lily White was the top grade, but they can be softer or harder - and actually the old Pike stones included an end label indicating whether the stone was a softer, faster example or a harder, finer one. These end labels have often been lost over time, and if you find a stone with one it increases the value quite significantly. A 6x2 Pike Lily White sold on ebay a few days back for about $200 because it had this label still intact:






Here is my old Pike LW, which in contrast to the above is very hard and fine, with a SG about 2.45. Unfortunately it doesn’t still have its end label:








Rosy Red Washitas were so-called because of the orange/pink blush that the stones had, and indicated that they were particularly coarse and fast. They were the same ‘quality’ and price as Lily Whites, just very coarse. This is by some distance the rarest and most expensive type of old Washita - labelled examples tend to go for at least $300. So if you come across one - snap it up.

No.1 and No.2 are stones that have less homogenous structure and grit, perhaps with inclusions or cracks, though as with Lily Whites they can be softer or harder, it _doesn’t_ refer to how fine they are. I don’t believe No.2 Washitas were ever sold with labels, though there are some stones labelled ‘Red Washita’ that old catalogues show were No.2 quality.

There are also some Pike stones at various points called things like; Woodworkers Delight, Mechanics Friend, and Extra Quality. These, I think, sat between No.1 and Lily White, though don’t quote me on that. And occasionally you see some old Pike Washitas with labels for specific customers or shops.

After Norton bought Pike in the early ‘30s all this plurality was cut down considerably, with only Lily White and No.1 offered. And the Lily White grade no longer had end labels indicating the character of the stone.

While this stuff to do with labels can have quite a significant impact on the value of something, as I said at the beginning - if you just want one to use - you don’t need to concern yourself with it too much. If you get this kind of old Washita; they were only ever produced by Pike / Norton, and they’re all good, labelled or not, because they had proper quality control.


----------



## KingShapton

cotedupy said:


> Some good news now... because this type of old Washita were only ever quarried and produced by Pike / Norton - if you’ve got one you can basically be guaranteed it’s going to be good. However they do vary. The most important thing that governs or indicates what a particular stone might be like is Specific Gravity - how dense it is. @stringer has talked about this above, and outlined how you measure it. But in short; SGs in Washitas run from about 2 to about 2.5, which is quite a large range. All Washitas are quite quick and have a large range of effective ‘grit’ levels depending on how much pressure you apply, but *in general* stones with lower SGs will be coarser, softer, and faster, and ones with high SGs finer, harder, and slower. And the various quality levels of Washitas _does not _generally have anything to do with their SGs.
> 
> Before about 1933 Washitas were produced by Pike in various grades; Lily White, Rosy Red, No.1, No.2, and these indicate how homogenous the stone is.
> 
> Lily White was the top grade, but they can be softer or harder - and actually the old Pike stones included an end label indicating whether the stone was a softer, faster example or a harder, finer one. These end labels have often been lost over time, and if you find a stone with one it increases the value quite significantly. A 6x2 Pike Lily White sold on ebay a few days back for about $200 because it had this label still intact:
> 
> View attachment 154644
> 
> 
> Here is my old Pike LW, which is contrast to the above is very hard and fine, with a SG about 2.45. Unfortunately it doesn’t still have its end label:
> 
> View attachment 154645
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rosy Red Washitas were so-called because of the orange/pink blush that the stones had, and indicated that they were particularly coarse and fast. The stone were the same quality as Lily Whites, just very coarse. This is by some distance the rarest and most expensive type of old Washita - labelled examples tend to go for at least $300. So if you come across one - snap it up.
> 
> No.1 and No.2 are stones that have less homogenous structure and grit, perhaps with inclusions or cracks, though as with Lily Whites they can be softer or harder, it _doesn’t_ refer to how fine they are. I don’t believe No.2 Washitas were ever sold with labels, though there are some stones labelled ‘Red Washita’ that old catalogues show were No.2 quality.
> 
> There are also some Pike stones at various points called things like; Woodworkers Delight, Mechanics Friend, and Extra Quality. These, I think, sat between No.1 and Lily White, though don’t quote me on that. And occasionally you see some old Pike Washitas with labels for specific customers or shops.
> 
> After Norton bought Pike in the early 30s all this plurality was cut down considerably, and only Lily White and No.1 were offered. And the Lily White grade no longer had end labels indicating the character of the stone.
> 
> While this stuff to do with labels can have quite a significant impact on the value of a stone, as I said at the beginning - if you just want one to use - you don’t need to concern yourself with it too much. If you’ve get this kind of old Washita they were only produced by Pike / Norton, and they’re all good, labelled or not, because they had proper quality control.


Well written and very interesting information.

If you continue to research so successfully then you should write a treatise or a summary on the subject of Norton / Pike and Washita.


----------



## cotedupy

Last of three posts for anyone looking for, or finding an old Washita...

Because the stones are quite hard, they are also quite brittle. You often see old ones in boxes that are broken in two, and it’s not necessarily a problem. If the stone’s wedged in its box then often you may not be able to feel the break in use, though if you want to - they can be fixed easily.

Here are two stones I picked up cheaply on ebay recently, which unfortunately got broken in the post. If you’re buying an old Washita online - it’s worth reminding the seller to package it well. These stones were both 8x2:











The break on the first is much cleaner, though it’s near the middle of the stone, the second is a mess, but it’s at the end. I got in touch with the sellers who refunded half of the price making them quite cheap indeed, and set about fixing, but in different ways.

After degreasing them, the first I simply glued back together using CA glue, or Super Glue. Lapped and sanded flat you can no longer feel the break at all. I also steamed the label off the box, sanded it down a little, and then sealed it back on using wood lacquer. This is a partial Norton No.1 label:






The second stone had a billion tiny fragments and trying to glue it back neatly would have been something of a fool’s errand. But because of where the break was, I was able to lap the end of the stone and still have it as a 6.5 x 2 stone. I then glued the two largest broken chunks together to make a rubbing stone, which can be useful, as Washitas can sometimes burnish or clog slightly and need the the surface refreshing.






So don’t overlook something if it does have a break in it. They’re not difficult to fix, and you might get a completely usable gem on the cheap!


----------



## cotedupy

KingShapton said:


> Well written and very interesting information.
> 
> If you continue to research so successfully then you should write a treatise or a summary on the subject of Norton / Pike and Washita.



Haha, ta. It’s all come from other people originally (yourself, DR who started this thread, and others have been very generous with their knowledge!)

Just thought it might be useful to someone to have a load of info all together in one place .


----------



## captaincaed

captaincaed said:


> This is the best thread on the forum right now. You all rock. Leaving quickly for work, but yes I'll update on how it works out.
> 
> Other fun stuff coming out of grandpa's garage. In bad need of cleaning, but I'm excited to get everything tunes up and ready for another generation.
> 
> View attachment 154366


This makes a niiice edge on Ashi white steel. No hesitation in peppers or tomatoes.


----------



## stringer

captaincaed said:


> This makes a niiice edge on Ashi white steel. No hesitation in peppers or tomatoes.



I've never tried one of those razor hones with my knives. I have several lying around. It's weird how stuff just doesn't occur to you sometimes. I'll have to see if I can find where I put them.


----------



## captaincaed

I wanted to travel with a stone for touch-ups, brought a coti "nagura", and had some great luck with the Ashi. I'm starting to fall back in love with simple steels since many options are possible


----------



## cotedupy

Here's an interesting thing on the subject of smaller travel stones...

For a long time Norton produced a 3 x1 3/8"stone called the 'Sportsman' (probably still do), for when you're out and about shooting and skinning animals in the Great American Outdoors. 

Nowadays this is a Coarse and Fine India combi, but early versions were a Coarse India and Washita Combi. In the pictures below the product code WIP stands for Washita India Pocketstone.


----------



## cotedupy

Well blighty is certainly proving a rich hunting ground for old stones...

Noticed a big architectural salvage place on the road this afternoon so popped in. There was a bucket in one of the sheds saying ‘Sharpening Stones £3’, unfortunately there was only one stone in it, but it seemed promising:






I wasn’t particularly sure about the stone at that point tbh, especially as it felt quite light. But after a quick clean up...











This is another relatively soft, old Washita . Almost black originally, but you can now see the kinda mottled brown appearance coming through.

Pretty happy with the hit rate I’ve had this week!


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> Well blighty is certainly proving a rich hunting ground for old stones...
> 
> Noticed a big architectural salvage place on the road this afternoon so popped in. There was a bucket in one of the sheds saying ‘Sharpening Stones £3’, though unfortunately there was only one stone in it, but it seemed promising:
> 
> View attachment 154800
> 
> 
> I wasn’t particularly sure about the stone at that point tbh, especially as it felt quite light. But after a quick clean up...
> 
> View attachment 154801
> 
> 
> View attachment 154802
> 
> 
> This is another quite soft, old Washita . Almost black originally, but you can now see the kinda mottled brown appearance coming through.
> 
> Pretty happy with the hit rate I’ve had this week!



I'm so jealous. I never see any at local places and I antique a lot.


----------



## KingShapton

cotedupy said:


> Well blighty is certainly proving a rich hunting ground for old stones...
> 
> Noticed a big architectural salvage place on the road this afternoon so popped in. There was a bucket in one of the sheds saying ‘Sharpening Stones £3’, unfortunately there was only one stone in it, but it seemed promising:
> 
> View attachment 154800
> 
> 
> I wasn’t particularly sure about the stone at that point tbh, especially as it felt quite light. But after a quick clean up...
> 
> View attachment 154801
> 
> 
> View attachment 154802
> 
> 
> This is another relatively soft, old Washita . Almost black originally, but you can now see the kinda mottled brown appearance coming through.
> 
> Pretty happy with the hit rate I’ve had this week!


I definitely live in the wrong country!


----------



## cotedupy

So do I clearly; I'd seen people say that old Washitas were very common in the UK, but hadn't realised it was going to be quite like this!

This stone shows something that I've observed often in Washitas, which kinda makes sense... I've soaked it now for about 15 hours and it's almost completely white, whereas I have other stones that have been soaked for weeks but still have lots of dirty old oil in them. Obviously to some extent that's a product of how far it's gone into the stone, how much it's been used &c., but also I think the relative softness and porosity. This one is going to have a SG at the low end of the Washita range, and so degreases very quickly.

I very almost didn't buy it, even at £3, because it felt so light I assumed it must have been SiC. But a guy at the salvage place saw me rubbing it, and gave me a bit of sandpaper so I could get some of the grime off and have a better idea .

Quite a transformation from the initial pic to this beautiful 8x2:


----------



## captaincaed

So do you think you'll have any extras at the end of the holiday? Asking for a friend....

But really that's great luck. More happy hunting!


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> So do you think you'll have any extras at the end of the holiday? Asking for a friend....
> 
> But really that's great luck. More happy hunting!



Haha... Funnily enough a friend asked yesterday if I had any stones to sell, and I'm letting her have that last one above. I have a few back in Aus, need to think about the baggage allowance, and probably don't need all the Washitas in Christendom anyway!

(I may also put a couple of things on BST before I go back, if I can offer to someone pretty cheaply, but still make a couple of quid toward some new atoma sheets... Novaculites _kill _diamond plates!)


----------



## KingShapton

cotedupy said:


> Novaculites _kill _diamond plates!)


...I told you before ...


----------



## cotedupy

KingShapton said:


> ...I told you before ...



Ah yes, I do recall... you certainly weren’t joking!

I usually use sanding sheets, or belts, for any particularly heavy duty stuff, and then switch to an Atoma for final flattening. Good quality sandpaper is actually quite durable, whereas cheap stuff is effectively worthless. Though perhaps when I’m back home I’ll get myself some SiC powder too, which seems to be the cheapest way to do it.


----------



## captaincaed

I just tried sic powder on sandpaper on a flat marble slab. Huge improvement over the diamond plate (I killed one too). Good luck! It's 100% worth the minor mess and investment in new parts


----------



## stringer

Another India stone. Someone took a lot of care of that India stone. Rounding the corners and one of the nicest boxes I've seen. Luckily the box is a perfect fit for my washita. I think I'll repurpose it. Anyone want to try a vintage India stone for the price of postage? PM me if interested. I've been on a real streak lately. Oh well. Can't win if you don't play. I think I'm going to roll the dice again today. I've got an enticing offer in the inbox. If it works out I might have a nice washita for sell or swap.


----------



## KingShapton

stringer said:


> Another India stone. Someone took a lot of care of that India stone. Rounding the corners and one of the nicest boxes I've seen. Luckily the box is a perfect fit for my washita. I think I'll repurpose it. Anyone want to try a vintage India stone for the price of postage? PM me if interested. I've been on a real streak lately. Oh well. Can't win if you don't play. I think I'm going to roll the dice again today. I've got an enticing offer in the inbox. If it works out I might have a nice washita for sell or swap.


Too bad, but at least you got an extremely nice box for your washita, so it wasn't a completely wrong bet.


----------



## AT5760

What's the age on this one? Worth picking up at a very reasonable price?


----------



## stringer

AT5760 said:


> What's the age on this one? Worth picking up at a very reasonable price?
> View attachment 155149


Any hard ark is worth picking up at a decent price. I use them all the way down to 2" by 1" by quarter inch. A small one like that is nice for a prefinisher on razors or a final deburr on knives.


----------



## stringer

stringer said:


> Any hard ark is worth picking up at a decent price. I use them all the way down to 2" by 1" by quarter inch. A small one like that is nice for a prefinisher on razors or a final deburr on knives.


I don't know the age but probably 1950s at the youngest


----------



## cotedupy

AT5760 said:


> What's the age on this one? Worth picking up at a very reasonable price?
> View attachment 155149



In a word... yes!

Note obviously that it's a slip stone, so it's kinda tapered - along the length at the top of that picture it's thicker than along the length at the bottom. Which can make it tricky to use for knives unless you're using it in hand, or mounting on something. I assume it's a 4x2...?

Either way though - it's a boxed Pike hard/translucent in good condition, which isn't very common. I would guess 1920s, it's certainly pre 1933.


----------



## AT5760

The ad says it’s a Size 5, but I don’t know what that means. For $10 plus shipping it’s probably worth trying out.


----------



## cotedupy

AT5760 said:


> The ad says it’s a Size 5, but I don’t know what that means. For $10 plus shipping it’s probably worth trying out.



Ah nice! I imagine probably a 5x2 then. And yeah... at $10 that's a definite buy . Would probably go for $40 on ebay at least.


----------



## BoSharpens

I have at least 3 Washitas from the mid 60s when I bought my first Buck knife while I was working at Cousteau's US Divers desigining diving equipment and teaching SCUBA/skin diving. They definitely look more like the dark "old" stone a dozen posts up, though only 4-6" long. 

I don't remember if I had to buy them or they came with the knives I bought and still have from way back then. 

I only use these to do light polish work on an edge if it has lost the ability to "cut paper."

I looked at scienceofsharp.com yesterday and saw elaborate discussion/video of how to get a razor sharp edge.

Well, my Bali-Song side-arm EDC came out of its holster a bit dull. I decided to put the Washita on it followed by the quartz slip with my hand held polishing Red Sharpie marks off the edge and sure enough in less that 5 minutes it would do the paper cut example of sharpness.

I do the same with my Shun & Wustoff in the kitchen if they don't "cut right" in meal prep. Takes maybe 2 minutes.

I think a lot of super fancy stones at high prices are a bit over-rated for the average user and average knife.


----------



## stringer

My newest washita 






Combo SiC/washita. They made it from at least the 1930s to the 1960s. 

Here's the page from the 1962 catalogue that exactly matches this one.






Thanks to @cotedupy for pointing it out to me on eBay. Despite the fact that I already had that catalog page I wouldn't have realized it was genuine washita.


Here's an interesting one. This one's been buried under a bunch of crap on my workbench for several months. I kind of forgot about it. It's a "butterscotch" translucent hard ark. 5"*2". That someone with serious machining skills made a very nice milled aluminum box for. This is freshly simple greened and lapped so it looks more like a regular translucent hard ark. But it feels much more porous than my other hard arks. After it comes out of the simple green it's almost bright white. As soon as I start using it it quickly goes back to butterscotch.









This is after touching up the apex of two or three knives.





Very fast freshly lapped. It feels like a fast coticule under a razor but leaves a much finer finish. Excellent knife edges too. 

Here you can see the butterscotch translucent glow.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

stringer said:


> My newest washita
> 
> View attachment 156231
> 
> 
> Combo SiC/washita. They made it from at least the 1930s to the 1960s.
> 
> Here's the page from the 1962 catalogue that exactly matches this one.
> 
> View attachment 156233
> 
> 
> Thanks to @cotedupy for pointing it out to me on eBay. Despite the fact that I already had that catalog page I wouldn't have realized it was genuine washita.
> 
> 
> Here's an interesting one. This one's been buried under a bunch of crap on my workbench for several months. I kind of forgot about it. It's a "butterscotch" translucent hard ark. 5"*2". That someone with serious machining skills made a very nice milled aluminum box for. This is freshly simple greened and lapped so it looks more like a regular translucent hard ark. But it feels much more porous than my other hard arks. After it comes out of the simple green it's almost bright white. As soon as I start using it it quickly goes back to butterscotch.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 156234
> 
> 
> 
> This is after touching up the apex of two or three knives.
> View attachment 156235
> 
> 
> Very fast freshly lapped. It feels like a fast coticule under a razor but leaves a much finer finish. Excellent knife edges too.
> 
> Here you can see the butterscotch translucent glow.
> View attachment 156236
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 156237



Very cool. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## KingShapton

stringer said:


> My newest washita
> 
> View attachment 156231
> 
> 
> Combo SiC/washita. They made it from at least the 1930s to the 1960s.
> 
> Here's the page from the 1962 catalogue that exactly matches this one.
> 
> View attachment 156233
> 
> 
> Thanks to @cotedupy for pointing it out to me on eBay. Despite the fact that I already had that catalog page I wouldn't have realized it was genuine washita.
> 
> 
> Here's an interesting one. This one's been buried under a bunch of crap on my workbench for several months. I kind of forgot about it. It's a "butterscotch" translucent hard ark. 5"*2". That someone with serious machining skills made a very nice milled aluminum box for. This is freshly simple greened and lapped so it looks more like a regular translucent hard ark. But it feels much more porous than my other hard arks. After it comes out of the simple green it's almost bright white. As soon as I start using it it quickly goes back to butterscotch.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 156234
> 
> 
> 
> This is after touching up the apex of two or three knives.
> View attachment 156235
> 
> 
> Very fast freshly lapped. It feels like a fast coticule under a razor but leaves a much finer finish. Excellent knife edges too.
> 
> Here you can see the butterscotch translucent glow.
> View attachment 156236
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 156237


I envy you the combo Sic / Washita a little. Joking aside, I'll really treat you to it, but I'd really like to have a stone like this too.

And the butterscotch is a really beautiful stone, congratulations on that!

Thank you for sharing.


----------



## captaincaed

Thank you grandpa. One suspected Washita in here. Other interesting oilstone too! Really nice brick of thick, soft Ark


----------



## stringer

captaincaed said:


> Thank you grandpa. One suspected Washita in here. Other interesting oilstone too! Really nice brick of thick, soft Ark




Always cooler when it is a family heirloom.



I got an interesting one today. I thought it was a hard Arkansas at first but it might be too dense. One of the densest stones I've encountered. Just over 3.03 specific gravity. Which is denser than any of my synthetics. I got it from a Canadian eBay seller. It is in the simple green now.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> My newest washita
> 
> View attachment 156231
> 
> 
> Combo SiC/washita. They made it from at least the 1930s to the 1960s.
> 
> Here's the page from the 1962 catalogue that exactly matches this one.
> 
> View attachment 156233
> 
> 
> Thanks to @cotedupy for pointing it out to me on eBay. Despite the fact that I already had that catalog page I wouldn't have realized it was genuine washita.
> 
> 
> Here's an interesting one. This one's been buried under a bunch of crap on my workbench for several months. I kind of forgot about it. It's a "butterscotch" translucent hard ark. 5"*2". That someone with serious machining skills made a very nice milled aluminum box for. This is freshly simple greened and lapped so it looks more like a regular translucent hard ark. But it feels much more porous than my other hard arks. After it comes out of the simple green it's almost bright white. As soon as I start using it it quickly goes back to butterscotch.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 156234
> 
> 
> 
> This is after touching up the apex of two or three knives.
> View attachment 156235
> 
> 
> Very fast freshly lapped. It feels like a fast coticule under a razor but leaves a much finer finish. Excellent knife edges too.
> 
> Here you can see the butterscotch translucent glow.
> View attachment 156236
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 156237



That little Sportsman is feckin cool. Very jealous, but good that it's gone to a good home!

The relatively porous ark sounds interesting too, I presume it doesn't burnish as much as a mega-hard version? Which would be useful!


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> Always cooler when it is a family heirloom.
> 
> 
> 
> I got an interesting one today. I thought it was a hard Arkansas at first but it might be too dense. One of the densest stones I've encountered. Just over 3.03 specific gravity. Which is denser than any of my synthetics. I got it from a Canadian eBay seller. It is in the simple green now.



This too is interesting! Surely not an Ark with that SG. And I'm sure you can tell whether or not it's a coticule (that's about what you measured your cotis at right?), so perhaps worth thinking about some Canadian stones...

The most likely I'd have thought is a stone that's recently started being sold as 'Canadian Novaculite'. They often seem to be funky/pretty colours, though that may not register so much for you, and someone here measured the SG at 3.0+ Canadian Novaculite | Badger & Blade (badgerandblade.com)

There was also a stone marketed as the 'Canada Oilstone' which appears to be a type of sandstone, similar to Dalmores or Hindustans. And depending on what other stuff they have in them sandstones can run to quite high SGs. Obviously that should be quite easy to tell apart from novaculite.

And not forgetting of course the mysterious 'Magog' stone, which nobody seems to know much about, or have a confirmed example of, and was probably last quarried in the mid 19th century. It may or may not be the same as the Canada stone Magog? | Badger & Blade (badgerandblade.com)


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> Thank you grandpa. One suspected Washita in here. Other interesting oilstone too! Really nice brick of thick, soft Ark



Looking forward to seeing them when out of the soak. That's a nice haul... kudos to your grandfather!


----------



## stringer

Queer Creek / Clear Creek / Ohio Blue

There were a couple different versions of rocks labeled Queer Creek and then later Clear Creek by Norton. There is a yellow tan variety and then a grey blue variety. I believe this is a blue. 8"*1 7/8"*1". It is a very hard and dense sandstone. About 800-1000 grit. Faster off of fresh coarse SiC lap but it burnishes quick. I think I'm going to try it as a bevel setter.











Wet






Glue or oil residue has seeped in deep. I was going to try and lap past it but I think I'm done. It's flat.


----------



## stringer

One of the ugliest boxes I've seen. But someone must have been very proud of it to mark it with their name so prominently. I have a feeling that me and A. Bloxom would have gotten along just fine.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> One of the ugliest boxes I've seen. But someone must have been very proud of it to mark it with their name so prominently. I have a feeling that me and A. Bloxom would have gotten along just fine.
> 
> View attachment 156561



Cool stone, and I _love _the box!

Mr Bloxom's wood working and carving abilities were on a similar level to my own. When I finally get round to making a few boxes for some of my stones I will absolutely be signing them in this manner.

---

Your point about burnishing is interesting... most whetstones that were sandstones seem to be fairly hard. And in my experience usually surprisingly slow. Though now that you mention it - that's probably down to very rapid burnishing of the surface. I hadn't thought about that.


----------



## bsfsu

I just received this in the post. I'm not sure what type of stone this is so I would love some feed back off anyone has an idea. It is very heavy and not too dished and the box is beautiful jarrah.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

bsfsu said:


> I just received this in the post. I'm not sure what type of stone this is so I would love some feed back off anyone has an idea. It is very heavy and not too dished and the box is beautiful jarrah.View attachment 156695
> View attachment 156696
> View attachment 156697
> View attachment 156698



It looks like there is some faint printed lettering above the carved "W". Is that right or just the random marks appearing to be letters?

My last attempt at a stone guess was a fail so I'll wait for the other fellas.


----------



## M1k3

HumbleHomeCook said:


> It looks like there is some faint printed lettering above the carved "W". Is that right or just the random marks appearing to be letters?
> 
> My last attempt at a stone guess was a fail so I'll wait for the other fellas.


It says CM. Did you get any horse rasps also from this seller?


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

M1k3 said:


> It says CM. Did you get any horse rasps also from this seller?



Bwahahaha... I totally missed that!


----------



## bsfsu

M1k3 said:


> It says CM. Did you get any horse rasps also from this seller?


I could only wish! One day I'll get a cm in the quiver, I just need to save heaps and heaps and have a couple more concussions.


----------



## cotedupy

bsfsu said:


> I just received this in the post. I'm not sure what type of stone this is so I would love some feed back off anyone has an idea. It is very heavy and not too dished and the box is beautiful jarrah.View attachment 156695
> View attachment 156696
> View attachment 156697
> View attachment 156698



Ooh... _very _smart! From those pictures I'd be 99% certain it's a Charnley Forest, a type of green (often with red streaks) novaculite from Leicestershire. Will be easy to tell once you've lapped it fully.

Very good for razors, so they're actually worth a fair bit - almost certainly more than whatever you paid - especially as that looks a decent size example. I wrote a little about them recently here: UK Stones


----------



## captaincaed

Maybe a diamond in the rough from grandpa. All of the stones associated with the Norton tri hone are pretty dished out and gouged. They’ve clearly been used rough over many years. However this one is so flat on both sides that it suctions to the countertop. It also has those grind marks that makes me think it may be a natural stone.


----------



## stringer

captaincaed said:


> Maybe a diamond in the rough from grandpa. All of the stones associated with the Norton tri hone are pretty dished out and gouged. They’ve clearly been used rough over many years. However this one is so flat on both sides that it suctions to the countertop. It also has those grind marks that makes me think it may be a natural stone.


Looks novaculite to me. If I had to guess I'd say hard Arkansas.


----------



## captaincaed

I'm kind of excited. If it's been broken over years, may be good on razors... Also it's huge.


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> I'm kind of excited. If it's been broken over years, may be good on razors... Also it's huge.



Yep, I'd be with @stringer too - looks like a hard ark from here.

From what I understand... the tri hones could be bought in various configurations according to what the customer wanted. In theory the 'standard' version had all the stones as SiC / AlOx. But there seem to be a lot of them with hard arks in, so I get the impression that putting at least one natural in was popular.


----------



## stringer

I have one that is very similar I keep in the knife drawer. No labels so who knows, but I don't think it can be anything besides hard Arkansas with it's properties. Right hardness and density. Slow cutting except straight off of coarse SiC.


----------



## captaincaed

cotedupy said:


> Yep, I'd be with @stringer too - looks like a hard ark from here.
> 
> From what I understand... the tri hones could be bought in various configurations according to what the customer wanted. In theory the 'standard' version had all the stones as SiC / AlOx. But there seem to be a lot of them with hard arks in, so I get the impression that putting at least one natural in was popular.



Yeah that's what my research showed too, unfortunately I can't find any info on the twisted stoned marked for razors. It's super fine, much more so than the carborundum 101a razor hone from earlier. I'd really like to see if I can salvage a usable piece


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> Yeah that's what my research showed too, unfortunately I can't find any info on the twisted stoned marked for razors. It's super fine, much more so than the carborundum 101a razor hone from earlier. I'd really like to see if I can salvage a usable piece



Which stone sorry? Sounds interesting...

(BTW - The kinda brownish/orange stone in the bottom right looks like it's possibly a Washita to me (?))


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> I have one that is very similar I keep in the knife drawer. No labels so who knows, but I don't think it can be anything besides hard Arkansas with it's properties. Right hardness and density. Slow cutting except straight off of coarse SiC.
> 
> View attachment 156814
> 
> 
> View attachment 156815



4x2? Nice size! I have an old 4x2 Norton Translucent which is really excellent for razors.

Also - I'd be interested to hear your (or anybody else's) thoughts on: Soft Ark v Washita v regular Hard Ark v Black & Trans. I only have black, trans and Washitas and have always wondered how other arks compare in use, feel, and effect.


----------



## captaincaed

cotedupy said:


> Which stone sorry? Sounds interesting...
> 
> (BTW - The kinda brownish/orange stone in the bottom right looks like it's possibly a Washita to me (?))


Here's the razor, and yeah I'm pretty excited about the potential Washita! The kit calls it that, plus the stain pattern seems familiar. Sharp eye!


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> Here's the razor, and yeah I'm pretty excited about the potential Washita! The kit calls it that, plus the stain pattern seems familiar. Sharp eye!



Ah sorry - I just saw your other thread about the twisted stone. Is it a hard/translucent ark? If so - that's going to be a right faff to lap flat!


----------



## captaincaed

cotedupy said:


> Ah sorry - I just saw your other thread about the twisted stone. Is it a hard/translucent ark? If so - that's going to be a right faff to lap flat!


The twisted stone is synthetic, but I have no bloody idea what it is or who made it. I'll take a pic of the label later, maybe a detective here can help me out!

I'm inclined to cut the stone and lap each to one flat face to preserve as much mass of stone as I can, even if I lose some length. These stones are plenty long anyway.


----------



## stringer

My experience. I have handled a couple examples of each. Grit ratings are on Shapton scale because that's what I'm most familiar with.

All Arkansas stones work way faster after fresh lapping. Then burnish quickly to whatever their final grit rating is. Even the translucent and surgical blacks get really quick. They feel like diamond cards sometimes. Cut faster than coticules even. You can get great deals if you can make do with smaller size formats. Full size bench stones are getting more and more expensive all of the time.

Coarse stones cut better with some pressure. Novaculite will cut best on simple carbon steels and non stainless cladding. Once they burnish they finish much higher and much slower.

Pierre de levant - whatever that one I swapped you ended up being @cotedupy was the coarsest, fastest novaculite I've seen so far. I didn't really love it. Because it was too hard and still not as fast for me as synthetics at doing chip repairs and such. Or bevel setting razors. Finishes at 500-800 grit

Soft Arkansas - I have several smaller 4*2 versions of these. I love them for knife touchups. Quick enough for apex work. Leaves a nice toothy edge. Finishes at 600-1000 grit. Doesn't leave much of a burr. I usually use them with water. I freshen them frequently on SiC. I also use them to condition other stones. Like to burnish a hard Arkansas after lapping. If you rub a pieces of soft Arkansas against another piece of novaculite the quartz generates a piezoelectric effect and you can see sparks.

Washita - I have one and I think it's probably on the harder finer end of the scale. Much slower than the soft Arkansas unless you use some pressure. Does cut fast off of a coarse lapping. But loses its bite pretty quick. Finishes at 1500 grit maybe. Makes s great deburr / microbevel option after soft ark.

Turkey Pike Stone - this one felt like a hard ark that someone shattered and glued back together. I didn't really know what to make of it. Because it felt like it should finish pretty high. Similar to the washita. But it also kind of has that friable broken glass feeling that makes it faster, but still really fine somehow. Finishes at 1500-2000.

Hard Arkansas - I have that 4*2 unlabelled plus a couple little labelled pocketknife and machinist stones. These are okay for deburring knives but a little fine for doing a proper apex with straight up. And very unforgiving if you don't have great angle control. But here's where you start to get into great razor finishers. The old ones that are labeled hard could be any color: black, grey, white, butterscotch, translucent, etc. I don't think there's as much difference between the different colors as people let on. Finishe around 8000-10,000.

My butterscotch translucent is kind of unique. My theory is something about them makes them a little bit porous. I think they would look white before you use oil on them. My butterscotch is the fastest of my hard arks. It is finer than the grey ones but not quite as fine as the surgical black. Maybe 9000. Excellent razor stone because it finishes like any other hard ark. But not as slow as usual.

I have an unlabelled white translucent fragment. It is very slow but finishes very high. Like 10k. It doesn't change color or seem to absorb any oil or water.

And I have a modern Dan's surgical black pocketknife stone. This is extremely dense, slow, and fine. I have mine glued to a piece of rubber and I use it to finish razors. At 2*1 it's kind of a pain in the butt. But it makes a great finisher with the butterscotch as a prefinisher. Finishes around 12k.

I have a little chunk of Israeli novaculite that I'm still testing. Also kind of a small weird size. I think it's pretty similar to the surgical black.

Arks are not the finest naturals I own. I think that my jasper stones are finer as well as the Thuringian. But they are up there. I would shave off of any true hard Arkansas. Which is like minimum specific density of 2.5 or something. The novaculite has great properties for keen comfortable razor edges. They are slow. But who cares, do the dirty lifting with something else and use them for the finisher. For knives they have limited utility for any kind of heavy duty work or for super steels. But they are great for simple carbon apex upkeep and deburring.

I have another small labelled hard ark coming today in an eBay lot with 7 other stones. Wish me luck.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> My experience. I have handled a couple examples of each. Grit ratings are on Shapton scale because that's what I'm most familiar with.
> 
> All Arkansas stones work way faster after fresh lapping. Then burnish quickly to whatever their final grit rating is. Even the translucent and surgical blacks get really quick. They feel like diamond cards sometimes. Cut faster than coticules even. You can get great deals if you can make do with smaller size formats. Full size bench stones are getting more and more expensive all of the time.
> 
> Coarse stones cut better with some pressure. Novaculite will cut best on simple carbon steels and non stainless cladding. Once they burnish they finish much higher and much slower.
> 
> Pierre de levant - whatever that one I swapped you ended up being @cotedupy was the coarsest, fastest novaculite I've seen so far. I didn't really love it. Because it was too hard and still not as fast for me as synthetics at doing chip repairs and such. Or bevel setting razors. Finishes at 500-800 grit
> 
> Soft Arkansas - I have several smaller 4*2 versions of these. I love them for knife touchups. Quick enough for apex work. Leaves a nice toothy edge. Finishes at 600-1000 grit. Doesn't leave much of a burr. I usually use them with water. I freshen them frequently on SiC. I also use them to condition other stones. Like to burnish a hard Arkansas after lapping. If you rub a pieces of soft Arkansas against another piece of novaculite the quartz generates a piezoelectric effect and you can see sparks.
> 
> Washita - I have one and I think it's probably on the harder finer end of the scale. Much slower than the soft Arkansas unless you use some pressure. Does cut fast off of a coarse lapping. But loses its bite pretty quick. Finishes at 1500 grit maybe. Makes s great deburr / microbevel option after soft ark.
> 
> Turkey Pike Stone - this one felt like a hard ark that someone shattered and glued back together. I didn't really know what to make of it. Because it felt like it should finish pretty high. Similar to the washita. But it also kind of has that friable broken glass feeling that makes it faster, but still really fine somehow. Finishes at 1500-2000.
> 
> Hard Arkansas - I have that 4*2 unlabelled plus a couple little labelled pocketknife and machinist stones. These are okay for deburring knives but a little fine for doing a proper apex with straight up. And very unforgiving if you don't have great angle control. But here's where you start to get into great razor finishers. The old ones that are labeled hard could be any color: black, grey, white, butterscotch, translucent, etc. I don't think there's as much difference between the different colors as people let on. Finishe around 8000-10,000.
> 
> My butterscotch translucent is kind of unique. My theory is something about them makes them a little bit porous. I think they would look white before you use oil on them. My butterscotch is the fastest of my hard arks. It is finer than the grey ones but not quite as fine as the surgical black. Maybe 9000. Excellent razor stone because it finishes like any other hard ark. But not as slow as usual.
> 
> I have an unlabelled white translucent fragment. It is very slow but finishes very high. Like 10k. It doesn't change color or seem to absorb any oil or water.
> 
> And I have a modern Dan's surgical black pocketknife stone. This is extremely dense, slow, and fine. I have mine glued to a piece of rubber and I use it to finish razors. At 2*1 it's kind of a pain in the butt. But it makes a great finisher with the butterscotch as a prefinisher. Finishes around 12k.
> 
> I have a little chunk of Israeli novaculite that I'm still testing. Also kind of a small weird size. I think it's pretty similar to the surgical black.
> 
> Arks are not the finest naturals I own. I think that my jasper stones are finer as well as the Thuringian. But they are up there. I would shave off of any true hard Arkansas. Which is like minimum specific density of 2.5 or something. The novaculite has great properties for keen comfortable razor edges. They are slow. But who cares, do the dirty lifting with something else and use them for the finisher. For knives they have limited utility for any kind of heavy duty work or for super steels. But they are great for simple carbon apex upkeep and deburring.
> 
> I have another small labelled hard ark coming today in an eBay lot with 7 other stones. Wish me luck.



This is a fantastic writeup, thank you! Coupla follow up q.s...

So 'soft' arks are still novaculite-type hard, rather than being noticeably a bit friable? Do you tend to refresh the surface more often than with a Washita?

Do you deliberately burnish your black/trans when using for razors? 

What's this 'Shapton Scale' of which you speak? I would've put a lot of those stones (the types I've used) a fair bit higher in terms of JIS. I shall have to try to dig out one of those grit comparison table things.

---

I'm off now to play around with this fun-sounding Piezoelectric effect! I've noticed sparks when I occasionally flatten dished Washitas on belts, but then lots of things produce sparks on belts.


----------



## cotedupy

Just won this one for the collection:











Only little at 4x2, but... it wasn't too spenny, untouched NOS, and it's the same size as my translucent of the same era so they're going to look very cute together .







Still to go... No.1 Washita, Queer Creek, and the mysterious 'Fastcut' stone which I believe was a Hindustan, though I've only ever seen pictures of one in an old Norton Catalogue.


----------



## captaincaed

I accidentally melted the stamp of two old.arks in the simple green


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> I accidentally melted the stamp of two old.arks in the simple green



Oh dear! I must confess I didn't know that happened. Was it the blue Norton stamps? I shall watch out for that.


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> This is a fantastic writeup, thank you! Coupla follow up q.s...
> 
> So 'soft' arks are still novaculite-type hard, rather than being noticeably a bit friable? Do you tend to refresh the surface more often than with a Washita?



I freshen them both very often. Because they will burnish. I mostly use the washita to cut micro bevels and then the soft Arkansas to maintain them. I freshen them on SiC probably once every ten knives for the washita and once every twenty touchups for the soft arks. I don't really know but once the surface starts to look dark and shiny and the cutting slows I refresh on SiC. I have a permanent spot on my workbench for my granite tile. I use oil on the washita and water on the soft ark.



> Do you deliberately burnish your black/trans when using for razors?




Yes. I don't refresh hard arks very often because once they are true it's very difficult to dish them just doing gentle deburring on knives mostly. And I don't use them on razors until they are broken in and burnished again. I have several small machinist stones I'll use to make sure there aren't any bumps right before I hone a razor on one. My surgical black pocketknife stone is excellent for this. If there is a bit of coarseness on a hard ark, since they are so hard and dense, it will wreck an edge very quickly. So it's important to make sure the edges are chamfered and the surface is as burnished as possible for prefinishing/finishing.



> What's this 'Shapton Scale' of which you speak? I would've put a lot of those stones (the types I've used) a fair bit higher in terms of JIS. I shall have to try to dig out one of those grit comparison table things.



JIS means nothing to me. So I am scoring on how it would relate to Shapton branded stones. Of which I have most of from 500-12000 grit. And I'm not really making comparisons about speed or actual particle size or anything like that. I'm just saying that a knife edge coming off of my fine washita will feel about like a knife edge coming off of my SG2k. The best razor edges I've gotten off of my surgical black are in the same ballpark as my SP12K. Etc.





> I'm off now to play around with this fun-sounding Piezoelectric effect! I've noticed sparks when I occasionally flatten dished Washitas on belts, but then lots of things produce sparks on belts.



Something about the electrons in the quartz are easily excitable with friction. I read about it once but don't remember.



captaincaed said:


> I accidentally melted the stamp of two old.arks in the simple green



I've melted so many labels off the little machinist stones. I feel bad about it. But I like my arks to be clean since I use them as rubbing stones on all my razor finishers.


----------



## captaincaed

cotedupy said:


> Oh dear! I must confess I didn't know that happened. Was it the blue Norton stamps? I shall watch out for that.


Exactly. I could see the stamp when it was sitting there, then when I picked it up, that movement made it slough off. Such a bummer. That was the bear Norton oldest, side stamp. Some newer blue stamps on the face did survive simple green, but not a stronger degreaser.


----------



## coxhaus

captaincaed said:


> Here's the razor, and yeah I'm pretty excited about the potential Washita! The kit calls it that, plus the stain pattern seems familiar. Sharp eye!



I bought that exact Buck stone sharpening kit back around 1970 new. I could never decide if that Buck oil was ATF or not. I think I still have that can of oil around somewhere.


----------



## BoSharpens

coxhaus said:


> I bought that exact Buck stone sharpening kit back around 1970 new. I could never decide if that Buck oil was ATF or not. I think I still have that can of oil around somewhere.



I too, bought that same Buck kit in the late 60s and I still have the kit except the plastic hinges eventually broke & I threw the plastic & the interior foam-like part away. I've used the stones on any number of blades over the years for touching up edges. They've worked just fine for blades that just need honing. 

I also have two other Buck stones (5" x 2") glued to a wood base with wood lids, a Washita and a Hard Arkansas, used on larger blades. Great for light touch up.


----------



## captaincaed

coxhaus said:


> I bought that exact Buck stone sharpening kit back around 1970 new. I could never decide if that Buck oil was ATF or not. I think I still have that can of oil around somewhere.


I had to fly with mine, so the oil was left behind. Weirdly left me a little sad to do that.


----------



## cotedupy

cotedupy said:


> Staying with my sister for the week, checked out her local tool / antique shop yesterday, and found this 9x2
> 
> View attachment 154293
> 
> 
> View attachment 154294
> 
> 
> After the Norton takeover in 1933 the standard offering of bench-size Washitas topped out at 8x2, so finding 9 or 10 inch stones is quite rare. This is likely an old Pike stone.
> 
> NB - that stone is *not* multicoloured - it'd be white as the driven snow if I left it in degreaser for half a year. Pretty much all old Washitas were pure white, or sometimes had small amounts of a kinda orange/pink blush, which occasionally can go through the whole stone.



Just dropped this beauty off to @mozg31337 to share some of the Washita love .

If I didn’t have quite a lot of old ones already, and be needing to think about baggage allowance back to Aus, I would certainly have been keeping it. Cracker of a stone, and (was) my only 9x2.


----------



## KingShapton

cotedupy said:


> to share some of the Washita love


And you do that very well!


----------



## mozg31337

cotedupy said:


> Just dropped this beauty off to @mozg31337 to share some of the Washita love .
> 
> If I didn’t have quite a lot of old ones already, and be needing to think about baggage allowance back to Aus, I would certainly have been keeping it. Cracker of a stone, and (was) my only 9x2.


Thanks for the stone! I will certainly try it out during the holidays! Cheers buddy!


----------



## rocketman

Several pages ago I posted my adventure to Hot Springs, and said I cut some of the rocks into sharpening stones..
I dug some out of my cabinet today and took a couple of pictures... I left these larger, as they seemed to want to stay large.. All are about 1-1/8" thick.
I have only a rough Idea of whether they would be Washita, soft arkansas etc., I know they are not hard arkansas. 
.


----------



## rocketman

Another stone


----------



## BoSharpens

rocketman said:


> Another stoneView attachment 157733


Do members here on KKF actually make their own flattened stone surfaces? That would be an interesting short video. I've never thought of that.


----------



## stringer

Got a good deal on a vintage Buck washita so I can compare and contrast.


----------



## Luftmensch

BoSharpens said:


> Do members here on KKF actually make their own flattened stone surfaces? That would be an interesting short video. I've never thought of that.



Not a video... but I made a picture journal for slate. See: Making a whetstone from wild slate. Slate is super easy to work with. Soft as clarts.... You could likely follow a similar route for various other sedimentary rocks (sandstone, mudstones).

Metamorphic rock, like quartzite, will be harder to work with (). You could likely still cut the rock with a diamond wheel and angle grinder (or drop saw). It will be slower but it should still work. Find a wheel with the smallest kerf that will do the job - it means you have to remove the smallest amount of material. The cutting forces will be lower. I suspect grinding out the cut marks with a belt sander will be relatively less fruitful. You could always try if you have worn out belts... but dont expect much longevity! From there... do the rest by hand.

... I have fantasised about finding some chert or quartzite and giving it a go.... but the dust is unlikely to go down well with the neighbours. It is also likely to be a lot of effort for a mediocre whetstone (given what is in my area)!! Still considering it though...


----------



## M1k3

Luftmensch said:


> Not a video... but I made a picture journal for slate. See: Making a whetstone from wild slate. Slate is super easy to work with. Soft as clarts.... You could likely follow a similar route for various other sedimentary rocks (sandstone, mudstones).
> 
> Metamorphic rock, like quartzite, will be harder to work with (). You could likely still cut the rock with a diamond wheel and angle grinder (or drop saw). It will be slower but it should still work. Find a wheel with the smallest kerf that will do the job - it means you have to remove the smallest amount of material. The cutting forces will be lower. I suspect grinding out the cut marks with a belt sander will be relatively less fruitful. You could always try if you have worn out belts... but dont expect much longevity! From there... do the rest by hand.
> 
> ... I have fantasised about finding some chert or quartzite and giving it a go.... but the dust is unlikely to go down well with the neighbours. It is also likely to be a lot of effort for a mediocre whetstone (given what is in my area)!! Still considering it though...


----------



## Luftmensch

Easy now... I am suggestable, dont you know!?

Apropos to this thread... thanks to the enthusiasm for non-Jnats shared here, I tracked down an 8"x2" lily white!


----------



## cotedupy

Luftmensch said:


> Easy now... I am suggestable, dont you know!?
> 
> Apropos to this thread... thanks to the enthusiasm for non-Jnats shared here, I tracked down an 8"x2" lily white!



Welcome to the light!  You’ll love it. 

Got any pics...?


----------



## cotedupy

BoSharpens said:


> Do members here on KKF actually make their own flattened stone surfaces? That would be an interesting short video. I've never thought of that.



I’ve certainly done this quite a lot, and also did a thread about slates which you can find here somewhere. Though it probably says exactly the same thing as @Luftmensch ‘s.

I can’t really add anything more than he said, apart from to emphasise a couple of things:

Slates are a good way to go if you don’t have a belt sander, as they’re relatively soft, and usually fine and homogenous enough to make decent stones, especially if you use quarried pieces. You can flatten them with good quality sanding sheets, diamond plate, a SiC stone, or a combination of the three.

Most stones you find anywhere will have the abrasive ability to sharpen steel, because quartz is so abundant. But you do want something relatively homogenous, and not too soft.

One of the more common stone types that will *not* work for sharpening are Carbonates (Limestone &c.), so don’t bother with them!


----------



## cotedupy

bsfsu said:


> I just received this in the post. I'm not sure what type of stone this is so I would love some feed back off anyone has an idea. It is very heavy and not too dished and the box is beautiful jarrah.View attachment 156695
> View attachment 156696
> View attachment 156697
> View attachment 156698



Did you get a chance to clean up and play around with the CF yet...?


----------



## bsfsu

cotedupy said:


> Did you get a chance to clean up and play around with the CF yet...?


Yeah I did, I flattened it down with a 150 flatener and progressed up to 600 with wet n dry sandpaper. I thought if I left the surface a little rough it might cut knives a bit better? Don't know.......

I've used it as a finisher on some SG2, B2,W2 and some other random steels. 

It doesn't cut quickly but builds up a swarf well. Gives a lovely finish, I just need more practice deburing on it as it's narrow.


----------



## cotedupy

bsfsu said:


> Yeah I did, I flattened it down with a 150 flatener and progressed up to 600 with wet n dry sandpaper. I thought if I left the surface a little rough it might cut knives a bit better? Don't know.......
> 
> I've used it as a finisher on some SG2, B2,W2 and some other random steels.
> 
> It doesn't cut quickly but builds up a swarf well. Gives a lovely finish, I just need more practice deburing on it as it's narrow.
> 
> View attachment 158970
> View attachment 158971
> View attachment 158974
> View attachment 158976



Good looking stone!

Yeah it should cut a bit faster with a roughed surface, maybe go lower than 600 too. Though even then the handful I've tried haven't been particularly good for knives, for exactly that reason - a little bit too slow and too refined an edge for my tastes. Quite fun to play around with nagura though; coticule or a mid grit synthetic slurry should help.

And if all else fails you can flog it! They're great for razors, and that looks a good size stone . (I can't quite tell the dimensions from the pictures but they're normally pretty narrow anyway.)


----------



## captaincaed

A nice online geology reference found on the Cliff Stamp forum. I should really archive that whole thing to my computer. The more I learn, the more he starts to make some sense.








Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Arkansas ...






books.google.com


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

captaincaed said:


> A nice online geology reference found on the Cliff Stamp forum. I should really archive that whole thing to my computer. The more I learn, the more he starts to make some sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Arkansas ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> books.google.com



He was controversial but he added a lot to the broader community.


----------



## KingShapton

captaincaed said:


> The more I learn, the more he starts to make some sense.


I know this effect with Cliff Stamp and his theories / perspectives very well. Some things may be controversial, but some of them helped me a lot.

And I like to think "outside the box" sometimes, most of the time it leads to surprisingly good results.


----------



## captaincaed

absolutely. Sometimes I disagree with him, sometimes pretty strongly, but anytime I have to do that I have to think about what I’m doing and think about what I think. Like you said the thinking about it is the important part and everyone loves to correct someone who’s wrong on the Internet. Even me. Especially me?


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

I just hope his forum stays up.


----------



## captaincaed

HumbleHomeCook said:


> I just hope his forum stays up.


You need to support at the $200/month level, or there's no hope @RDalman @Kippington

I'm going to hell
edit: dammit misread this, thought it said "This Forum"


----------



## M1k3

captaincaed said:


> You need to support at the $200/month level, or there's no hope @RDalman @Kippington
> 
> I'm going to hell


Wrong thread or KKF derail?


----------



## captaincaed

I'm bored at work....


----------



## M1k3

captaincaed said:


> I'm bored at work....


WRONG ANSWER!


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

captaincaed said:


> I'm bored at work....


----------



## rocketman

I read the Arkansas report from 1892, and what was a surprise to me was the way the stones were cut in NY... They were using the same technique to cut the stones when I visited in the 60's.. Probably around 66-67.

wak


----------



## cotedupy

Who's up for some more fun sharpening stone history? Everyone? Good, then I'll begin...

For a while I, and a few others I've spoken to, have found it curious that in Australia old examples of Turkish Oilstones are relatively common - I come across them far more often than I do Washitas, a stone produced in much greater quantities, and which largely replaced the Turkish stone in many other countries. The penny dropped for me a month or so back when trying to research about the historic Mudgee Sharpening Stone from New South Wales.

---

As far as I know the Mudgee stone was the only Australian whetstone ever quarried on a reasonably large commercial scale. The opening was announced with much fanfare, and a clearly significant commercial investment, in January 1890, and by March they had had to double the shifts worked in order to keep up with demand. Yet less than two years later production had ceased entirely, for want of custom.

To sustain a commercially viable whetstone business you need to be in a country with enough people who need whetstones, and when I say 'people' - that usually means 'industries'. In 19th century Britain, as well as having a far larger population than Australia you also had a sizeable cutlery industry, and even then much whetstone quarrying was still the by-product of quarrying for building stone. Earlier in the 18th and 19th centuries there had been quite significant production of scythestones, but the industry died out completely in a very short space of time after advances in the automation of agriculture during the industrial revolution. So what did the owners and investors of the Mudgee Sharpening Stone Company imagine was going to sustain them?

The answer obviously, was sheep. There are _a lot _of sheep in Australia; today over 100 million, second only to China, and more than four times as many as New Zealand - an island nation to the east of Tasmania notable for being populated almost exclusively by sheep. Lots of sheep means lots of wool, and lots of wool means lots of shears that needed sharpening. The Mudgee stone was marketed directly at shearers as an alternative to the expensive imported stones they had been using, and initially it clearly went rather well. But production had begun at exactly the wrong time. The rapid uptake of a sheep shearing machine, created by Frederick Wolseley in 1888, killed the Mudgee Sharpening Stone Company dead in much the same way that automated harvesting had done the British scythestone industry 80 years before:

_'But by February 1892 the Mudgee Sharpening Stone Company had ceased production owing to slow demand and the accumulation of stock. Sadly, by September that year the directors of the company had abandoned the idea of reopening the works. It was the rapid acceptance of the shearing machines invented by Frederick Wolseley from 1888 into the big station woolsheds which sounded the death knell for the Mudgee stones.'_

And the quite specific timeline of that event I think has an interesting impact on how relatively common Turkish stones are in Australia in comparison to Washitas. Below is the only picture I've been able to find of what the Mudgee stone actually looked like (it's a type of slate), and we can see that Turkish stones and Washitas were also favoured by shearers:







By the turn of the century commercial production of Washita stones in the US had probably already been established for at least 50 years. But it wasn't until 1889 that they eventually made it to the UK, here's a contemporary account of how it immediately rendered the Charnley stone obsolete:

_'In the year 1889 the “Washita”. An imported stone, appeared on the English market, and was hailed with delight by all woodworkers , who straightway discarded their “Charnley Forests” for ever.'_

We can I think assume that at that time the Washita would not have been shipped directly to Australia from the US. The pacific ocean is _big, _and considerably more ships were going the other way round. Washita stones were taken to Britain and often rebranded by companies there; A B Salmen for instance sold Pike Washitas under a label identical to the Pike one but with their own name and logo. Indeed when Pike Norton created a subsidiary company in the UK in the early 1930s a large part of the reason was to establish more direct trade with other markets, and in particular - Commonwealth countries.

So if the Washita stone only arrived in Australia in 1889 at the very earliest, then like the Mudgee stone, it coincided almost exactly with the introduction of automated shearing machines and the total bottoming-out of the main market demand for whetstones in Australia. A market that had until that point been overwhelmingly dominated by the old Turkish Oilstones which are, perhaps _un_surprisingly, still common to find here.

---

Interesting eh!


----------



## KingShapton

cotedupy said:


> Who's up for some more fun sharpening stone history? Everyone? Good, then I'll begin...
> 
> For a while I, and a few others I've spoken to, have found it curious that in Australia old examples of Turkish Oilstones are relatively common - I come across them far more often than I do Washitas, a stone produced in much greater quantities, and which largely replaced the Turkish stone in many other countries. The penny dropped for me a month or so back when trying to research about the historic Mudgee Sharpening Stone from New South Wales.
> 
> ---
> 
> As far as I know the Mudgee stone was the only Australian whetstone ever quarried on a reasonably large commercial scale. The opening was announced with much fanfare, and a clearly significant commercial investment, in January 1890, and by March they had had to double the shifts worked in order to keep up with demand. Yet less than two years later production had ceased entirely, for want of custom.
> 
> To sustain a commercially viable whetstone business you need to be in a country with enough people who need whetstones, and when I say 'people' - that usually means 'industries'. In 19th century Britain, as well as having a far larger population than Australia you also had a sizeable cutlery industry, and even then much whetstone quarrying was still the by-product of quarrying for building stone. Earlier in the 18th and 19th centuries there had been quite significant production of scythestones, but the industry died out completely in a very short space of time after advances in the automation of agriculture during the industrial revolution. So what did the owners and investors of the Mudgee stone company imagine was going to sustain them?
> 
> The answer obviously, was sheep. There are _a lot _of sheep in Australia; today over 100 million, second only to China, and more than four times as many as New Zealand - a country famous for being populated almost exclusively by sheep. Lots of sheep, means lots of wool, and lots of shears that needed sharpening. The Mudgee stone was marketed directly at shearers as an alternative to the expensive imported stones they had been using, and initially it clearly went rather well. But production had begun at exactly the wrong time. The rapid acceptance and uptake of a sheep shearing machine, brought to market by Frederick Wolseley in 1888, killed the Mudgee Sharpening Stone Company dead in much the same way that automated harvesting had done the British scythestone industry 80 years before:
> 
> _'But by February 1892 the Mudgee Sharpening Stone Company had ceased production owing to slow demand and the accumulation of stock. Sadly, by September that year the directors of the company had abandoned the idea of reopening the works. It was the rapid acceptance of the shearing machines invented by Frederick Wolseley from 1888 into the big station woolsheds which sounded the death knell for the Mudgee stones.'_
> 
> And the quite specific timeline of that event I think has an interesting impact on how relatively common Turkish stones are in Australia in comparison to Washitas. Below is the only picture I've been able to find of what the Mudgee stone actually looked like (it's a type of slate), and we can see that Turkish stones and Washitas were also favoured by shearers:
> 
> View attachment 160009
> 
> 
> 
> By turn of the century commercial production of Washita stones in the US had probably already been established for at least 50 years. But it wasn't until 1889 that the stone eventually made it to the UK, here's a contemporary account of how it immediately rendered the Charnley stone obsolete:
> 
> _'In the year 1889 the “Washita”. An imported stone, appeared on the English market, and was hailed with delight by all woodworkers , who straightway discarded their “Charnley Forests” for ever.'_
> 
> We can I think assume that at that time the Washita would not have been shipped directly to Australia from the US. The pacific ocean is _big, _and considerably more ships were going the other way round. Washita stones were taken to the Britain and often rebranded by companies there; A B Salmen for instance sold Pike Washitas under a label identical to the Pike one but with their own name and logo. Indeed when Pike Norton created a subsidiary company in the UK in the early 1930s a large part of the reason was to establish more direct trade with other markets, and in particular - Commonwealth countries.
> 
> So if the Washita stone only arrived in Australia in 1889 at the very earliest, then like the Mudgee stone, it coincided almost exactly with the introduction of automated shearing machines and the total bottoming-out of the main market demand for whetstones in Australia. A market that had until that point been overwhelmingly dominated by the old Turkish Oilstones which are, perhaps _un_surprisingly, still common to find here.
> 
> ---
> 
> Interesting eh!


Very interesting and we'll written!


----------



## cotedupy

Don’t think I posted pics of this stone I found in a market in Belfast before Christmas... 

When I asked your man how much for the 'whetstone’ - he was clearly confused about the whole whet / wet thing. And apologised that it was in fact an oilstone, though they worked alright too, but he'd knock a couple of quid off for me because of it.






To be honest I would have been quite happy paying the full £10 for this rather good, fast, semi-translucent, old 8x2. But he insisted, so eight pound it was


----------



## stringer

You are one lucky dog. I got a couple new finds but nothing so historical.


----------



## Desert Rat

He has a pretty keen eye though.

I'm really good at fooling myself into believing I see somthing that isn't there. I'm one out of five on Charnley's. The misses have been a common slate, Hindostan, Thuringian and Lyn Iidwall. I have enjoyed them all but the slate, it isn't really a bad stone either, just haven't found a use for it.

There is just know telling what is hiding under all the crud on some some of them old stones. I just try to make sure it's a natural and that may even be a mistake depending on the price point. I could use another India out in the shop anyway.

Stringer, what's your take on the colored Washita?


----------



## Desert Rat

Luftmensch said:


> Not a video... but I made a picture journal for slate. See: Making a whetstone from wild slate. Slate is super easy to work with. Soft as clarts.... You could likely follow a similar route for various other sedimentary rocks (sandstone, mudstones).
> 
> Metamorphic rock, like quartzite, will be harder to work with (). You could likely still cut the rock with a diamond wheel and angle grinder (or drop saw). It will be slower but it should still work. Find a wheel with the smallest kerf that will do the job - it means you have to remove the smallest amount of material. The cutting forces will be lower. I suspect grinding out the cut marks with a belt sander will be relatively less fruitful. You could always try if you have worn out belts... but dont expect much longevity! From there... do the rest by hand.
> 
> ... I have fantasised about finding some chert or quartzite and giving it a go.... but the dust is unlikely to go down well with the neighbours. It is also likely to be a lot of effort for a mediocre whetstone (given what is in my area)!! Still considering it though...


 I stuck a diamond blade in my skill saw to cut slabs from the local rock shops. Works well enough but probably should have went with a diamond cut off blade in the angle grinder to for the smaller stuff. Been playing around with some jaspers and petrified wood.
Next will be some attachments for a angle grinder to help in flattening.

BTW
How's your Lilly White?


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> You are one lucky dog. I got a couple new finds but nothing so historical.





Desert Rat said:


> He has a pretty keen eye though.



Ah I think Stringer's closer to the mark here! That was part of a very lucky hot streak I had before Christmas when I had a look in a few places that each had only one or two stones, and all of them turned out to be gems. Resulting in; 3 Washitas, 2 Idwals and a Charnley, with not a SiC stone in sight.

It's also obviously a helluva lot easier when seeing stones in person, because you can tell if they're natural. As you say DR - things are caked in so much grime that I wouldn't have known exactly whether a stone was a Washita / Idwal / &c. until I cleaned them... all I could tell was that they were going to be something interesting. So yeah... it's largely just luck, and the fact there are a lot of them in the UK . The only dirty old stone you could really possibly mistake for a natural if you had it in hand, I think would be an India (and I have done that in the past). They can feel very smooth with decades of black gunk on the surface, often are single grit rather than combis, and are markedly heavier than SiC stones.

---

If you're looking for another CF I'll give a shout if I come across another at a good price at any point. I'm pretty happy with my two, so don't really need more.


----------



## cotedupy

Here's a little example of how easy it is to mistake one thing for another, even when cleaned up, and especially when you start getting into Idwals and Charnleys. Both of which have a fair bit of variation in the patterns and colouring, and can look very similar to each other.

For a while I had this stone down as an Idwal because of the black lines, though there looked as though there might be some red peeking through so I wasn't 100%. But it's very hard indeed, and Charnleys tend to be a little softer than Idwals, so I went with the latter. But I gave it a little more lapping / surface prep last week, and suddenly there's a load more red coming through and it's very clearly a CF, albeit a very hard and fine example:







In Grinding and Honing 3 HB listed five different types of CF, and this sort is relatively unusual as far as I can see. In fact the only other person I can remember seeing who has the same is @Desert Rat . Though there are probably lots more out there; Charnleys don't always have visible red colouring to them, and if they don't then because of both look and feel this type is going to get mistaken for an Idwal 9 times out of 10.


----------



## Luftmensch

Desert Rat said:


> Been playing around with some jaspers and petrified wood.



I read about Ozzie locations that might have good geology for whetstones. Some dude in a forum said he made a really great sparking stone out of petrified wood! It would be a really pretty stone as well....





Desert Rat said:


> BTW
> How's your Lilly White?





We moved in mid/late December. I received the stone just before moving and had time to clean it a bit. I haven't quite gotten around to unboxing it and giving it a go. Other things keep getting in the way. I have a santoku that could do with a sharpen. The primary bevel could do with a clean up as well. Seems like a good candidate for testing the stone out! I look forward to it!! When I do I will post some pics.

Meanwhile... I have been looking for my stone holder for about two weeks


----------



## stringer

Desert Rat said:


> He has a pretty keen eye though.
> 
> I'm really good at fooling myself into believing I see somthing that isn't there. I'm one out of five on Charnley's. The misses have been a common slate, Hindostan, Thuringian and Lyn Iidwall. I have enjoyed them all but the slate, it isn't really a bad stone either, just haven't found a use for it.
> 
> There is just know telling what is hiding under all the crud on some some of them old stones. I just try to make sure it's a natural and that may even be a mistake depending on the price point. I could use another India out in the shop anyway.
> 
> Stringer, what's your take on the colored Washita?



I haven't had that much time to play with it. I've got three Washita now. The little Sportsman Crystolon combo is probably the coarsest. Followed by the Buck. And then the big bench stone. I think the place where these stones shine is microbevels and apexes on carbon steels. They do most of the work from grinding to pre-finishing (500-2k grit) quickly and easily with good feedback. My big one is still my go-to for cutting a microbevel after thinning. It's slower than the other too but I can use the edge right off of it and be quite happy. Although I still usually finish on aizu. I've been using the small ones as touch up stones at work and they are excellent for that purpose. I finish them on a coticule or hard ark. The Buck so far behaves like I would expect a washita too. Feels somewhere in between soft ark and hard ark for finish but faster than both. Works fine with oil or water. Here's some of my favorite novaculites. Coarsest to finest

Top to bottom:
eBay special soft ark
Unlabelled bench size washita
Sportsman Washita/Crystolon combo
Buck washita
Smith's Soft/Hard Ark Combo
Unlabelled hard ark
Unlabelled Butterscotch translucent
Norton Hard Ark (translucent) 
Israeli Novaculite
Dan's surgical black penknife stone


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> Here's a little example of how easy it is to mistake one thing for another, even when cleaned up, and especially when you start getting into Idwals and Charnleys. Both of which have a fair bit of variation in the patterns and colouring, and can look very similar to each other.
> 
> For a while I had this stone down as an Idwal because of the black lines, though there looked as though there might be some red peeking through so I wasn't 100%. But it's very hard indeed, and Charnleys tend to be a little softer than Idwals, so I went with the latter. But I gave it a little more lapping / surface prep last week, and suddenly there's a load more red coming through and it's very clearly a CF, albeit a very hard and fine example:
> 
> View attachment 160765
> 
> 
> In Grinding and Honing 3 HB listed five different types of CF, and this sort is relatively unusual as far as I can see. In fact the only other person I can remember seeing who has the same is @Desert Rat . Though there are probably lots more out there; Charnleys don't always have visible red colouring to them, and if they don't then because of both look and feel this type is going to get mistaken for an Idwal 9 times out of 10.


 I have no doubt that those are Charnleys but just to muddy the waters here is Llyn Idwall that also has some red.


I lifted the image from this site...http://zatochiklinok.ru/1-2/naturalnye-abrazivy/llyn-idwal
...


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> I have no doubt that those are Charnleys but just to muddy the waters here is Llyn Idwall that also has some red.
> 
> 
> I lifted the image from this site...http://zatochiklinok.ru/1-2/naturalnye-abrazivy/llyn-idwal
> ...View attachment 160959



Interesting! I hadn’t seen one like that before. Will remember that for the future (to add to the confusion! )


----------



## cotedupy

I'm slightly hesitant to post this for fear of the thread just becoming a string of smug posts about the things I've found, but my first day back in Aus was rather extraordinary (and there is some Washita and stone id-ing content, which someone might find useful). It again shows that really it's all just a bit of luck, and in this instance someone else being very nice indeed...

Firstly I returned home to this Ausbay stone that went for my opening bid of $20:






TBH I could tell that this was a feckin massive coti from the pics. Turned out to be 254 x 63 and a healthy 1.2kg. What I couldn't tell though is that it's a really good one. Often the particular layer that a coticule comes from is quite difficult to tell (for me anyway), but this one has some quite distinctive features that show it's from a layer called 'La Veinette'. Which after I looked it up seems to be regarded as just about the best. Stone is very fast, relatively soft, and quite fine:











Following that triumph we had to go into town so I popped my head into my favourite salvage/second hand tool shop. The last time I'd been there I got chatting to the owner about stones, who turned out to be very knowledgeable about them as he's also the president of the SA Historical Tool Society.

And this time he'd set aside a load things he'd come across, so I could have a look through before he cleaned up and put out for sale:






Out of about 20 odd stones there were four I thought looked promising, which he let me have for $10 a pop. (As I said - this guy knows about stones, and how much they can be worth, I think he just likes other people having the same interest, so asked almost nothing for them).

At this stage there's only one stone I can id for certain, and it's this:






It looked and felt a bit like an India, but there was a chip out of one corner. This is what the inside of an old Washita looks like. And it’ll be a nice little 5x2 travel stone once cleaned up and smoothed down:






This stone to me felt a bit like a Turkish, but I wasn't sure:






Really didn't know about this one cos of the amount of dirt, could well be an India:






And this massive 10x2 felt very promising; so fine that I assumed must be a hard ark, but at that size I wasn't sure. What other kinds of mega fine stones get cut this big? Charnley?:


----------



## cotedupy

So after soaking and cleaning, here's my little travel Washita:






The almost square stone was indeed a Turkish , albeit an unusual one. This is the finest Turkish I have, and it's not a very good knife stone, but should have a fair crack at finishing a razor:






The very dirty one I didn't know about was looking quite a lot like an India as I cleaned it up. But I left it soaking and by the time we got back from the pub it had magically transformed into a nice 8x2 Hindostan, complete with the world's largest whetstone box. You can see here the distinctive Hindostan layering on the sides:






And the big 10x2... I actually pulled out of the degreaser after only about 30 seconds, and had it cleaned, lapped and ready to go a couple of minutes later. Because it wasn't an ark or some other kind of high end novaculite, but something perhaps even more exciting:











A soft-ish green Thuri the size of your forearm.

I had no idea they ever came in that size, tbh I was rather taken aback. And even more so after a little bit of research revealed there was apparently only one company that did produce some 10x2s... Escher.

It's an awesome razor stone - I'm rather a happy bunny. And I think I probably owe your man at the second hand tool shop a pint, maybe even two .


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> So after soaking and cleaning, here's my little travel Washita:
> 
> View attachment 161363
> 
> 
> The almost square stone was indeed a Turkish , albeit an unusual one. This is the finest Turkish I have, and it's not a very good knife stone, but should have a fair crack at finishing a razor:
> 
> View attachment 161368
> 
> 
> The very dirty one I didn't know about was looking quite a lot like an India as I cleaned it up. But I left it soaking and by the time we got back from the pub it ad magically transformed into a nice 8x2 Hindostan, complete with the world's largest whetstone box. You can see here the distinctive Hindostan layering on the sides:
> 
> View attachment 161364
> 
> 
> And the big 10x2... I actually pulled this one out of the degreaser after only about 30 seconds, and had it cleaned, lapped and ready to go a couple of minutes later. Because it wasn't an ark or some other kind of high end novaculite, but something perhaps even more exciting:
> 
> View attachment 161366
> 
> 
> View attachment 161365
> 
> 
> A soft-ish green Thuri the size of your forearm.
> 
> I had no idea they ever came in that size, tbh I was rather taken aback. And even more so after a little bit of research revealed there was apparently only one company that did produce some 10x2s... Escher.
> 
> It's an awesome razor stone - I'm rather a happy bunny. And I think I probably owe your man at the second hand tool shop a pint, maybe even two .



I will say it again. You are one lucky dog. I wouldn't even know how to guess a value on that thuri.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> I will say it again. You are one lucky dog. I wouldn't even know how to guess a value on that thuri.



Yeah god knows! Many hundreds I imagine. I was staggered once I realised what it was.

That luck might ‘trickle down’ to you if we do another swap at some point though, as I have a very nice 5x1 soft green Thuri that’s maybe a little redundant now .


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> Yeah god knows! Many hundreds I imagine. I was staggered once I realised what it was.
> 
> That luck might ‘trickle down’ to you if we do another swap at some point though, as I have a very nice 5x1 soft green Thuri that’s maybe a little redundant now .


I got a couple of interesting ones in the post.......


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> I got a couple of interesting ones in the post.......



Nice! Look forward to seeing them...

(And obviously - keep an eye out for any of those triangle cardboard box Nortons for me.)

- - -

Just noticed on B&B that @Desert Rat had similarly lucky find, pretty much exactly a year ago, of an old stone that turned out to be an 8x2 green Thuri .


----------



## KingShapton

@cotedupy : Congratulations on your next hits!

The Thuringian is impressive, you rarely see/get such a large version, especially under such generous circumstances. A couple of beers would be a really good idea, and you should have plenty to talk about. Conversations about stones with this guy must be really interesting.

The Coti looks damn good next to the Thuringian, I envy you for that. Do I see that correctly on the pictures that the underside of the Cotis is a naturally overgrown layer of Belgian Blue? Have you already tried this site?


----------



## captaincaed

I’m just going to quit. You win.


----------



## Desert Rat

I imagine that big coticule and thuri where marketed to carpenters, woodworkers, or in some of the old vernacular jointers, mechanics. No doubt they had some sharp chisels and planes back then. I wonder which stone sold for more? Surely they were both expensive and coveted by their owners.

I find the Hindostan to be an enjoyable stone too. Soft, smooth type of feed back. Anyone else like them?

Just an awesome hall cotedupy.


----------



## cotedupy

KingShapton said:


> Do I see that correctly on the pictures that the underside of the Cotis is a naturally overgrown layer of Belgian Blue?



Do you mean that it’s naturally bonded? Or how there is a little line of coticule within the Belgian Blue layer? That kinda peeks through in places all the way round the stone and I assume is where the name ‘La Veinette’ comes from.

My other coticules don’t have any really distinguishing features to be able to say which layer they are, but everything about this one looks and behaves like LaV. Which was nice - along with Les Lat it seems to be what the razor folks regard as the best. The finish is quite fine for a kitchen knife, but it’s still amazingly fast. I’m going to use for knives for a bit because it’s still a little dished, and then might flatten it properly for razors after I’ve worn through some of the ends.

I didn’t actually try the BBW side yet, but give a go this afternoon. I quite like BBW for both sharpening and polishing.


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> I imagine that big coticule and thuri where marketed to carpenters, woodworkers, or in some of the old vernacular jointers, mechanics. No doubt they had some sharp chisels and planes back then. I wonder which stone sold for more? Surely they were both expensive and coveted by their owners.
> 
> I find the Hindostan to be an enjoyable stone too. Soft, smooth type of feed back. Anyone else like them?
> 
> Just an awesome hall cotedupy.




Yep I think you're spot on. I've found a few good size coticules here that were clearly used as tool stones - slightly dished and beaten up. But does mean that of the four coticules I have atm three are very good sizes; 185x55, 200x50 and this even bigger one.

The Thuri too was clearly a tool stone, and as you say - a prized possession. This had been very well looked after with almost no chipping, and hadn't been used with oil - it was just a bit dirty, I could have wiped it clean with a damp cloth.

I had a Hindo already, though haven't used all that much. I should go back and try them both out properly for a while. I'd agree they do have quite nice, smooth feedback, especially for a sandstone - they feel a little finer than a Dalmore.


----------



## Luftmensch

Blimey!

You've got a keen eye for this game. Those stones are awesome. I get SUPER envious of bench sized stones. You need at least 50mm... if not 60mm to hone plane irons... and if you use a jig (as many do). Length is also desirable - a jig can consume about 100mm of your run...

Congrats on the stash. Impressive!


----------



## cotedupy

Luftmensch said:


> Blimey!
> 
> You've got a keen eye for this game. Those stones are awesome. I get SUPER envious of bench sized stones. You need at least 50mm... if not 60mm to hone plane irons... and if you use a jig (as many do). Length is also desirable - a jig can consume about 100mm of your run...
> 
> Congrats on the stash. Impressive!




Ah just luck, and in this instance - knowing the right people. The other thing that I think helps in Aus is the almost total lack of historic whetstone production domestically. In the UK a fair few stones I’ve found just turn out to be ‘Misc. Grey Slate’; perfectly serviceable as a local stone, but perhaps not worth shipping to the other side of the world. Which I suspect plays into why, when you do come across natural stones here, they tend to be quite high quality.

- - -

I went along to a meeting of the SA Historical Tool Association for the first time last night (I did manage to buy your man a pint ). And funnily enough got talking to someone there about exactly that - the need particularly for wide stones when sharpening plane blades, and how even the standard 2" wasn't ideal. I didn't know this. You can't then just sharpen them at 45 degrees to the stone to fit the whole length of the blade onto a narrower stone...?

Someone else (unprompted by me!) suggested 'Grinding and Sharpening' as a theme for an upcoming meeting. So I'll be dragging a load of rocks along in a few months to talk about them. Which should be fun!

- - -

Here’s another better, if slightly gratuitous, pic of that Thuri from when I was touching up a few things in the garden yesterday. Such a lovely stone to use, and actually rather pretty.


----------



## Grayswandir

cotedupy said:


> Do you mean that it’s naturally bonded? Or how there is a little line of coticule within the Belgian Blue layer? That kinda peeks through in places all the way round the stone and I assume is where the name ‘La Veinette’ comes from.
> 
> My other coticules don’t have any really distinguishing features to be able to say which layer they are, but everything about this one looks and behaves like LaV. Which was nice - along with Les Lat it seems to be what the razor folks regard as the best. The finish is quite fine for a kitchen knife, but it’s still amazingly fast. I’m going to use for knives for a bit because it’s still a little dished, and then might flatten it properly for razors after I’ve worn through some of the ends.
> 
> I didn’t actually try the BBW side yet, but give a go this afternoon. I quite like BBW for both sharpening and polishing.


How aggressive was the BBW? I've often read that it's equivalent to a 4K synthetic, grit-wise. Do you find that to be accurate?


----------



## stringer

Grayswandir said:


> How aggressive was the BBW? I've often read that it's equivalent to a 4K synthetic, grit-wise. Do you find that to be accurate?



I would say so. Slower and doesn't finish as fine as coticules. Not as useful for razors but very nice for knives in my experience.


----------



## KingShapton

Grayswandir said:


> How aggressive was the BBW? I've often read that it's equivalent to a 4K synthetic, grit-wise. Do you find that to be accurate?


I can only speak from my limited experience... without slurry between 4-6k, with a grated slurry through a small nagura under 4k, but noticable faster. Occasionally you will also find, usually by chance, a BBW between 6-8k, which is then a bit harder than the normal ones.


----------



## Luftmensch

cotedupy said:


> I went along to a meeting of the SA Historical Tool Association for the first time last night (I did manage to buy your man a pint ). And funnily enough got talking to someone there about exactly that - the need particularly for wide stones when sharpening plane blades, and how even the standard 2" wasn't ideal. I didn't know this. You can't then just sharpen them at 45 degrees to the stone to fit the whole length of the blade onto a narrower stone...?



What a dude!!

This is what a modern plane sharpening jig looks like:






Sharpening in woodworking is diverse... some freehand... some use jigs... some use machines (Tormek)... some mix approaches (e.g. primary grinding on a Tormek, finishing freehand or with a jig). What seems fairly commonly shared in the community is that sharpening gets in the way of fun. Not many woodworkers do woodworking as an excuse to sharpen plane blades and chisels!!

Stanley has left a legacy of designs that have been updated by various modern woodworking tools manufacturers (e.g. Lee Valley and Lie-Nielsen). As a result, many 'standard' sized plane blades are just over 2":






... of course... there are wider and narrower planes.


Could you sharpen at an angle to fit the plane on the stone? Sure! If you are a good freehand sharpener. Controlling angles on two... planes... (  ) makes the process more difficult and fiddly. You have to focus on keeping the bevel at the correct angle whilst moving on a skew. Not impossible, but more difficult. You also clearly can't use a sharpening jig properly at an angle. Most jigs are on fixed rollers!

Again, my impression is that modern woodworkers see sharpening as a means to an end. Narrow stones (<< 2") will be a frustration for people in a hurry. You can work with smaller stones, several millimetres doesn't matter... but the bigger the gap, the more frustrating!

Similarly... depending on the angle of the plane and the design of the sharpening jig, you can lose 50-100mm of stroke. Longer stones are more luxurious! It is nicer doing relaxed long controlled strokes than a frenzy of short ones!


----------



## Grayswandir

KingShapton said:


> I can only speak from my limited experience... without slurry between 4-6k, with a grated slurry through a small nagura under 4k, but noticable faster. Occasionally you will also find, usually by chance, a BBW between 6-8k, which is then a bit harder than the normal ones.


I'll have to give mine a try and see how it performs. Thank you for the information.


----------



## Desert Rat

If anyone wonders how wood working tools were sharpened on 2 x 8 bench stones, which was pretty much the standard size here in the usa, Maurice Frasier gives a pretty good demonstration in this video. He uses an India to translucent progression, but we know the washita was a one stone solution for many.
I think this method was born out of necessity, a two by eight-inch stone just isn't a very generous size.

Sharpening Woodworking Tools Using Norton Oil Stones - YouTube


----------



## KingShapton

Desert Rat said:


> If anyone wonders how wood working tools were sharpened on 2 x 8 bench stones, which was pretty much the standard size here in the usa, Maurice Frasier gives a pretty good demonstration in this video. He uses an India to translucent progression, but we know the washita was a one stone solution for many.
> I think this method was born out of necessity, a two by eight-inch stone just isn't a very generous size.
> 
> Sharpening Woodworking Tools Using Norton Oil Stones - YouTube


Really great video


----------



## stringer

Pretty sure this is novaculite. We shall see.


----------



## stringer

It came out of the box pretty easy. Straight into the simple green. We shall see.


----------



## VICTOR J CREAZZI

stringer said:


> Pretty sure this is novaculite. We shall see.
> 
> View attachment 161778


From the picture I'm thinking man made carborundum.


----------



## stringer

VICTOR J CREAZZI said:


> From the picture I'm thinking man made carborundum.


I hope not. But could be.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> I hope not. But could be.



If you reckon novaculite then I’m calling old Washita . Probably just concidence but I’ve had a lot of them with very similar corner chips. (Though I have had Indias like that too.


----------



## cotedupy

Grayswandir said:


> How aggressive was the BBW? I've often read that it's equivalent to a 4K synthetic, grit-wise. Do you find that to be accurate?



I’m going to go against the grain here and say - in my experience the particle or grit size of a naturally bonded BBW has tended to seem around the same as the coti side. I even have one particularly odd stone where the coti side is notably coarser.

Though as Stringer said, I think coticules are better for razors, but because of how you can manipulate them. A slurried coticule is incredibly aggressive, but can finish very fine with clean water and zero pressure. The difference for whatever reason is less marked in BBW.

NB - I’m not an expert on using cotis with SRs. Those are just my impressions from using them with knives.


----------



## stringer

Hard to say. But promising.


----------



## VICTOR J CREAZZI

Now it doesn't look like a carbo any more.


----------



## stringer

Definitely not carborundum. But I don't have any idea. It's got layers and swirls. Pretty hard and dense but not super fine. It feels washita-esque but could be something else. I don't have any idea. Just glad it's not an India stone. ~8.5"*2.25"

More pictures tomorrow


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> Definitely not carborundum. But I don't have any idea. It's got layers and swirls. Pretty hard and dense but not super fine. It feels washita-esque but could be something else. I don't have any idea. Just glad it's not an India stone. ~8.5"*2.25"
> 
> More pictures tomorrow



Looking like one of the new colourful Washitas / soft ark...?

Dalmores have patterns like that too, but nothing else about it looks very Dalmore.


----------



## KingShapton

cotedupy said:


> I’m going to go against the grain here and say - in my experience the particle or grit size of a naturally bonded BBW has tended to seem around the same as the coti side. I even have one particularly odd stone where the coti side is notably coarser.


A naturally bonded bbw is an exception as far as I know. In this case the bbw is (usually) much finer than usual. So a difference to the single sold bbw.

And that seems to agree with your experience.


----------



## cotedupy

KingShapton said:


> A naturally bonded bbw is an exception as far as I know. In this case the bbw is (usually) much finer than usual. So a difference to the single sold bbw.
> 
> And that seems to agree with your experience.



Ah... I didn’t know this. Though now that you mention - I can imagine how that BBW near the yellow coticule might be more similar ‘grit’ to it than other parts. Interesting!

Most of the BBW I’ve used have been part of natural combis, though I do have a couple of pieces that aren’t. I shall have to try them out next to each other to compare...


----------



## stringer

Right now I think it might be a Dalmore. It's beautiful whatever it is. Never seen anything like it.


----------



## stringer

I cleaned up my house knives at work with it. It's a very dense and fine particled sand stone. Surprisingly soft. Self slurried into a nice grey mud that reminded me a little of my JKI Hideriyama, although a bit coarser.


----------



## stringer

These two arrived today. Some old geezer bought these from some other old geezer when he was but a young man. The second old geezer dug them out of the ground at an ancient abandoned homestead when he was but a young man. This ain't no carborundum fellas.


----------



## stringer

Here they are after a few hours soak


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> Right now I think it might be a Dalmore. It's beautiful whatever it is. Never seen anything like it.




Oh yeah, Dalmore! At a push it could be a Hindo, but from the looks and your description, I'd be 95% on Dalmore. I only tried doing this earlier in the week but - they're much softer and coarser when soaked. If you let dry completely and then use with oil it'll be much more similar to a Hindo, at least in my experience. A nice, niche find, especially in the US, though these _were_ exported there, sometimes under the name 'English Oilstone' or somesuch (despite being Scottish).

Apart from the surface pattern the other big giveaway is the colour - when they've been used with oil for a while Dalmore 'Blue's go brown. And it takes a surprisingly long soak to get rid. Here are some pics of mine, which has probably been soaked for 48hrs in total over a few different stints.

Dry:





Wet:





Other side wet. This side has less oil in it still, so the colour is more what the original blue looks like:





On mine at least you can also see the surface patterns running down the sides. For a while this made me think it was a Hindo:





I've lapped through most of it, so can't really take a picture, but it also has the same saw/cut marks as yours does at the end. So yep - almost certainly a DB .


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> Here they are after a few hours soak
> 
> View attachment 161950



These are _very _cool. Perhaps even old scythestones or something, like the original old Pike stones from New Hampshire (?) @Desert Rat knows a lot about this kind of thing...

Gonna be rather rare now whatever way you spin it!


----------



## stringer

One of them has a ridiculous amount of mica. Absolute glitter bomb.


----------



## stringer

A nice article about whetstones from 1891. 






The Fort Morgan Times September 11, 1891 — Colorado Historic Newspapers Collection


Colorado Historic Newspapers Collection




www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org


----------



## stringer

This website is a good resource too



Quarries and Beyond Home



Here's a good article from 1890s from that website



https://quarriesandbeyond.org/articles_and_books/pdf/whetstones_in_the_united_states_stone_magazine_nov_1892.pdf


----------



## rocketman

Thanks for the links..


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> One of them has a ridiculous amount of mica. Absolute glitter bomb.




So when I said above 'original old Pike stones from New Hampshire'... it's pretty likely that's what you've got there by the look of it. The stone that Pike made their name on, and one of the first, if not the first, significant commercially produced US stones. I believe they were originally made mostly as scythestones, which would fit with the shape of yours too. Seriously cool score.



(Credit to @Desert Rat who originally sent me that vid a while ago - I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. I'm not just an encyclopedic repository of niche stone information!)


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> So when I said above 'original old Pike stones from New Hampshire'... it's pretty likely that's what you've got there by the look of it. The stone that Pike made their name on, and one of the first, if not the first, significant commercially produced US stones. I believe they were originally made mostly as scythestones, which would fit with the shape of yours too. Seriously cool score.
> 
> 
> 
> (Credit to @Desert Rat who originally sent me that vid a while ago - I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. I'm not just an encyclopedic repository of niche stone information!)




That's pretty cool. Thanks for resharing. I'm anxious to get to play with it. 

Right now I'm on overnight trip to a couple friend's house. I always bring some kind of sharpening stones because they cook a lot and appreciate a touch-up when I visit. Mostly they have a bunch of Wusthofs, couple of Cutcos. So soft stainless. This time I brought the Buck Washita and a Norton Translucent File for deburring. I'm super impressed by the Buck. Cuts super fast at about 800 grit. Great feedback so you can tell when you are done because you don't feel the gritty resistance of mangled apex. Then just a couple swipes on the little hard ark to refine the apex just a touch and eliminate any burr. These are really pretty much the perfect tools for this knife collection.


----------



## captaincaed

Grandpa set me up with a nice little travel kit as well. Touching up one side of the hard/translucent on 220 makes it a bit easier for deburring


----------



## stringer

captaincaed said:


> Grandpa set me up with a nice little travel kit as well. Touching up one side of the hard/translucent on 220 makes it a bit easier for deburring
> View attachment 162130


That's a great set. You got everything covered from knives to tools to razors.


----------



## captaincaed

They’re tiny but they do the trick


----------



## captaincaed

Pretty good looking stone for $35 BIN on the bay, US, about 5.5 x 1.75" in a good wood box.








Vintage Washita Soft Arkansas Oilstone Sharpening Stone w/ Box | eBay


<p>Vintage Washita Soft Arkansas Oilstone Sharpening Stone w/ Box. </p><p>5 1/2 inch </p>



www.ebay.com





edit, or $20 free shipping marketed as "soft", but looks like Washita if I understand this 








Arkansas Knife Sharpening 6" Whetstone Soft Stone Sharpener - Made in USA | eBay


Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Arkansas Knife Sharpening 6" Whetstone Soft Stone Sharpener - Made in USA at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!



www.ebay.com


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> So when I said above 'original old Pike stones from New Hampshire'... it's pretty likely that's what you've got there by the look of it. The stone that Pike made their name on, and one of the first, if not the first, significant commercially produced US stones. I believe they were originally made mostly as scythestones, which would fit with the shape of yours too. Seriously cool score.
> 
> 
> 
> (Credit to @Desert Rat who originally sent me that vid a while ago - I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. I'm not just an encyclopedic repository of niche stone information!)




I did a bunch of reading today. And found the original SRP thread where that video was posted. There are no labels on mine, but I would bet it's one those original pikes. Mica/quartz schist. Pretty fine. Medium hardness. I didn't realize Pike and Norton got their start in New Hampshire. I spent a lot of time their when I lived in Boston I should have paid more attention to the rocks. Lol. I'm working on lapping it and I think I'm going to mount it on a wood block. I have plenty of antique ones to repurpose.


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> but looks like Washita if I understand this



Haha... Well this shows you why a lot of people consider the new Washitas (anything not produced by Pike-Norton) to be soft Arks. Old Pike-Norton Washitas were white.

Even something like this one - all that orange colour is old oil n stuff:






If you degreased it for a few weeks / months it'd be white as the driven snow. You can see the true colour here on the end that I've belt sanded:






---

Funnily enough I bought my first soft ark on ebay today. (All the other stones, but I've never had, or even tried, a soft ark!)

Nice condition, quite pretty-looking, old 8x2:





It's very likely to be an old Pike-Norton stone, for a couple of reasons; Australian Abrasives were/are a subsidiary or associated with Norton Abrasives I believe, so a lot of the old American stones you find here are likely to be Nortons.

The joinery on the corners of the box is distinctive of Pike-Norton (though some other companies do the same now too). Here for instance are two of my old Washitas with the same style boxes. Top one is a labelled No.1, bottom one is unlabelled, but is likely an older Pike stone.

(And yep - both of these stones are completely white too, it's just oil and swarf):


----------



## BoSharpens

stringer said:


> That's pretty cool. Thanks for resharing. I'm anxious to get to play with it.
> 
> Right now I'm on overnight trip to a couple friend's house. I always bring some kind of sharpening stones because they cook a lot and appreciate a touch-up when I visit. Mostly they have a bunch of Wusthofs, couple of Cutcos. So soft stainless. This time I brought the Buck Washita and a Norton Translucent File for deburring. I'm super impressed by the Buck. Cuts super fast at about 800 grit. Great feedback so you can tell when you are done because you don't feel the gritty resistance of mangled apex. Then just a couple swipes on the little hard ark to refine the apex just a touch and eliminate any burr. These are really pretty much the perfect tools for this knife collection.
> View attachment 162107


That Santoku with the Scallops only a mm away from the edge is what I normally see from people who go to the Farmer's Market "belt sander guy" who takes off many years of metal every time he touches a blade. 

I feel sorry for owners of fine blades by the "belt sander guys" as there definitely are truly better ways to get & KEEP your knife edges in fine shape. I have been teaching my customers who are interested in learning how to do light honing by hand with a hard and soft Washita at home to get back near or at razor sharp. It works.


----------



## stringer

BoSharpens said:


> That Santoku with the Scallops only a mm away from the edge is what I normally see from people who go to the Farmer's Market "belt sander guy" who takes off many years of metal every time he touches a blade.
> 
> I feel sorry for owners of fine blades by the "belt sander guys" as there definitely are truly better ways to get & KEEP your knife edges in fine shape. I have been teaching my customers who are interested in learning how to do light honing by hand with a hard and soft Washita at home to get back near or at razor sharp. It works.



In this case the premature wear is from a pull through sharpener. I promised to sharpen her knives every couple of months if she threw the damn thing away.


----------



## BoSharpens

Amen. And again, Amen. 

Most people don't learn enough to understand costs of properly maintaining good to fine edges on their knives.


----------



## stringer

Believe it or not. I think I just found that chocolate hone's big brother. 

10X1.25"


----------



## Desert Rat

stringer said:


> Believe it or not. I think I just found that chocolate hone's big brother.
> 
> 10X1.25"



That's amazing.
Buy a lottery ticket while your on a roll!


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> Believe it or not. I think I just found that chocolate hone's big brother.
> 
> 10X1.25"




Score! That's a different stone from the one that came alongside the first then...?


----------



## cotedupy

As much as I dislike the regrettable Mr. Zuckerberg and his 'Facebook', I do log on occasionally to have a look through its marketplace, which can turn up some gems.

Last year I nabbed a NOS 30s/40s Lily White, which is somewhere earlier in this thread, and then a couple of evenings ago this little bundle for $50 - Bengall Imperial and a 6x1.5 ish Escher, neither of which look to have been used much:


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> Score! That's a different stone from the one that came alongside the first then...?



yes. The first two were about 5 or 6 inches long. This third one is ten inches long. The one is far sparklier (is that a word) than the other two. But they all seem to be the same general family of material. Quartz mica schist is another of those truly ancient whetstones. Been used for thousands of years.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> yes. The first two were about 5 or 6 inches long. This third one is ten inches long. The one is far sparklier (is that a word) than the other two. But they all seem to be the same general family of material. Quartz mica schist is another of those truly ancient whetstones. Been used for thousands of years.



And pretty too! 

Here's a Wastikivi, kindly given to me by another member here, which is a micaceous Phyllite (kinda like a slate on it way to becoming schist):





Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## Skylar303

cotedupy said:


> Still to go... No.1 Washita, Queer Creek, and the mysterious 'Fastcut' stone which I believe was a Hindustan, though I've only ever seen pictures of one in an old Norton Catalogue.


Hello, new to the forum, reading this thread I decided to register just so I could reply. I was looking into some stones trying to ID them and came across this thread and reading through besides the interesting stones, this caught my eye. And inspired me to pull out my box of some old oil stones... I haven't even used a lot of them... I tried lapping a nice 8x2x1 unknown ark, it was only dished 2mm so I figured I could just lap it flat... 3 hours later and an elbow replacement... Only made it about 1mm on the ends... (Pics 7, 8) The other side is lapped but has one corner chamfered which I didnt like...

Some I can decrease and use with water soluble glycerin/water mixture like on some CF's. Otherwise oils too much of a hassle for my uses. This thread is making me re-think some stone grades/types I have.

Maybe this is what you were referring to with the fastcut? (Pics 1-3) @cotedupy

I also have this unknown white stone that maybe a possible lily white? (Pics 4-6) I've been reading up about different arks/washitas but not 100% sure... The grey is from old swarf, otherwise porcelain white. I thought at one point it maybe ceramic but not with the weight it has, I don't think? One side near the end has slight peppering.

I also have a few more that need ID that I could post a few pics of. Or wait till I can properly SG test. I suppose I could get a rough estimate of the suspected lily white, only slightly off with the chip.











P.s. hope I posted correctly, I almost loaded 3 or 4 sets of the same photo the first time... And I hope it's not too long... Sorry for bad photos, just snowed and not sunny out.


----------



## cotedupy

Blimey... well there's a nice couple of stones!

That is indeed an old Pike Fastcut, the label would date it to at least earlier than 1933, when Norton bought Pike. I believe the stone was a type of Hindostan, and it certainly looks like one from your pictures. If you had a pic of the sides that would be great too...

The white one could well be a Washita, it's a bit difficult to say whether Lily White or No.1 if it doesn't have a label. But FWIW - I have an unused Lily White which looks pretty much identical. So I think very likely to be an old Washita.

Welcome! And do feel free to post pictures of your other stones and I or someone else should be able to help id-ing...


----------



## cotedupy

Skylar303 said:


> Hello, new to the forum, reading this thread I decided to register just so I could reply. I was looking into some stones trying to ID them and came across this thread and reading through besides the interesting stones, this caught my eye. And inspired me to pull out my box of some old oil stones... I haven't even used a lot of them... I tried lapping a nice 8x2x1 unknown ark, it was only dished 2mm so I figured I could just lap it flat... 3 hours later and an elbow replacement... Only made it about 1mm on the ends... (Pics 7, 8) The other side is lapped but has one corner chamfered which I didnt like...
> 
> Some I can decrease and use with water soluble glycerin/water mixture like on some CF's. Otherwise oils too much of a hassle for my uses. This thread is making me re-think some stone grades/types I have.
> 
> Maybe this is what you were referring to with the fastcut? (Pics 1-3) @cotedupy
> 
> I also have this unknown white stone that maybe a possible lily white? (Pics 4-6) I've been reading up about different arks/washitas but not 100% sure... The grey is from old swarf, otherwise porcelain white. I thought at one point it maybe ceramic but not with the weight it has, I don't think? One side near the end has slight peppering.
> 
> I also have a few more that need ID that I could post a few pics of. Or wait till I can properly SG test. I suppose I could get a rough estimate of the suspected lily white, only slightly off with the chip.
> 
> View attachment 162624
> View attachment 162625
> View attachment 162626
> View attachment 162627
> View attachment 162628
> View attachment 162631
> View attachment 162632
> View attachment 162633
> 
> 
> P.s. hope I posted correctly, I almost loaded 3 or 4 sets of the same photo the first time... And I hope it's not too long... Sorry for bad photos, just snowed and not sunny out.




For some reason your last three pics of the white stone didn't come up originally... yep it's 99% certain a Washita. Could be a No.1 or a LW, but either way a lovely stone in near-mint condition . And yeah, when they haven't been used ever - the surface of old Washitas has a very 'ceramic' feel to it.


----------



## Skylar303

Hey, thanks nice indeed but no collector's, maybe the fastcut cut I haven't used that one much. While trying it though it did feel very fine gritty like sandstone so most likely a type of hindu. Haven't cleaned it yet so hard to tell in the picture but in hand I can see horizontal lines typical of Hindustan. Although that's just from what I've read, never actually had a stone I've know for sure is one... 

The pictures 2-4 maybe one though, after lapping it looked very rough then after a run with a knife almost came to a mirror finish on the face. Very porous the water was soaking in parts before I got the picture off. And not very dense, wore away pretty quickly...

Next are a set of I think are 2 hard arks, either the company or someone made pretty identical boxes although the skinny stone is inset, larger glued, (ruined by me when needed re-glueing... Used gorilla glue and it foamed and pushed the stone offset...) the larger butterscotch one Dan's said maybe what they used to call rosey red trans. But now would be classified as hard or trans. 

Then what I thought was a washita, and a hard ark, but now bot so sure haha... I love the light stone and the previous owner did as well seeing as it was under 5mm thick when I got it in a unknown set, so I made simple a base. And a fine green stone that maybe a green thuri? Or one of those Chinese stones...


----------



## Skylar303

cotedupy said:


> For some reason your last three pics of the white stone didn't come up originally... yep it's 99% certain a Washita. Could be a No.1 or a LW, but either way a lovely stone in near-mint condition . And yeah, when they haven't been used ever - the surface of old Washitas has a very 'ceramic' feel to it.


So those are 2 different stones hah. I should of separated the pictures. The middle is a 6x2x1, (lily?) and the last 2 are an 8x2x1. (Lily/No.1?)


----------



## Skylar303

I'll break out the other ones later this week, maybe tomorrow. Then I have some that have definitely seen better days, others opinions would help decide what to do with them in terms of not worth saving, or cutting and refinishing.

Gonna finish practicing my honing. How I manage to shave without taking my face off is beyond me... And browse some other threads before going to bed. Thanks for the insights. 

A bit off topic but incase anyone was curious on what I'm honing. Trusty gold dollar working on a CF. After 5m with a moderately thick coticule slurry. Working the dilute progression.


----------



## cotedupy

Skylar303 said:


> So those are 2 different stones hah. I should of separated the pictures. The middle is a 6x2x1, (lily?) and the last 2 are an 8x2x1. (Lily/No.1?)



Ah gotcha! In which case - the last two pics of the 8x2 are pretty much undoubtedly a Washita. The previous three could be a Washita, but also looks like it could be a hard ark. Even if you've never used tried other versions you should be able to have a reasonable guess by how they feel to your fingernail.

The Fastcut is definitely a Hindostan from your next set of pics, which ties in with a description of it I found in an old Norton catalogue. Mostly they didn't mention what kind of stone it was, but I've seen one that calls it a type of high quality Hindo.

---

Other stones are cool too... if you showed me just that picture of the butterscotch one with the surface cracks - I'd have said it looked like a coticule. But it's a hard ark is it? Very nice!

The one in the next picture with the pretty patterns and stripes is a soft ark. And the stone below that could be a soft ark, but more likely - a washita - it looks really washita-like.

The green stone almost certainly isn't a Thuri, but looks very interesting nonetheless. Snap some more pics of it when you have a moment, and I might be able to help more.

---

_Lovely _stones you have there... congrats!


----------



## Skylar303

cotedupy said:


> Ah gotcha! In which case - the last two pics of the 8x2 are pretty much undoubtedly a Washita. The previous three could be a Washita, but also looks like it could be a hard ark. Even if you've never used tried other versions you should be able to have a reasonable guess by how they feel to your fingernail.
> 
> The Fastcut is definitely a Hindostan from your next set of pics, which ties in with a description of it I found in an old Norton catalogue. Mostly they didn't mention what kind of stone it was, but I've seen one that calls it a type of high quality Hindo.
> 
> ---
> 
> Other stones are cool too... if you showed me just that picture of the butterscotch one with the surface cracks - I'd have said it looked like a coticule. But it's a hard ark is it? Very nice!
> 
> The one in the next picture with the pretty patterns and stripes is a soft ark. And the stone below that could be a soft ark, but more likely - a washita - it looks really washita-like.
> 
> The green stone almost certainly isn't a Thuri, but looks very interesting nonetheless. Snap some more pics of it when you have a moment, and I might be able to help more.
> 
> ---
> 
> _Lovely _stones you have there... congrats!


I guess I should of specified more. I'll put labels on the pics to not get them confused. As the stones look similar. Just the 6x is snow white throughout, the 8x is white but slightly molted. The middle stone in the first post feels ceramic, almost glass like the one I thought maybe lily, the bottom a bit less catches the nail a tad, feels like 10k grit sandpaper. But also is used.

Only the first pic in the 2nd post is the fastcut. The other sides were so gunked you wouldn't be able to see any detail. The next set is a unknown stone I bought that I thought was a Hindustan, then kind of forgot about it..

Yeah I emailed Dan's and they said, by today's standards either hard ark or trans, based on SG... But I glued the dang thing back hah...

See now I thought the swirled one in the 3 stone pic was a washita... With the common misconception of coloring. And I thought the white one was just a hard ark as it feels very smooth. It's small enough I probably can water SG test it.

Not that I doubt you, but what makes you say the green isn't a thuri? I know nothing about them seeing as 1 would usually run about the same cost as all my stones combined unless you get lucky like the find for $50! Or a dirty one for cheap. Only read they can vary quite a bit in looks. I thought it might be a thuri based on color, it looks darker in the pic. It looks a little darker green than the big green thrui posted earlier in the thread.

I can most definitely do that! May have to wait till I can get some better lighting or better weather for natural shots.

Thanks


----------



## stringer

Amazing collection @Skylar303 . Thanks for joining our fun little novaculite thread!


----------



## Skylar303

stringer said:


> Amazing collection @Skylar303 . Thanks for joining our fun little novaculite thread!


Thanks for the welcome. And thanks, a lot I obviously don't know anything about... But that's why I'm here, to learn.  I probably have 4 or 5 more arks of sorts, not as nice. I'll post pics later, as mentioned wanting advice on if they're doorstops or worth cutting and saving.

Then there's other region stones... Idk what I was thinking... Maybe build a house eventually out of whetstones... Idk...

You got quite a few nice stones as well from just the ones I've seen in this thread! I thought I got over the itch to buy random unknown stones, but it may come back... For the area I'm in I'm surprised I don't find more stones in antique stores, etc. Or I just got other stone hounds around the area! 

I just picked up a few more coticules recently, been keen on those lately. Can't remember who found that 10x coti but that's a heck of a find! Especially that size!


----------



## Desert Rat

Skylar303 said:


> I guess I should of specified more. I'll put labels on the pics to not get them confused. As the stones look similar. Just the 6x is snow white throughout, the 8x is white but slightly molted. The middle stone in the first post feels ceramic, almost glass like the one I thought maybe lily, the bottom a bit less catches the nail a tad, feels like 10k grit sandpaper. But also is used.
> 
> Only the first pic in the 2nd post is the fastcut. The other sides were so gunked you wouldn't be able to see any detail. The next set is a unknown stone I bought that I thought was a Hindustan, then kind of forgot about it..
> 
> Yeah I emailed Dan's and they said, by today's standards either hard ark or trans, based on SG... But I glued the dang thing back hah...
> 
> See now I thought the swirled one in the 3 stone pic was a washita... With the common misconception of coloring. And I thought the white one was just a hard ark as it feels very smooth. It's small enough I probably can water SG test it.
> 
> Not that I doubt you, but what makes you say the green isn't a thuri? I know nothing about them seeing as 1 would usually run about the same cost as all my stones combined unless you get lucky like the find for $50! Or a dirty one for cheap. Only read they can vary quite a bit in looks. I thought it might be a thuri based on color, it looks darker in the pic. It looks a little darker green than the big green thrui posted earlier in the thread.
> 
> I can most definitely do that! May have to wait till I can get some better lighting or better weather for natural shots.
> 
> Thanks


The swirled one very well could be a Washita and I think it is. Arks also come in colors so it's a constant source of confusion. Dans whetsone classifying there soft arks as washitas based on specific gravity just adds to the confusion, but they are indeed two different stones.

Some of the hard arks (translucent) will pass light. So check them by putting a flashlight close to the edge of the stone. Many of the Washita's will also pass some light to varying degrees.


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> As much as I dislike the regrettable Mr. Zuckerberg and his 'Facebook', I do log on occasionally to have a look through its marketplace, which can turn up some gems.
> 
> Last year I nabbed a NOS 30s/40s Lily White, which is somewhere earlier in this thread, and then a couple of evenings ago this little bundle for $50 - Bengall Imperial and a 6x1.5 ish Escher, neither of which look to have been used much:
> 
> View attachment 162564


Everyone loves them bigger thuri's but them small razor hones have their advantages too, I really like honing on them myself.


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> The swirled one very well could be a Washita and I think it is. Arks also come in colors so it's a constant source of confusion. Dans whetsone classifying there soft arks as washitas based on specific gravity just adds to the confusion, but they are indeed two different stones.
> 
> Some of the hard arks (translucent) will pass light. So check them by putting a flashlight close to the edge of the stone. Many of the Washita's will also pass some light to varying degrees.


Hah! I know the plethora of information out there is almost more harm than good... I suppose I'll SG test it, it's a small pocket hone. I just can't do the bigger 6x's or 8x's, yet. 

This unknown brand, what I thought was a soft ark but who knows now ha... Similiar feel to the pocket hone on the nail, maybe slighty rougher. Unfortunately it's affixed to the base...




So there are hard arks that are translucent but because of the SG they are considered hard because of SG? Despite looking more towards the latter?

Both white stones pass light. The 6x, a bit more and was told by Dan's probably just a hard ark, but was told SG test. And the 8x a bit less light. And both boxed ones pass light but were told by Dan's they were different than I thought. From an email with them about the 2 similar box style stones, obtained from different sources.

"My cutting supervisor did review the second photo you sent – the smaller stone on the left appears to be a Translucent Arkansas stone – the larger stone on the right that you said slipped a little appears to possibly be a very Hard – Hard Arkansas stone. He thought that it kind of looked like possibly some of what we would call the Pink Hard Arkansas stone. It a very dense Hard Arkansas stone...." then followed up with hard to tell from pictures alone, hands on is best.

Does anyone know if that was a certain company's standard or just the style at the time?

It's all very confusing, info sometimes contradictory at times... Seems SG test or labels are only way to really get a sense besides experience hands on.

Stones from last night, plus 2 others that are damaged needing advice... Cleaned these a few years ago with simple green, but since then have leeched out more oil so I have them in a bath now. Then I'll take more pics of the green stone. Which I'm sure now isn't a thuri... It has slight molting and seems more porous than what I assume a thuri would be. But like you said Cote, interesting none the less. Hah with my luck it's just a slice of one of those huge cheap Chinese stones... In hand it looks green but looks grey to me in pictures...


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> Everyone loves them bigger thuri's but them small razor hones have their advantages too, I really like honing on them myself.


Hmm last I saw prices on those sized boxed with labels were way more than 50, but that was years ago... Hah if you find another let me know.  Did you get it locally? Those were fleabay prices I saw... Or if you ever part with it dibs first go haha! Sorry hope that isn't against policy about trading/buy/sell. (If it is I'll edit)

Edit: Just re-read your post and seems like both were fb market?

Unfortunately I don't fb... Way to intrusive... Idk if it got any better. But for a while there I was getting ads related to things in my texts, nothing through fb. So they obviously were reading texts... I may use it if I can find deals like that though haha!

I actually leaned more to razors than knives over the years. (Was thinking of becoming a chef, lol...) Then hobbies changed, got into restorations, and razors were one of the things.


----------



## cotedupy

Skylar303 said:


> Hmm last I saw prices on those sized boxed with labels were way more than 50, but that was years ago... Hah if you find another let me know.  Did you get it locally? Those were fleabay prices I saw... Or if you ever part with it dibs first go haha! Sorry hope that isn't against policy about trading/buy/sell. (If it is I'll edit)
> 
> Edit: Just re-read your post and seems like both were fb market?
> 
> Unfortunately I don't fb... Way to intrusive... Idk if it got any better. But for a while there I was getting ads related to things in my texts, nothing through fb. So they obviously were reading texts... I may use it if I can find deals like that though haha!
> 
> I actually leaned more to razors than knives over the years. (Was thinking of becoming a chef, lol...) Then hobbies changed, got into restorations, and razors were one of the things.



So yep - the reason I said I didn't think the green one looked like a Thuri was that it looked to have a few dots or speckles on it. Thuris can have slight surface patterns but they're largely very consistent, and it wouldn't really be dots like that.

The big 10" green one you might have seen of mine a few pages back is a good example of how uniform even the very large ones tend to be. Though this can make them annoyingly difficult to ID just from pictures, unless they have the 'typical Thuri saw marks'. They are though very easy to tell in person if you know how they feel, as they're incredibly distinctive to the touch and in use. The other reason I said I didn't think it was a Thuri was the size - they tended to get cut quite small, and pretty much never over 2" wide afaik, whereas your stone looks larger...? Having said all that I'm no particular expert on Thuris (or anything else for that matter), so don't take anything I say as gospel!

You're right that any size of labelled Escher&Co. Thuringian goes for silly money usually, and it's a bit difficult to find them on the cheap as people can just google the name on the label and see it's worth hundreds. Though you can sometimes get lucky with the type that I posted above because it only says 'E&Co.' in tiny letters inside the traditional cup logo, so sometimes people might miss that. I'll ping you a message as I do have a couple of Thuris, including a smaller 5x1 Escher, that I could let go if you want to try one. Maybe swap for something. If you're mostly honing razors then you definitely want to get your hands on a Thuri at some point - they're really, really good.

On the subject of not being an expert about anything... when I said the pretty patterned stone of yours was a soft ark - that was to say that it's not one of the old Pike-Norton Washitas, whereas a couple of your other stones almost certainly are. It could well be a Washita produced by another company. And as you've probably seen in this thread some people make a distinction. I've never tried any kind of soft ark, or one of these other Washitas, just the old P-N ones, so really can't say how they compare. And that's not out of any kind of predjudice btw, just a quirk of where I am; most of my old stones are from the UK which as a market massively took to the original kind of Washita and the name had a lot of cache, plus for most of the 20th century Pike-Norton had a subsidary company and production factory in the UK. Which basically means that old Washitas are incredibly common there and can be found for very little money, though you rarely see soft arks or stones from other companies. In fact when an old soft ark came up on ebay a few days ago for $40 I jumped on it, even though that's more than I've paid for most of the old Washitas I've found. As with anything - scarcity undoubtedly plays into the perceived desirability and price of stuff, so I'm loooking forward to seeing how it compares to my Washitas. And interested to hear if you think there's much of a noticeable difference...

---

SG is another quite big topic. In general though as I understand it - if you know that what you've got is a type of American novaculite, you should be able to then use it to make a distinction between Soft/Hard/Translucent&Black. As your SG goes up toward about 2.65 the stones get finer.

The old style of Washitas are a little more complicated because they can have quite a wide range of SGs - anything from about 2 to about 2.5 (my lightest is 2.08, and my heaviest 2.49 I think). Which means that you can't really use it to distinguish a Washita from an 'Arkansas' stone, as soft and hard arks run throughout this range. The most common Washita weights that I've come across, and would consider most typical are in the middle of that: 2.25 - 2.35. Again heavier stones will be finer and usually more translucent, though all will have some small translucency at the edge. Though it doesn't have so much of a bearing on the speed of the stone; you can get quite fine but very fast stones.

---

As you say - it's all very confusing! One thing you can be certain of though is that you've got a pretty sweet collection there .


----------



## Skylar303

cotedupy said:


> So yep - the reason I said I didn't think the green one looked like a Thuri was that it looked to have a few dots or speckles on it. Thuris can have slight surface patterns but they're largely very consistent, and it wouldn't really be dots like that.
> 
> The big 10" green one you might have seen of mine a few pages back is a good example of how uniform even the very large ones tend to be. Though this can make them annoyingly difficult to ID just from pictures, unless they have the 'typical Thuri saw marks'. They are though very easy to tell in person if you know how they feel, as they're incredibly distinctive to the touch and in use. The other reason I said I didn't think it was a Thuri was the size - they tended to get cut quite small, and pretty much never over 2" wide afaik, whereas your stone looks larger...? Having said all that I'm no particular expert on Thuris (or anything else for that matter), so don't take anything I say as gospel!
> 
> You're right that any size of labelled Escher&Co. Thuringian goes for silly money usually, and it's a bit difficult to find them on the cheap as people can just google the name on the label and see it's worth hundreds. Though you can sometimes get lucky with the type that I posted above because it only says 'E&Co.' in tiny letters inside the traditional cup logo, so sometimes people might miss that. I'll ping you a message as I do have a couple of Thuris, including a smaller 5x1 Escher, that I could let go if you want to try one. Maybe swap for something. If you're mostly honing razors then you definitely want to get your hands on a Thuri at some point - they're really, really good.
> 
> On the subject of not being an expert about anything... when I said the pretty patterned stone of yours was a soft ark - that was to say that it's not one of the old Pike-Norton Washitas, whereas a couple of your other stones almost certainly are. It could well be a Washita produced by another company. And as you've probably seen in this thread some people make a distinction. I've never tried any kind of soft ark, or one of these other Washitas, just the old P-N ones, so really can't say how they compare. And that's not out of any kind of predjudice btw, just a quirk of where I am; most of my old stones are from the UK which as a market massively took to the original kind of Washita and the name had a lot of cache, plus for most of the 20th century Pike-Norton had a subsidary company and production factory in the UK. Which basically means that old Washitas are incredibly common there and can be found for very little money, though you rarely see soft arks or stones from other companies. In fact when an old soft ark came up on ebay a few days ago for $40 I jumped on it, even though that's more than I've paid for most of the old Washitas I've found. As with anything - scarcity undoubtedly plays into the perceived desirability and price of stuff, so I'm loooking forward to seeing how it compares to my Washitas. And interested to hear if you think there's much of a noticeable difference...
> 
> ---
> 
> SG is another quite big topic. In general though as I understand it - if you know that what you've got is a type of American novaculite, you should be able to then use it to make a distinction between Soft/Hard/Translucent&Black. As your SG goes up toward about 2.65 the stones get finer.
> 
> The old style of Washitas are a little more complicated because they can have quite a wide range of SGs - anything from about 2 to about 2.5 (my lightest is 2.08, and my heaviest 2.49 I think). Which means that you can't really use it to distinguish a Washita from an 'Arkansas' stone, as soft and hard arks run throughout this range. The most common Washita weights that I've come across, and would consider most typical are in the middle of that: 2.25 - 2.35. Again heavier stones will be finer and usually more translucent, though all will have some small translucency at the edge. Though it doesn't have so much of a bearing on the speed of the stone; you can get quite fine but very fast stones.
> 
> ---
> 
> As you say - it's all very confusing! One thing you can be certain of though is that you've got a pretty sweet collection there .


Hah yeah after you mentioned it I looked into it and size of the green stone was definitely a factor like you said tended to be skinny or a uniform cut of I think 5 or 6x3x1? 





Slurry from lapping and dry pic of the green-ish stone. The slurry was like grey/light brown... Very hard stone... I started to use a worn diamond and it killed the rest of it pretty quickly. Then took it to some W/D sandpaper for a while and got tired...

Oh haha thay big Ole green one was your haha.... Yeah those boxed Eschers... I could tell at a glance what it was, seeing so many but more than I want to pay hah... Yeah definitely most interested! Been looking for a decent priced one on and off for quite a while hah...

Ah yeah very interesting, yeah I obviously was completely lost after reading various source information and some clashed with each other... The small pocket and the affixed one have a similar feel, pretty gritty, the latter being more so. Both definitely more than the white 8x from the otherday. But then I also have a known soft ark from woodcraft that ATM feels very similar to the white 8x... It's cleaned and lapped but to me doesn't act like I'd expect a soft ark to act, maybe I killed the surface with the diamond plate. Dan's said that could happen then I asked about how to refresh the surface as they put it, but never heard back ha...

Yeah, I read those article links earlier in the thread about the history. Amazing how certain stones influenced a whole region, kicking home stones aside, really tells ya something about at least the old Nova's. I actually have bought quite a few stones from the UK, because overall with shipping they were cheaper than ones in the US... 

SG, Ah maybe that's where I got lost in translation... Wasn't aware the old Washita ranged so much! 

Unless I misunderstood, I thought Washita was a grade of Nova? Or was it a slightly different stone all together? Hence the ranges in SG. And I thought all Washita's came from the US? Or a good % of them. Which is pretty narrow minded to think no other region has novaculite... But I got so lost I sort of gave up and just went on if I liked the stone or not.


----------



## cotedupy

Skylar303 said:


> Hah yeah after you mentioned it I looked into it and size of the green stone was definitely a factor like you said tended to be skinny or a uniform cut of I think 5 or 6x3x1?
> 
> View attachment 162806
> View attachment 162807
> 
> 
> Slurry from lapping and dry pic of the green-ish stone. The slurry was like grey/light brown... Very hard stone... I started to use a worn diamond and it killed the rest of it pretty quickly. Then took it to some W/D sandpaper for a while and got tired...
> 
> Oh haha thay big Ole green one was your haha.... Yeah those boxed Eschers... I could tell at a glance what it was, seeing so many but more than I want to pay hah... Yeah definitely most interested! Been looking for a decent priced one on and off for quite a while hah...
> 
> Ah yeah very interesting, yeah I obviously was completely lost after reading various source information and some clashed with each other... The small pocket and the affixed one have a similar feel, pretty gritty, the latter being more so. Both definitely more than the white 8x from the otherday. But then I also have a known soft ark from woodcraft that ATM feels very similar to the white 8x... It's cleaned and lapped but to me doesn't act like I'd expect a soft ark to act, maybe I killed the surface with the diamond plate. Dan's said that could happen then I asked about how to refresh the surface as they put it, but never heard back ha...
> 
> Yeah, I read those article links earlier in the thread about the history. Amazing how certain stones influenced a whole region, kicking home stones aside, really tells ya something about at least the old Nova's. I actually have bought quite a few stones from the UK, because overall with shipping they were cheaper than ones in the US...
> 
> SG, Ah maybe that's where I got lost in translation... Wasn't aware the old Washita ranged so much!
> 
> Unless I misunderstood, I thought Washita was a grade of Nova? Or was it a slightly different stone all together? Hence the ranges in SG. And I thought all Washita's came from the US? Or a good % of them. Which is pretty narrow minded to think no other region has novaculite... But I got so lost I sort of gave up and just went on if I liked the stone or not.




Well it's certainly an interesting looking stone your grey-green one. And not something I've ever come across I don't think. If you got in the states then I'd guess maybe some kind of American slate or shale (Vermont?), but really no idea. And if that's one of the things you bought from the UK then there are a load more potential options too.

I've got a number of mystery stones, some of which are excellent, though there's probably not going to be any way of 100% id-ing them. And it gets particularly difficult with slates, as there were a lot produced from all over the world, and often look very similar to each other.

You're right that Washitas are a type of novaculite, so certainly similar to soft arks whatever way you spin it. And also that they're only from Arkansas, from the same area near Hot Springs as soft and hard arks. There were a number of quarries that produced them initially, and Pike bought at least some of them in the 1890s, though I don't think anyone knows if they bought all of them. The Pike-Norton quarries are no longer active, but it's perfectly possible that some of the new Washitas from other companies are from some of the other old Washita quarries.

So yes - all the Washitas I've found would have been imported from the US back in the day. It's just that the Brits _really _liked them as many UK stones are finer and slower so less good for knives and tools. The only other thing that really competed was the Turkish Oilstone, which is also novaculite and equally excellent. Though Washitas were probably both cheaper and less variable / more consistent, so they basically replaced those too.

As you say - really it's just a matter of whether you like something or not, rather than worrying about whether something's one thing or the other!

---

I'm sure you will have seen already, but it's always worth linking again to the excellent studies by Henk Bos: https://bosq.home.xs4all.nl


----------



## Skylar303

Yeah bought in the states, thought I bought it with the pocket ark but didn't according to my log. It doesn't feel like any slate I've sharpened on, and almost porous but not... And the molting dots is another unique feature, as well as the hardness, much harder than any slate I've touched. It quickly ate through the 400 W/D peices. Intriguing none the less. Hah, it's probably one of those large cheap Chinese hones that someone cut down and marked up.  Although the only real slate I have is some purple UK, and I think ILRs are slate as well. Actually to contradict myself, it maybe a type of slate it is similar to the ILR. Infos coming back to me as I write... Just trying to think back on when having to lap stones and comparing.

I'll see of I checked out that article yet. Thanks for the insight and info links. 

Edit: Have not seen this page before, but oddly enough while searching coticules I did read the part 4 from a different source. Or they used the same picture of the rough coticule as the other website that owns that stone hah.


----------



## stringer

Couple new ones. They definitely aren't novaculite maybe I should start a new thread for mystery stones. But it's too late now. Maybe later.

Very dense, fine, soft grey-blue slate of some sort. I got two pieces. I sharpened my HSC with it. The edge is sick. Feels like the fineness of a shapton pro 12k. A little too ghosty through food for me for most of the time. But awful fun type of edge. And doesn't stick in the board like an equivalent synthetic edge. And super soft and creamy. Polished the wrought iron to a high shine. I've got a little more cleaning up to do on it but this is going to be a sick razor stone. Specific gravity at about 2.75 which is up near the range of Thuringian.













Here's the other one. Haven't cleaned it up or played with it yet.







And then there's this monster. I'm willing to bet it is some kind of UK stone, bit I have no idea. It's still got a fair bit of oil in it I think.


----------



## Skylar303

stringer said:


> Couple new ones. They definitely aren't novaculite maybe I should start a new thread for mystery stones. But it's too late now. Maybe later.
> 
> Very dense, fine, soft grey-blue slate of some sort. I got two pieces. I sharpened my HSC with it. The edge is sick. Feels like the fineness of a shapton pro 12k. A little too ghosty through food for me for most of the time. But awful fun type of edge. And doesn't stick in the board like an equivalent synthetic edge. And super soft and creamy. Polished the wrought iron to a high shine. I've got a little more cleaning up to do on it but this is going to be a sick razor stone. Specific gravity at about 2.75 which is up near the range of Thuringian.
> View attachment 163196
> View attachment 163197
> 
> 
> View attachment 163198
> 
> 
> Here's the other one. Haven't cleaned it up or played with it yet.
> 
> View attachment 163199
> 
> 
> 
> And then there's this monster. I'm willing to bet it is some kind of UK stone, bit I have no idea. It's still got a fair bit of oil in it I think.



The 1st looks thuri, dimensions. Someone that actually has one can let you know better. Is it in the realm of 5 or 6x2.5?


----------



## KingShapton

stringer said:


> And then there's this monster. I'm willing to bet it is some kind of UK stone, bit I have no idea. It's still got a fair bit of oil in it I think.


The monster looks crazy!

On the video, if I go by the colors, it almost looks like two similar stones were glued to each other. One lighter, the other darker.

But you assume that there is still some oil in the stone, that could also explain the difference.

In any case, I have never seen such a kind of stone.


----------



## Skylar303

Ah I missed the video, wow that is a big Ole hunk! Well from the ting it's a dense stone.  I couldn't tell from the video what the inside looks at the white part when you bring it closer for a second. It looked like an ark, but that was from a glance.


----------



## stringer

Skylar303 said:


> The 1st looks thuri, dimensions. Someone that actually has one can let you know better. Is it in the realm of 5 or 6x2.5?




Oddball stones in the great scheme of things. Kind of the ridiculous opposite ends of the spectrum. Extremely dense but very very soft slate and a fairly light but extremely hard chunk of something.

The dimensions of the wider slate is 5" X 2 7/8".

The smaller one is 5 1/4" X 1 5/8".

The monster stone is 7 7/8" X 1 3/4" and it is 1 1/4" thick.

With a specific density of 2.13 which is pretty middling. But feels very very hard and glassy to the fingernail.

The conchoidal fracture pattern on the chip in the corner definitely looks Ark. Which means that if it is Arkansas it would have to be Washita. That's what I'm leaning toward right now. There is still a ton of oil in it. So it might get more white as it sits which would also point toward Washita. I'm going to let it soak several more hours and then I'll do some more examination of it tonight or tomorrow. Where it looks like it is two different stones I think is just where the oil has impregnated it different. It came in a wood box that had shrunk over the years and was cracked in several places. So I liberated it. The line through the middle is right where the stone stuck out of the box. I believe it's still got a lot of oil swarf and dirt.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> Oddball stones in the great scheme of things. Kind of the ridiculous opposite ends of the spectrum. Extremely dense but very very soft slate and a fairly light but extremely hard chunk of something.
> 
> The dimensions of the wider slate is 5" X 2 7/8".
> 
> The smaller one is 5 1/4" X 1 5/8".
> 
> The monster stone is 7 7/8" X 1 3/4" and it is 1 1/4" thick.
> 
> With a specific density of 2.13 which is pretty middling. But feels very very hard and glassy to the fingernail.
> 
> The conchoidal fracture pattern on the chip in the corner definitely looks Ark. Which means that if it is Arkansas it would have to be Washita. That's what I'm leaning toward right now. There is still a ton of oil in it. So it might get more white as it sits which would also point toward Washita. I'm going to let it soak several more hours and then I'll do some more examination of it tonight or tomorrow. Where it looks like it is two different stones I think is just where the oil has impregnated it different. It came in a wood box that had shrunk over the years and was cracked in several places. So I liberated it. The line through the middle is right where the stone stuck out of the box. I believe it's still got a lot of oil swarf and dirt.
> 
> 
> View attachment 163240
> 
> View attachment 163241
> 
> View attachment 163242
> 
> View attachment 163243
> 
> View attachment 163244



Yep - it's a Washita - 110% . And I'd guess quite an old one (like 100 years+)

Did it come from a UK seller?


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> Yep - it's a Washita - 110% . And I'd guess quite an old one (like 100 years+)
> 
> Did it come from a UK seller?


Nope. Alabama.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> Nope. Alabama.



Ah! Just thought it might have because you said you thought it might be a UK stone, and I've found a few very similar looking old ones there.

This was in the UK:






And actually coincidentally I found a really nice, thick 8x2 here in Aus yesterday, which I was about to post pictures of:






It will take a _loooooong _time to degrease if you want it going back to white!


----------



## captaincaed

Talk to your kids about not gluing stones boxes. Before it’s too late.


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> Talk to your kids about not gluing stones boxes. Before it’s too late.
> View attachment 163304



Oh dear! If it's any consolation - that kind of thing happens quite a lot, particularly it seems with hard / translucent arks. Presumably something to do with with how they fracture or break.

It's called an 'oyster'.


----------



## cotedupy

[Warning that this will probably end up being quite a long post and quite heavy on technical stuff. But I'll try to throw a few pictures in, and it will be fun anyway, because (inspired by @stringer 's stone above) we're going to have a deep dive into why Washitas look and work the way they do. As ever I'm more than happy to be corrected on any elements of chemistry, geology or anything else, by those that know better. i.e. anyone.]

I had a handful of interesting things come up yesterday, here are a couple that might be most relevant to this thread. Found in a fairly amazing old salvage warehouse that I could've spent days in:






TBH I might have swerved the broken one, as it's a pretty gnarly break, but your man gave it to me for free when I bought the other and the razor. I'll probably make it into a couple of travel or in-hand stones, as I should get a 4x2 and a 3.5x2 out of it.

I could tell both of them were old Washitas, as there's a fairly distinctive feel and look once you've got your eye in. I can't tell other old dirty stones until I've cleaned them up, but Washitas I usually can.

Here's what they look like after a day or so soaking:






_Why do they look so different?_

I'm glad you asked...

A novaculite is made from tiny bits of silica fused together at a very, very small (micro/crypto crystalline) level. Chemically it's the same thing as a sandstone - both are effectively 100% silica. But a sandstone is large bits of silica (sand), compacted together by lithification, which is what causes the formation of sedimentary rocks. It's quite a strong compaction, but it's nothing like as strong as the more fundamental fusing of much smaller particles, that causes the formation of novaculite.

But novaculite isn't quite just one big bit of silica, because if it was it'd be a quartz crystal. In fact a novaculite is more similar to a piece of flint than it is to a piece of quartz, even though all are effectively 100% silica. Looking at the break in @captaincaed 's Translucent Arkansas above you can see how it fractures in ‘flinty’ way, and you can you understand why it has been used by people for a long time to make arrowheads &c.

Novaculites are hard, but they're also porous - this quite important in understanding how and why they work as whetstones. These characteristics vary between different types, _and they do not necessarily correlate inversely._

A Translucent Arkansas is both very hard and has quite low porosity. The way that the silica has been fused together is both strong - making it hard, and compact - making it less porous. These are the reasons that a Translucent Ark is slow and fine, and also why it will burnish - because it's non-friable, and why it won't clog - because it has very low porosity. A Soft Arkansas is the other way round, by comaprison it is softer with higher porosity, which makes it coarser and faster, and means it will burnish less quickly because it can shed some particles, though is more likely to clog. The effective 'grit' levels of the two is based far more on the way the structure of the stone is, than on the size of the initial particles, which might be quite similar. It's why people grade Arkansas stones by Specific Gravity, because the porosity and density of the stone has a very large impact on its performance.

A Washita is a bit different because it's both quite hard and quite porous, which allows them to work at a variety of different grit levels. If you work a Washita with pressure you can take advantage of it's porosity and it will work coarsely, but if you use less pressure the fact that it is hard will make it quite fine. The downside here being that Washitas are more susceptible to both clogging and burnishing, it's why dirty old Washitas can feel as smooth as glass. In practice though this may not be so apparent - they're never as hard as hard arks, so if you work them with heavy pressure then new material can be exposed and they won't burnish so quickly.

[The two paragraphs above are, by their nature, generalisations. Any piece of stone is going to be different from any other and all exist on a spectrum. I'm also straying slightly into stuff I don't know about because I've never used a Soft Arkansas, I'm summarizing from what I've read.]

So with the above in mind... why do the two Washitas look so different? Well the blindingly obvious answer, which I realise begs the question*, is because Washitas _do _vary quite a lot. The SG of an old Norton Hard Arkansas might be in the range of about 2.60 to 2.65, whereas an old Norton Washita could be anything from 2.0 to 2.5, depending largely on it's porosity. Porosity is what makes Washitas cut fast, examples with very high Specific Gravities will be generally be slower cutting and finer than those with low ones.

Although it seems counterintuitive, in the picture above we might assume that the darker stone with more oil in it is actually _less_ porous. Here are two other Washitas which I've soaked extensively for many days:






One of them is a known and labelled Lily White, but it isn't the one you might expect:






This is because they've been soaking in heavy duty degreaser, and oil will come out of a more porous stone more quickly. In the second example the Lily White is one of the highest SG Washitas I have, at 2.45, and the other is the lowest at 2.08. Here's a neat example of a stone that has in areas that are harder and less porous - the dark section in the middle where the oil still is, as well as softer and more porous at the ends:






As you might expect the harder sections are also more translucent:




But I've now used both of the initial stones, and they're actually not particularly different. The lighter coloured one is slightly faster and coarser, but they actually both sit around the middle ground for Washitas. So there's something else at play... the age of the stone comes into it too. When I say that Washitas are porous, that's very much a relative thing - they’re not porous in the way a soaking synthetic stone is porous. It still takes many, many years for oil to penetrate down into the stone. If you have a washita with a fresh break or crack in it you'll see the the oil and swarf discolouration only goes a few mms into the stone, the middle is still pure white. I did have a better image of this but I can't find it. Though you can see what I mean here on the chips and breaks:






Older stones then will have deeper oil penetration, which will take longer to come out. So of the initial two stones the darker one could be older, or less porous, or both.

And of course there's one last thing that comes into the appearance of Washitas, which can sometimes make them quite difficult to ID even for people who know the stones. You can see it in Stringer's example above, as well as in my 'two-tone' example, and that's the possibility of stones that are heterogenous, or have variability _within the same stone_.

This is the basis of the Pike-Norton grading system; Lily White Washitas were not finer or coarser, they were the most homogenous. Look at the old grey-green Pike LW in my pike above and notice how consistent the surface is. Now here's a No.1 Washita, the grade below Lily White, looking kinda speckly:






What's interesting here is that these inconsistencies in the stone are not really noticeable initially, when I first degreased that stone it went a very bright, pure white. It is only now after using again with oil that we can see that the stone is not entirely consistent in the way that it absorbs it. Which means that very old stones with lots of oil left in them can appear to be more highly patterned than they would have looked when new. Here's a closeup picture of the darker stone in the initial pictures, after another 12 hours in the degreaser, it's looking, frankly, pretty similar to Stringer's.






These aspects of how the composition of old Washitas play into both their usage, and their looks, means that with a bit of experience you can actually ID old Washitas relatively easily, because they're fairly singular stones, even when they look atypical.

---

I hope anyone who's struggled through all of that might have cause to find in useful in the future; when they come across a nice old Washita, can recognise it for what it is, and snag a bargain on one of the best whetstones ever quarried anywhere.

I've moved a few of mine on in the last few months, but I'll leave you with a family pic of all the ones I have atm, which shows a lot of completely white and featureless stones, in all their glorious diversity...






---


* I am using this phrase is the original sense - as a type of rhetorical fallacy where the premise of an argument assumes the initial proposition: Begging the question - Wikipedia . Who knew this was going to be philosophy lesson too eh!


----------



## KingShapton

cotedupy said:


> Warning that this will probably end up being quite a long post and quite heavy on technical


But this post is damn informative and very, very well written! Great read for me. Thank you.


----------



## rocketman

I was in dental school 64-68, US Army 68-70, and in both spots I sharpened instruments..
Looking through my old stuff, I found these three stones, and some accompanying paper.
Black hard Arkansas, army issue.
White hard Arkansas on the edge says "Arkansas oil stone co. Hot Springs, Arkansas
I think Washita, from Smith's in Hot Springs, and although can't see in the picture,






a triangle shape slip..I think I bought this around 67 when I was in Hot Springs to 
visit the mines...


----------



## captaincaed

Those are some very cool pieces of history. You wonder about the tooling to get those grooves just perfect in that hard stone.


----------



## Skylar303

captaincaed said:


> Those are some very cool pieces of history. You wonder about the tooling to get those grooves just perfect in that hard stone.


Wow very cool specialized peices. Geeze right? And without breaking the whole peice! Get to the final groove and snap it... Impressive. I wonder if it was sawn or slowly, slowly grinded down.


----------



## bsfsu

I've found this one but I'd like to know more about it. I think it's a Thuringian but is it a natural or a synthetic? Does anyone know about the Celebrate brand?


----------



## bsfsu

bsfsu said:


> View attachment 163410
> 
> 
> I've found this one but I'd like to know more about it. I think it's a Thuringian but is it a natural or a synthetic? Does anyone know about the Celebrate brand?


The back.

I'll add a few more pics when it turns up. I have a couple of other stones coming that are a mystery to me


----------



## Skylar303

bsfsu said:


> View attachment 163410
> 
> 
> I've found this one but I'd like to know more about it. I think it's a Thuringian but is it a natural or a synthetic? Does anyone know about the Celebrate brand?


Interesting stone, I personally haven't heard of "Celebrate" but I've heard of "Celebrated" brand thuringian. But those didn't come with that brand mark. I don't know any thuringian company that did a engraved logo like that.


All thuringian should be a natural stone. I don't believe they made a synthetic thuringian. Interested in what other people think, that have thuri's.


----------



## Desert Rat

rocketman said:


> I was in dental school 64-68, US Army 68-70, and in both spots I sharpened instruments..
> Looking through my old stuff, I found these three stones, and some accompanying paper.
> Black hard Arkansas, army issue.
> White hard Arkansas on the edge says "Arkansas oil stone co. Hot Springs, Arkansas
> I think Washita, from Smith's in Hot Springs, and although can't see in the picture,View attachment 163352
> View attachment 163352
> 
> a triangle shape slip..I think I bought this around 67 when I was in Hot Springs to
> visit the mines...


Nice stones. First time I have seen Norton literature that recommended water. 
Looks like the black one might be a translucent?


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> [Warning that this will probably end up being quite a long post and quite heavy on technical stuff. But I'll try to throw a few pictures in, and it will be fun anyway, because (inspired by @stringer 's stone above) we're going to have a deep dive into why Washitas look and work the way they do. As ever I'm more than happy to be corrected on any elements of chemistry, geology or anything else, by those that know better. i.e. anyone.]
> 
> I had a handful of interesting things come up yesterday, here are a couple that might be most relevant to this thread. Found in a fairly amazing old salvage warehouse that I could've spent days in:
> 
> View attachment 163308
> 
> 
> TBH I might have swerved the broken one, as it's a pretty gnarly break, but your man gave it to me for free when I bought the other and the razor. I'll probably make it into a couple of travel or in-hand stones, as I should get a 4x2 and a 3.5x2 out of it.
> 
> I could tell both of them were old Washitas, as there's a fairly distinctive feel and look once you've got your eye in. I can't tell other old dirty stones until I've cleaned them up, but Washitas I usually can.
> 
> Here's what they look like after a day or so soaking:
> 
> View attachment 163307
> 
> 
> _Why do they look so different?_
> 
> I'm glad you asked...
> 
> A novaculite is made from tiny bits of silica fused together at a very, very small (micro/crypto crystalline) level. Chemically it's the same thing as a sandstone - both are effectively 100% silica. But a sandstone is large bits of silica (sand), compacted together by lithification, which is what causes the formation of sedimentary rocks. It's quite a strong compaction, but it's nothing like as strong as the more fundamental fusing of much smaller particles, that causes the formation of novaculite.
> 
> But novaculite isn't quite just one big bit of silica, because if it was it'd be a quartz crystal. In fact a novaculite is more similar to a piece of flint than it is to a piece of quartz, even though all are effectively 100% silica. Looking at the break in @captaincaed 's Translucent Arkansas above you can see how it fractures in ‘flinty’ way, and you can you understand why it has been used by people for a long time to make arrowheads &c.
> 
> Novaculites are hard, but they're also porous - this quite important in understanding how and why they work as whetstones. These characteristics vary between different types, _and they do not necessarily correlate inversely._
> 
> A Translucent Arkansas is both very hard and has quite low porosity. The way that the silica has been fused together is both strong - making it hard, and compact - making it less porous. These are the reasons that a Translucent Ark is slow and fine, and also why it will burnish - because it's non-friable, and why it won't clog - because it has very low porosity. A Soft Arkansas is the other way round, by comaprison it is softer with higher porosity, which makes it coarser and faster, and means it will burnish less quickly because it can shed some particles, though is more likely to clog. The effective 'grit' levels of the two is based far more on the way the structure of the stone is, than on the size of the initial particles, which might be quite similar. It's why people grade Arkansas stones by Specific Gravity, because the porosity and density of the stone has a very large impact on its performance.
> 
> A Washita is a bit different because it's both quite hard and quite porous, which allows them to work at a variety of different grit levels. If you work a Washita with pressure you can take advantage of it's porosity and it will work coarsely, but if you use less pressure the fact that it is hard will make it quite fine. The downside here being that Washitas are more susceptible to both clogging and burnishing, it's why dirty old Washitas can feel as smooth as glass. In practice though this may not be so apparent - they're never as hard as hard arks, so if you work them with heavy pressure then new material can be exposed and they won't burnish so quickly.
> 
> [The two paragraphs above are, by their nature, generalisations. Any piece of stone is going to be different from any other and all exist on a spectrum. I'm also straying slightly into stuff I don't know about because I've never used a Soft Arkansas, I'm summarizing from what I've read.]
> 
> So with the above in mind... why do the two Washitas look so different? Well the blindingly obvious answer, which I realise begs the question*, is because Washitas _do _vary quite a lot. The SG of an old Norton Hard Arkansas might be in the range of about 2.60 to 2.65, whereas an old Norton Washita could be anything from 2.0 to 2.5, depending largely on it's porosity. Porosity is what makes Washitas cut fast, examples with very high Specific Gravities will be generally be slower cutting and finer than those with low ones.
> 
> Although it seems counterintuitive, in the picture above we might assume that the darker stone with more oil in it is actually _less_ porous. Here are two other Washitas which I've soaked extensively for many days:
> 
> View attachment 163310
> 
> 
> One of them is a known and labelled Lily White, but it isn't the one you might expect:
> 
> View attachment 163309
> 
> 
> This is because they've been soaking in heavy duty degreaser, and oil will come out of a more porous stone more quickly. In the second example the Lily White is one of the highest SG Washitas I have, at 2.45, and the other is the lowest at 2.08. Here's a neat example of a stone that has in areas that are harder and less porous - the dark section in the middle where the oil still is, as well as softer and more porous at the ends:
> 
> View attachment 163314
> 
> 
> As you might expect the harder sections are also more translucent:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I've now used both of the initial stones, and they're actually not particularly different. The lighter coloured one is slightly faster and coarser, but they actually both sit around the middle ground for Washitas. So there's something else at play... the age of the stone comes into it too. When I say that Washitas are porous, that's very much a relative thing - they’re not porous in the way a soaking synthetic stone is porous. It still takes many, many years for oil to penetrate down into the stone. If you have a washita with a fresh break or crack in it you'll see the the oil and swarf discolouration only goes a few mms into the stone, the middle is still pure white. I did have a better image of this but I can't find it. Though you can see what I mean here on the chips and breaks:
> 
> View attachment 163311
> 
> 
> Older stones then will have deeper oil penetration, which will take longer to come out. So of the initial two stones the darker one could be older, or less porous, or both.
> 
> And of course there's one last thing that comes into the appearance of Washitas, which can sometimes make them quite difficult to ID even for people who know the stones. You can see it in Stringer's example above, as well as in my 'two-tone' example, and that's the possibility of stones that are heterogenous, or have variability _within the same stone_.
> 
> This is the basis of the Pike-Norton grading system; Lily White Washitas were not finer or coarser, they were the most homogenous. Look at the old grey-green Pike LW in my pike above and notice how consistent the surface is. Now here's a No.1 Washita, the grade below Lily White, looking kinda speckly:
> 
> View attachment 163316
> 
> 
> What's interesting here is that these inconsistencies in the stone are not really noticeable initially, when I first degreased that stone it went a very bright, pure white. It is only now after using again with oil that we can see that the stone is not entirely consistent in the way that it absorbs it. Which means that very old stones with lots of oil left in them can appear to be more highly patterned than they would have looked when new. Here's a closeup picture of the darker stone in the initial pictures, after another 12 hours in the degreaser, it's looking, frankly, pretty similar to Stringer's.
> 
> View attachment 163324
> 
> 
> These aspects of how the composition of old Washitas play into both their usage, and their looks, means that with a bit of experience you can actually ID old Washitas relatively easily, because they're fairly singular stones, even when they look atypical.
> 
> ---
> 
> I hope anyone who's struggled through all of that might have cause to find in useful in the future; when they come across a nice old Washita, can recognise it for what it is, and snag a bargain on one of the best whetstones ever quarried anywhere.
> 
> I've moved a few of mine on in the last few months, but I'll leave you with a family pic of all the ones I have atm, which shows a lot of completely white and featureless stones, in all their glorious diversity...
> 
> View attachment 163329
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> * I am using this phrase is the original sense - as a type of rhetorical fallacy where the premise of an argument assumes the initial proposition: Begging the question - Wikipedia . Who knew this was going to be philosophy lesson too eh!



Nice write up.

Do you ever tap them? I think the notes fall right in line with the density (SPG).


----------



## Desert Rat

Since novaculite and tools were brought up I will share this link.








Arkansas Novaculite: A Virtual Comparative Collection


Content: Arkansas Archeology, Author: Mary Beth Trubitt, Developer: John R. Samuelsen, Funding: National Endowment for the Humanities and the Arkansas Humanities Council, Organization: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Associations: University of Arkansas and Henderson State University




archeology.uark.edu





I kind of suspect that the first nations heat treated it but I don't know for sure. Dan might know though, I think they have done some heat treating, maybe in conjunction with the archeological community?


----------



## Desert Rat

Skylar303 said:


> Interesting stone, I personally haven't heard of "Celebrate" but I've heard of "Celebrated" brand thuringian. But those didn't come with that brand mark. I don't know any thuringian company that did a engraved logo like that.
> View attachment 163434
> 
> All thuringian should be a natural stone. I don't believe they made a synthetic thuringian. Interested in what other people think, that have thuri's.


A thuringian just not an Escher brand.


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> Nice write up.
> 
> Do you ever tap them? I think the notes fall right in line with the density (SPG).



Ta . Do feel free to correct any of it that might be inaccurate / too much of an assumption or generalization. You know far more about these things than I do!

I do tap things occasionally, though probably haven't 'got my ear in' well enough yet to discern things particularly accurately.

I have read somewhere that yes - First Nation Americans did HT novaculite. I'll try to dig it out, but probably some old paper from when I was reading a lot about the history of novaculite use when researching Turkish Oilstones. Pieces and shards of novaculite have been found in the remains of fires with arrowheads and stuff found nearby.

[EDIT - The intro to this paper mentions it for instance: Thermally Altered Novaculite and Stone Tool Manufacturing Techniques on JSTOR ]


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> A thuringian just not an Escher brand.



Aye.

Though just to avoid confusion... @bsfsu - your stone above is synthetic, rather than being a Thuringian I'm afraid. It looks like a relatively coarse SiC stone, probably for sharpening tools or axes.

For which that kind of thing is very good btw (or for repair work on knives). Not much comes close to coarse SiC for quick, heavy duty work.


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> A thuringian just not an Escher brand.


Yes the one I attached is. Also, "Celebrated" not "Celebrate" which the OP asked about. I meant it as I don't know any companies that sold thuringians that were ever engraved.


----------



## cotedupy

rocketman said:


> I was in dental school 64-68, US Army 68-70, and in both spots I sharpened instruments..
> Looking through my old stuff, I found these three stones, and some accompanying paper.
> Black hard Arkansas, army issue.
> White hard Arkansas on the edge says "Arkansas oil stone co. Hot Springs, Arkansas
> I think Washita, from Smith's in Hot Springs, and although can't see in the picture,View attachment 163352
> View attachment 163352
> 
> a triangle shape slip..I think I bought this around 67 when I was in Hot Springs to
> visit the mines...



These are very cool... I remember seeing one the same / similar on ebay a while back and wondering whatever kind of instrument is that for!


----------



## rocketman

My brother is a flint napper, and one of the techniques they recommend to get recalcitrant flint to perform 
better when knapping is to heat treat... Normally they would bury under about an inch of dirt, and then build 
a camp fire on top, keep the fire going for several hours, and just let cool to room temperature. Ok maybe
not room temperature unless you are used to camp fires inside. In any events , many kinds of flint and chert
are physically modified by this process, and supposedly, who knows the ancient mind, this was a technique
used by the ancients to help the knapping. My brother and I have tried this at his ranch, and it does make 
the flaking more predictable.


----------



## Skylar303

rocketman said:


> My brother is a flint napper, and one of the techniques they recommend to get recalcitrant flint to perform
> better when knapping is to heat treat... Normally they would bury under about an inch of dirt, and then build
> a camp fire on top, keep the fire going for several hours, and just let cool to room temperature. Ok maybe
> not room temperature unless you are used to camp fires inside. In any events , many kinds of flint and chert
> are physically modified by this process, and supposedly, who knows the ancient mind, this was a technique
> used by the ancients to help the knapping. My brother and I have tried this at his ranch, and it does make
> the flaking more predictable.


Very cool, I was gonna try flint knapping. I had an arrangement to swap some Georgetown flint for some Quartz chunks but the lady backed out. And then I had a guy willing to ship me some rootbeer flint, he said he shipped but i never got the package... So haven't gotten around to it yet. I did read up on it though, I read stories of people heating their flint/chert too fast or hot and the whole rock explodes! And or cool too fast but doesn't explode more fractures. But if they survive, like you said makes knapping more predictable.


----------



## Desert Rat

rocketman said:


> I was in dental school 64-68, US Army 68-70, and in both spots I sharpened instruments..
> Looking through my old stuff, I found these three stones, and some accompanying paper.
> Black hard Arkansas, army issue.
> White hard Arkansas on the edge says "Arkansas oil stone co. Hot Springs, Arkansas
> I think Washita, from Smith's in Hot Springs, and although can't see in the picture,View attachment 163352
> View attachment 163352
> 
> a triangle shape slip..I think I bought this around 67 when I was in Hot Springs to
> visit the mines...


I have an old Washita from Arkansas Oil Stone Co. I don't know much about the company history unfortunately.
It must be some what vintage though because because they recommended coal oil or kerosene as a lubricant.





https://flic.kr/p/



It's a slow and fine Washita. 

Whish I knew how many company's were mining and producing Washita's through the years.
Cotedupy do you have any idea, anyone?


----------



## stringer

Desert Rat said:


> I have an old Washita from Arkansas Oil Stone Co. I don't know much about the company history unfortunately.
> It must be some what vintage though because because they recommended coal oil or kerosene as a lubricant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://flic.kr/p/
> 
> 
> 
> It's a slow and fine Washita.
> 
> Whish I knew how many company's were mining and producing Washita's through the years.
> Cotedupy do you have any idea, anyone?



There were a ton over the years. 



Lists of Quarries & Quarry Links, Photographs and Articles


----------



## Desert Rat

stringer said:


> There were a ton over the years.
> 
> 
> 
> Lists of Quarries & Quarry Links, Photographs and Articles


And the old survey lists more mines, it's a tangled mess for me. More mines than manufactures for sure and at times hard to say if they where mining arks or washita's.

For manufactures I have Norton, Hot Springs oilstone Co and the more modern Smith's, and I am leaving one out because I can't remember their name. I'm looking for it.....


----------



## stringer

Desert Rat said:


> And the old survey lists more mines, it's a tangled mess for me. More mines than manufactures for sure and at times hard to say if they where mining arks or washita's.
> 
> For manufactures I have Norton, Hot Springs oilstone Co and the more modern Smith's, and I am leaving one out because I can't remember their name. I'm looking for it.....



There's a few names in this article. These three are usually listed as the early owners of quarries. Hiram Whittington, J. J. Sutton, and the Barnes Brothers. But I'm not sure if they produced finished whetstones.









Arkansas Novaculite: A Virtual Comparative Collection


Content: Arkansas Archeology, Author: Mary Beth Trubitt, Developer: John R. Samuelsen, Funding: National Endowment for the Humanities and the Arkansas Humanities Council, Organization: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Associations: University of Arkansas and Henderson State University




archeology.uark.edu







Just to add to the modern producers:
Hall's which became RH Preyda
And Dan's of course.


----------



## Desert Rat

stringer said:


> There's a few names in this article. These three are usually listed as the early owners of quarries. Hiram Whittington, J. J. Sutton, and the Barnes Brothers. But I'm not sure if they produced finished whetstones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arkansas Novaculite: A Virtual Comparative Collection
> 
> 
> Content: Arkansas Archeology, Author: Mary Beth Trubitt, Developer: John R. Samuelsen, Funding: National Endowment for the Humanities and the Arkansas Humanities Council, Organization: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Associations: University of Arkansas and Henderson State University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archeology.uark.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to add to the modern producers:
> Hall's which became RH Preyda
> And Dan's of course.


I think Dan's originally bought out Indian Mountain. 

Other producers of Arks off the top of my head past and present.
Washita Mountain, Indian Mountain, Arkansas Oilstones, Arkansas Oilstone Co, Smith's, Natural Whetstone Co, Pike Norton. 

Probably forgetting some. A much smaller list when it comes to the vintage Washita's though.


----------



## rocketman

Skylar303 said:


> Very cool, I was gonna try flint knapping. I had an arrangement to swap some Georgetown flint for some Quartz chunks but the lady backed out. And then I had a guy willing to ship me some rootbeer flint, he said he shipped but i never got the package... So haven't gotten around to it yet. I did read up on it though, I read stories of people heating their flint/chert too fast or hot and the whole rock explodes! And or cool too fast but doesn't explode more fractures. But if they survive, like you said makes knapping more predictable.


So you are in Texas?? Otherwise the Georgetown flint is not well known... My brother knows a guy who has literally tons of Georgetown, and I have helped him collect several times.. Lots of fun.


----------



## rocketman

Once while visiting Hot Springs for stones, I was southeast of town and notice a mine.. Pulled in, and struck up a conversation with the miners.
There were several very large boulders, say 3x4', laying there, and I asked... They told me that they were too fine of use..Said they were Boulder.
I guess boulder was a very fine particle size, past hard arkansas.


----------



## rocketman

I was thinking about the flint knapping part of this thread, and realized that I have a bunch of flint called Georgetown blue... 
Does anyone know if flint has ever been used to sharpen razors, knives, etc.???
I could easily take a chunk to the Houston Gem and Mineral , cut it to size and shape for a novel stone, maybe suitable for 
use in sharpening??


----------



## Desert Rat

Desert Rat said:


> I think Dan's originally bought out Indian Mountain.
> 
> Other producers of Arks off the top of my head past and present.
> Washita Mountain, Indian Mountain, Arkansas Oilstones, Arkansas Oilstone Co, Smith's, Natural Whetstone Co, Pike Norton.
> 
> Probably forgetting some. A much smaller list when it comes to the vintage Washita's though.


OK 
The one I left out is The Carborundum Company.

So for vintage Washita's I have..
Carborundom Co
Pike-Norton
Arkansas Oilstone Co

More?


----------



## Desert Rat

rocketman said:


> I was thinking about the flint knapping part of this thread, and realized that I have a bunch of flint called Georgetown blue...
> Does anyone know if flint has ever been used to sharpen razors, knives, etc.???
> I could easily take a chunk to the Houston Gem and Mineral , cut it to size and shape for a novel stone, maybe suitable for
> use in sharpening??


 I guess its a form of microcrystalline quartz,. Same thing as jasper? Should work.


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> OK
> The one I left out is The Carborundum Company.
> 
> So for vintage Washita's I have..
> Carborundom Co
> Pike-Norton
> Arkansas Oilstone Co
> 
> More?



Carborundum Co. were rebranded Pike stones (Can't remember where I saw that but I think probably from a post of Tim's on B&B.)

Same was probably done by a few other companies... here's a 'Snow Mountain Washita' from what was probably the UK's largest whetstone company back in the day - A.B. Salmen:







Dunno much about this, but probably also a P-N stone I imagine:






Apart from Pike the only other company mentioned in the 1890 survey for the marketing of Washitas is George Chase in New York, who had been producing Arkansas whetstones for at least 40 years apparently. And obviously that was written slightly before Pike purchased any Washita quarries, so the two companies were buying the same stone.








[Pics in this post not mine unfortunately!]


----------



## stringer

Keith (tomo nagura / gamma) has a nice Chase washita example on his website. 






George Chase Washita | TomoNagura.Com | Keith V. Johnson


After a lengthy investigation, I conclude that this Washita came from George Chase in NY sometime between 1854 and 1860.




www.tomonagura.com


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> Carborundum Co. were rebranded Pike stones (Can't remember where I saw that but I think probably from a post of Tim's on B&B.)
> 
> Same was probably done by a few other companies... here's a 'Snow Mountain Washita' from what was probably the UK's largest whetstone company back in the day - A.B. Salmen:
> 
> View attachment 163621
> 
> 
> Dunno much about this, but probably also a P-N stone I imagine:
> 
> View attachment 163622
> 
> 
> Apart from Pike the only other company mentioned in the 1890 survey for the marketing of Washitas is George Chase in New York, who had been producing Arkansas whetstones for at least 40 years apparently. And obviously that was written slightly before Pike purchased any Washita quarries, so the two companies were buying the same stone.
> 
> View attachment 163623
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Pics in this post not mine unfortunately!]


So Carborundum didn't cut and finish their own. I thought they would have been well equipped to do so, but I could also see them rebranding.

George Chase is interesting. I will see if I can find out anything about them.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> Keith (tomo nagura / gamma) has a nice Chase washita example on his website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Chase Washita | TomoNagura.Com | Keith V. Johnson
> 
> 
> After a lengthy investigation, I conclude that this Washita came from George Chase in NY sometime between 1854 and 1860.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tomonagura.com



That’s a good looking stone! Knew I’d seen a picture of one before somewhere.

I missed the bit about Pike buying GC at the same time as the quarries though. That’s how you build a monopoly eh... first-rate capitalism!


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> So Carborundum didn't cut and finish their own. I thought they would have been well equipped to do so, but I could also see them rebranding.
> 
> George Chase is interesting. I will see if I can find out anything about them.



Good question actually... someone had done some research and found that they were buying Pike stone, but I can’t remember if they were cutting it themselves - as you say they might well have just been buying the raw rock. I’ll try to dig out where I read about it...


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> I have an old Washita from Arkansas Oil Stone Co. I don't know much about the company history unfortunately.
> It must be some what vintage though because because they recommended coal oil or kerosene as a lubricant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://flic.kr/p/
> 
> 
> 
> It's a slow and fine Washita.
> 
> Whish I knew how many company's were mining and producing Washita's through the years.
> Cotedupy do you have any idea, anyone?



I don’t know anything about the company I’m afraid, but certainly visually it could happily be the same stone as P-N versions. And your description as being slightly finer and slower than modern Washitas / soft arks would probably match too I imagine...


----------



## coxhaus

Luftmensch said:


> What a dude!!
> 
> This is what a modern plane sharpening jig looks like:
> 
> View attachment 161718
> 
> 
> Sharpening in woodworking is diverse... some freehand... some use jigs... some use machines (Tormek)... some mix approaches (e.g. primary grinding on a Tormek, finishing freehand or with a jig). What seems fairly commonly shared in the community is that sharpening gets in the way of fun. Not many woodworkers do woodworking as an excuse to sharpen plane blades and chisels!!
> 
> Stanley has left a legacy of designs that have been updated by various modern woodworking tools manufacturers (e.g. Lee Valley and Lie-Nielsen). As a result, many 'standard' sized plane blades are just over 2":
> 
> View attachment 161719
> 
> 
> ... of course... there are wider and narrower planes.
> 
> 
> Could you sharpen at an angle to fit the plane on the stone? Sure! If you are a good freehand sharpener. Controlling angles on two... planes... (  ) makes the process more difficult and fiddly. You have to focus on keeping the bevel at the correct angle whilst moving on a skew. Not impossible, but more difficult. You also clearly can't use a sharpening jig properly at an angle. Most jigs are on fixed rollers!
> 
> Again, my impression is that modern woodworkers see sharpening as a means to an end. Narrow stones (<< 2") will be a frustration for people in a hurry. You can work with smaller stones, several millimetres doesn't matter... but the bigger the gap, the more frustrating!
> 
> Similarly... depending on the angle of the plane and the design of the sharpening jig, you can lose 50-100mm of stroke. Longer stones are more luxurious! It is nicer doing relaxed long controlled strokes than a frenzy of short ones!


For anything 2 inches or less I use my Worksharp 3000. It will sharpen a chisel in a couple of minutes. My Stanely Jack planes blades are too big and need to be done on the Worksharp manually. I can flatten a chisel back fairly fast.


----------



## cotedupy

Here's a follow-up post to my one above, and I'm afraid it will be based even more on conjecture and hunch than the previous.

A question that's the basis of some of the conversation on this thread and elsewhere, is this:



Desert Rat said:


> And the old survey lists more mines, it's a tangled mess for me. More mines than manufactures for sure and at times hard to say if they where mining arks or washita's.




To what extent can we consider Washitas and Soft Arkansas stones as being the same thing? Can any strict differentiation actually be made?

The whetstone quarries of Hot Springs are all found in together in quite a small geographical area, and they’re all pulling the same type of rock - novaculite - out of the ground. But geological formations don’t happen in neat, well-defined boxes, so that millions of years later someone can put a label on a sharpening stone and sell it as one thing or the other. They happen on a spectrum.

---

Let's start by looking at a couple of interesting stones owned by members on B&B. These are both labelled Pike Soft Arkansas, the first is notably quite translucent with a SG of 2.55, the second I don't know but I'd guess a little less:













Now a labelled Pike Lily White of mine, also fairly translucent, though the SG is lower at 2.36. This is admittedly quite an unusual Washita, but visually these three stones are peas in a pod, the pores and patterns on the surface are strikingly similar:






---

So why are Pike selling stones that I would bet my bottom dollar are the same, as two different things?

The charitable answer might be that they too recognise the blurred lines of definition in geological formations, but use their years of expertise and experience to evaluate hardness, porosity and specific gravity, in order to determine what stones are Washitas, and what are Soft Arkansas.

The less charitable answer though might recognise that Pike were undeniably superb at reading and dictating the market for their products. And that in the late 19th Century had bought a number (all?) of the old Washita quarries, as well as George Reynolds - probably the only other company who were producing them. And so frankly Pike could sell whatever they want, as whatever they want, depending on what they thought might make the most money.

Here’s a very interesting 19th century advertisement for Pike oilstones:






I’ve posted that page before here, but until now I hadn’t noticed that Soft Arkansas stones are conspicuous in their absence. Though by 1905 a Pike pamphlet _does_ mention them, and notes they 'generally sell at about one-third less price than Hard Arkansas‘. Which still makes them just a little bit more expensive than even Lily White or Rosy Red Washitas. Could it be that the entire idea of a ‘Soft Arkansas’ whetstone was simply an invention of Pike’s, after acquiring the Sutton quarries, in order to ride on the coat tails of the high prices and demand for ‘Hard Arkansas’ stones?*

At the end of my post above is a lineup pic of the old Washitas I have atm, which were all found in either the UK or Aus:






I have no doubt that all of these stones were originally sold as 'Washitas'; the name had considerable cachet and market recognition in the UK, and it is still far more common to find old Washitas in the UK than it is in the US. But might the same stones have been sold as something else back in the states?

I don't know the answer to these questions. This is all speculation.

---

I received an exciting delivery today, this is the first labelled Soft Arkansas stone I have ever had or used:






Can you guess why I bought it? Pretty huh! The 'holder' there actually turned out to be the top of the box, and it told me that this is soft ark produced by:






Global recognition no less! Colour me tantalised...**

So obviously I'm going to compare it some Washitas. Just to emphasise - this _isn't _a new stone that has been sold as a Washita - it's positioning itself firmly in the Soft Ark camp. It's also a sample size of one, so we're not in particularly scientific territory here. Nevertheless I'm interested to see how deep the familial resemblance runs, especially as I said, because this is the first time I've used a Soft Ark. These stones are arranged in descending order of specific gravity, and when I measured them today the LW and No.1 actually surprised me a little, as in my mind they were both a bit higher, but there you go.

L to R: Pike Lily White (2.36), Washita (2.30), Pike-Norton No.1 (2.10), Natural Hones Soft Ark (2.09), Washita (2.08):






Obviously here I've chosen Washitas 3 and 5 because they have almost identical SG readings to the Soft Ark, so if the distinction is as blurry as some of what I've said above might suggest, then we should be able to see a fairly strong similarity between them. Washitas 1 and 2 I've chosen because their SG is at the higher end of the scale - to see if the soft ark is more similar to the low SG Washitas, than they are to the higher ones.

---

Well first up - the Soft Ark is noticeably softer than a Washita, it takes no time at all to lap. When done the surface feels similar-ish, though slightly grittier, sandier. I'm actually a little surprised it's as different as it is.

Washita 1 (Pike LW) is a very fine example, it works quite fast for a fine stone, but it doesn’t have a big range. It doesn’t do super-quick and coarse metal removal like more typical examples.

Washita 2 (which I found at the weekend here is Aus) is a _superb _stone. With noticeably larger, more visible pores than the first. This stone has a big range and is seriously fast with pressure. Right up there with my favourite Washitas I've had.

Washita 3 (P-N No.1) is a very good stone also, it has quite a large range though not as fast as the above. Finishes surprisingly fine considering the SG.

The NHI Soft Ark (4) is quite clearly a different stone from the Washitas. It feels as much like a Hindostan as it does a Washita. It's a very fast stone, and slurries quite heavily in almost no time, but doesn't finish nearly as fine as the Washitas. Overall it’s not a million miles away in terms of use, but there’s no way you’d confuse them. In a funny way this stone feels most similar to Washita 2, which I think is a very old stone.

Washita 5 is very similar to 3, though it’s a little coarser. 3 and 5 I would consider as quite typical Norton era Washitas. Very nice stone.

---

I don't know if or what any of that might say. Except that there are some Soft Arks that are notably different from old Washitas. This stone is considerably softer than the Washitas with an identical SG, and a lot of its speed is coming from slurry. But it's similar enough to bear comparison.

There is certainly something special about old Washitas, but it’s by no means inconceivable that other quarries and companies apart from P-N have at some point dug up the same kind stone. So I can't really conclude anything more revolutionary than saying that I think a Washita is a hard version of a soft ark. Or a porous version of a hard ark. And how and where those distinctions are drawn probably just depends on who's cutting it up, and putting it in neat boxes.

---

* I could probably get a better idea of whether this possibility has any legs or not by reading through Griswold again. I may do that later...

** Anyone heard of this company? Considering the breadth of their alleged market penetration they have curiously little interenet presence...


----------



## VICTOR J CREAZZI

cotedupy said:


> The whetstone quarries of Hot Springs are all found in together in quite a small geographical area, and they’re all pulling the same type of rock - novaculite - out of the ground. But geological formations don’t happen in neat, well-defined boxes, so that millions of years later someone can put a label on a sharpening stone and sell it as one thing or the other. They happen on a spectrum.


This is the conclusion that I've come to.

I think of the term 'Washita' as a grading/marketing term without a hard scientific definition. It would be interesting to talk to Dan or other professional geologists about these deposits. I would think that the miners would get good feedback on how to grade them while they were cutting and preparing them.

Your comments on the soft Arkansas matches my experience on the modern stone marked soft that I recently tried.

Great post


----------



## stringer

I don't know if I should put this here or the combo thread. But I just scored a nice boxed Norton India/soft ark.


----------



## Skylar303

rocketman said:


> So you are in Texas?? Otherwise the Georgetown flint is not well known... My brother knows a guy who has literally tons of Georgetown, and I have helped him collect several times.. Lots of fun.


Ha close, just up north a bit. Nah just during my research phase that came up as one of the best typed of knapping flint.  Too bad not much fossicking in my area in terms of usable whetstones... 

I know @cotedupy was testing other types of stones. Have you tried Hornstone? I was reading up on that a little. Sounds kind of promising.


----------



## VICTOR J CREAZZI

Skylar303 said:


> Have you tried Hornstone? I was reading up on that a little. Sounds kind of promising.


I have some hornfels if that's what you mean. My take is that hornfels can have as much variety as slate. The hornfels that I have is contact metamorphosed pierre shale and is very hard and fine. I suspect that it doesn't have a lot of silica in it(read slow). Interesting stone though.


----------



## Luftmensch

cotedupy said:


> The less charitable answer though might recognise that Pike were undeniably superb at reading and dictating the market for their products. And that in the late 19th Century had bought a number (all?) of the old Washita quarries, as well as George Reynolds - probably the only other company who were producing them. And so frankly Pike could sell whatever they want, as whatever they want, depending on what they thought might make the most money.



I can tend to be quite cynical when it comes to marketing. 

Very interesting posts! What is in a name? Like you say... the geography and geology overlap substantially. Even when they dont... does novaculite mined from another location (Turkey) mean it is not novaculite? No! The spectrum of density, porosity and grain size give ample room to grade the stones and attach arbitrary labels.

It might be interesting to try and track the marketing to see where Washita and Arkansas marketing peak, trough and overlap. Maybe over the decades of use, popularity it is correlated with market activity and brand recognition... maybe it is correlated with mine mergers and acquisitions?


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> I don't know if I should put this here or the combo thread. But I just scored a nice boxed Norton India/soft ark.
> 
> View attachment 163802



Ah nice! Funnily enough I was just looking at a contemporary Norton catalogue and noticed that they still make them and thought I might try to find if there’s a seller in Aus. Sounds like a great stone, and it’d be interesting to see if Soft Arks from top companies like Norton or Dan’s are a bit different / harder / more ‘Washita-like’ than my new one.

They also still produce soft/translucent combis. Which would probably be pretty nifty for razors...


----------



## cotedupy

VICTOR J CREAZZI said:


> This is the conclusion that I've come to.
> 
> I think of the term 'Washita' as a grading/marketing term without a hard scientific definition. It would be interesting to talk to Dan or other professional geologists about these deposits. I would think that the miners would get good feedback on how to grade them while they were cutting and preparing them.
> 
> Your comments on the soft Arkansas matches my experience on the modern stone marked soft that I recently tried.
> 
> Great post



Ah cheers! Certainly would be interesting to hear what Dan thought about it, especially in regards to the stones that (I believe) they occasionally sell as Washitas, and how they differ from their Soft Arks.

Anyone wanna ping him an email...


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> Ah cheers! Certainly would be interesting to hear what Dan thought about it, especially in regards to the stones that (I believe) they occasionally sell as Washitas, and how they differ from their Soft Arks.
> 
> Anyone wanna ping him an email...



They do it straight off of the density measurements

Washita is 2.25 or less
Soft is 2.25-2.3
Hard is 2.3-2.45
Blacks and translucents are 2.5+

I don't know what happens if they are between 2.45 and 2.5. maybe they round up the 2.47s and whatever.


https://www.danswhetstone.com/information/stone-grades-101/


----------



## stringer

I thought this was interesting too. In the US at least, these are federal standards


----------



## Skylar303

VICTOR J CREAZZI said:


> I have some hornfels if that's what you mean. My take is that hornfels can have as much variety as slate. The hornfels that I have is contact metamorphosed pierre shale and is very hard and fine. I suspect that it doesn't have a lot of silica in it(read slow). Interesting stone though.


Hah well I was watching some flint knapping video and he said it was "hornstone". Tried looking it up came with sparse results and "hornsfel" popped up so I'm not sure if those are the same? The peice the guy had looked very homogeneous, but yeah not 100% what type of stone it even was, and had to do something else. So that cut that short.


----------



## VICTOR J CREAZZI

cotedupy said:


> Ah cheers! Certainly would be interesting to hear what Dan thought about it, especially in regards to the stones that (I believe) they occasionally sell as Washitas, and how they differ from their Soft Arks.
> 
> Anyone wanna ping him an email...


I'm thinking that a walking tour through the mine sites would be the way to go.


----------



## VICTOR J CREAZZI

stringer said:


> They do it straight off of the density measurements
> 
> Washita is 2.25 or less
> Soft is 2.25-2.3
> Hard is 2.3-2.45
> Blacks and translucents are 2.5+


Interesting that the Washitas are lower density than the softs, but our experience is that the Washitas are generally finer cutting. I realize that this is how Dan's grades them, and does not represent all stones sold as soft, or Washita for that matter.


----------



## stringer

VICTOR J CREAZZI said:


> Interesting that the Washitas are lower density than the softs, but our experience is that the Washitas are generally finer cutting. I realize that this is how Dan's grades them, and does not represent all stones sold as soft, or Washita for that matter.



Washitas to softs is kind of like coticules to Belgian blues. A good washita/coticule has a ton more range compared to a soft/bbw. Capable of behaving like a lower grit and hogging material, but also capable of finishing like a higher grit if you ease off the pressure and burnish it a little. I'll throw some ballpark numbers out for some stones that are in my collection. I recognize there are vast differences from stone to stone and yada yada, and we can't make generalizations and no two stones are the same. But let's just pretend that it won't piss off the sharpening gods too much if we spitball some numbers for illustrative purposes based on some actual specimens in my collection. 

A good coticule can cover a range from 1500-8k synthetic. I consider them to be the be all and end all for mid range razor work. A bbw might be 2k-4k, slower and not capable of finishing as fine. I wouldn't use one for razors but they are great for finishing knives.

I wouldn't normally use soft arks or washitas for razors. But I do use them for knives and tools a lot. A washita (in my mind) should be able to do work from about 500-2k. Whereas a soft ark is basically like a slow 1000 grit stone. And that's it. Kind of boring by itself but I like them for touching up apexes. I have about a dozen little soft Ark pocket stones stashed all over my house kitchen, work kitchen, basement, toolboxes, etc. A hard ark is basically an 8k stone (unless you lap it very coarse and then it can cut like anything down to a 500 grit diamond plate for a little bit).

I don't exactly know how all this relates to density. Definitely they haven't always done it strictly based off of density, or location of the quarry, or anything else really over the years. So it's cool when we are able to match the advertisements and boxes and stones. I would be interested to try a Dan's washita if I can get my hands on one one day and see how it compares to the 100+ year old ones and the ones from the 1960s and 70s.


----------



## captaincaed

stringer said:


> I have about a dozen little soft Ark pocket stones stashed all over my house kitchen, work kitchen, basement, toolboxes, etc.


Next to the reading glasses? Or is that just my house?


----------



## stringer

captaincaed said:


> Next to the reading glasses? Or is that just my house?



No reading glasses yet. But I keep tubes of lidocaine ointment everywhere. Does that qualify me for old man club yet?


----------



## captaincaed

I have thera-bands for neck and elbow issues. But I’m still young….


----------



## M1k3

stringer said:


> No reading glasses yet. But I keep tubes of lidocaine ointment everywhere. Does that qualify me for old man club yet?


I resemble this comment. 

The lidocaine patches are pretty convenient.


----------



## stringer

M1k3 said:


> I resemble this comment.
> 
> The lidocaine patches are pretty convenient.



I like the patches for my back. I can't really walk without the ointment for my feet and ankles though. Fusion surgery coming up in March. I hope it helps.


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> Here's a follow-up post to my one above, and I'm afraid it will be based even more on conjecture and hunch than the previous.
> 
> A question that's the basis of some of the conversation on this thread and elsewhere, is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To what extent can we consider Washitas and Soft Arkansas stones as being the same thing? Can any strict differentiation actually be made?
> 
> The whetstone quarries of Hot Springs are all found in together in quite a small geographical area, and they’re all pulling the same type of rock - novaculite - out of the ground. But geological formations don’t happen in neat, well-defined boxes, so that millions of years later someone can put a label on a sharpening stone and sell it as one thing or the other. They happen on a spectrum.
> 
> ---
> 
> Let's start by looking at a couple of interesting stones owned by members on B&B. These are both labelled Pike Soft Arkansas, the first is notably quite translucent with a SG of 2.55, the second I don't know but I'd guess a little less:
> 
> View attachment 163740
> 
> 
> View attachment 163739
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now a labelled Pike Lily White of mine, also fairly translucent, though the SG is lower at 2.36. This is admittedly quite an unusual Washita, but visually these three stones are peas in a pod, the pores and patterns on the surface are strikingly similar:
> 
> View attachment 163764
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> So why are Pike selling stones that I would bet my bottom dollar are the same, as two different things?
> 
> The charitable answer might be that they too recognise the blurred lines of definition in geological formations, but use their years of expertise and experience to evaluate hardness, porosity and specific gravity, in order to determine what stones are Washitas, and what are Soft Arkansas.
> 
> The less charitable answer though might recognise that Pike were undeniably superb at reading and dictating the market for their products. And that in the late 19th Century had bought a number (all?) of the old Washita quarries, as well as George Reynolds - probably the only other company who were producing them. And so frankly Pike could sell whatever they want, as whatever they want, depending on what they thought might make the most money.
> 
> Here’s a very interesting 19th century advertisement for Pike oilstones:
> 
> View attachment 163737
> 
> 
> I’ve posted that page before here, but until now I hadn’t noticed that Soft Arkansas stones are conspicuous in their absence. Though by 1905 a Pike pamphlet _does_ mention them, and notes they 'generally sell at about one-third less price than Hard Arkansas‘. Which still makes them just a little bit more expensive than even Lily White or Rosy Red Washitas. Could it be that the entire idea of a ‘Soft Arkansas’ whetstone was simply an invention of Pike’s, after acquiring the Sutton quarries, in order to ride on the coat tails of the high prices and demand for ‘Hard Arkansas’ stones?*
> 
> At the end of my post above is a lineup pic of the old Washitas I have atm, which were all found in either the UK or Aus:
> 
> View attachment 163760
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that all of these stones were originally sold as 'Washitas'; the name had considerable cachet and market recognition in the UK, and it is still far more common to find old Washitas in the UK than it is in the US. But might the same stones have been sold as something else back in the states?
> 
> I don't know the answer to these questions. This is all speculation.
> 
> ---
> 
> I received an exciting delivery today, this is the first labelled Soft Arkansas stone I have ever had or used:
> 
> View attachment 163763
> 
> 
> Can you guess why I bought it? Pretty huh! The 'holder' there actually turned out to be the top of the box, and it told me that this is soft ark produced by:
> 
> View attachment 163746
> 
> 
> Global recognition no less! Colour me tantalised...**
> 
> So obviously I'm going to compare it some Washitas. Just to emphasise - this _isn't _a new stone that has been sold as a Washita - it's positioning itself firmly in the Soft Ark camp. It's also a sample size of one, so we're not in particularly scientific territory here. Nevertheless I'm interested to see how deep the familial resemblance runs, especially as I said, because this is the first time I've used a Soft Ark. These stones are arranged in descending order of specific gravity, and when I measured them today the LW and No.1 actually surprised me a little, as in my mind they were both a bit higher, but there you go.
> 
> L to R: Pike Lily White (2.36), Washita (2.30), Pike-Norton No.1 (2.10), Natural Hones Soft Ark (2.09), Washita (2.08):
> 
> View attachment 163762
> 
> 
> Obviously here I've chosen Washitas 3 and 5 because they have almost identical SG readings to the Soft Ark, so if the distinction is as blurry as some of what I've said above might suggest, then we should be able to see a fairly strong similarity between them. Washitas 1 and 2 I've chosen because their SG is at the higher end of the scale - to see if the soft ark is more similar to the low SG Washitas, than they are to the higher ones.
> 
> ---
> 
> Well first up - the Soft Ark is noticeably softer than a Washita, it takes no time at all to lap. When done the surface feels similar-ish, though slightly grittier, sandier. I'm actually a little surprised it's as different as it is.
> 
> Washita 1 (Pike LW) is a very fine example, it works quite fast for a fine stone, but it doesn’t have a big range. It doesn’t do super-quick and coarse metal removal like more typical examples.
> 
> Washita 2 (which I found at the weekend here is Aus) is a _superb _stone. With noticeably larger, more visible pores than the first. This stone has a big range and is seriously fast with pressure. Right up there with my favourite Washitas I've had.
> 
> Washita 3 (P-N No.1) is a very good stone also, it has quite a large range though not as fast as the above. Finishes surprisingly fine considering the SG.
> 
> The NHI Soft Ark (4) is quite clearly a different stone from the Washitas. It feels as much like a Hindostan as it does a Washita. It's a very fast stone, and slurries quite heavily in almost no time, but doesn't finish nearly as fine as the Washitas. Overall it’s not a million miles away in terms of use, but there’s no way you’d confuse them. In a funny way this stone feels most similar to Washita 2, which I think is a very old stone.
> 
> Washita 5 is very similar to 3, though it’s a little coarser. 3 and 5 I would consider as quite typical Norton era Washitas. Very nice stone.
> 
> ---
> 
> I don't know if or what any of that might say. Except that there are some Soft Arks that are notably different from old Washitas. This stone is considerably softer than the Washitas with an identical SG, and a lot of its speed is coming from slurry. But it's similar enough to bear comparison.
> 
> There is certainly something special about old Washitas, but it’s by no means inconceivable that other quarries and companies apart from P-N have at some point dug up the same kind stone. So I can't really conclude anything more revolutionary than saying that I think a Washita is a hard version of a soft ark. Or a porous version of a hard ark. And how and where those distinctions are drawn probably just depends on who's cutting it up, and putting it in neat boxes.
> 
> ---
> 
> * I could probably get a better idea of whether this possibility has any legs or not by reading through Griswold again. I may do that later...
> 
> ** Anyone heard of this company? Considering the breadth of their alleged market penetration they have curiously little interenet presence...


It's interesting to note that old Washita's are showing up in boxes labeled Soft Ark but I have never seen it the other way around. Maybe it's just owners switching boxes, I don't know. There is a difference in price when the soft arks first show up also. The price difference probably corresponds to the difficulty in mining the arks compared to the Washita that came out in big blocks.

From the looks of your colored soft it is indistinguishable from a modern Washita, and your description is exactly what I get from them. Kind of a gritty feel, friable and fast but they lack the range of vintage Washita's.


----------



## Desert Rat

stringer said:


> I like the patches for my back. I can't really walk without the ointment for my feet and ankles though. Fusion surgery coming up in March. I hope it helps.


Ooph! Back pain sucks. Hope it all goes well for and you have a fast recovery. My brother in law had it done a couple of years ago, he said it was instant relief.


----------



## stringer

Desert Rat said:


> Ooph! Back pain sucks. Hope it all goes well for and you have a fast recovery. My brother in law had it done a couple of years ago, he said it was instant relief.



Fusion for the foot and ankle. The back stuff isn't really serious. But thank you for the well wishes. You all will probably be sick of me after my two months of bed rest. Nothing to do but rest and heal and bid on vintage oil stones.


----------



## captaincaed

Someone needs to compete with Cotedupy


----------



## bsfsu

I just had these arrive on my doorstep.
Not washita's but what they are I don't know, .

























The small stone makes a nice grey slurry. It has a greeny grey hue.

The "Celebrate" brand is man made,very hard but cuts ok. Put an ok bevel on white 1. 

The medium stone is different colors on both sides with one side coloured dark and light grey with darker grey swirls and specks. This side felt nice on a knife, gave a nice edge.
The other side is a fairly even dark grey. This felt harder than the coloured side, harder to raise a burr.

The large block is black and hard. It's huge though, 1.5kg. Maybe a Turkish?


----------



## Desert Rat

bsfsu said:


> I just had these arrive on my doorstep.
> Not washita's but what they are I don't know, .View attachment 164085
> View attachment 164090
> View attachment 164091
> View attachment 164092
> View attachment 164093
> View attachment 164094
> View attachment 164095
> View attachment 164096
> 
> The small stone makes a nice grey slurry. It has a greeny grey hue.
> 
> The "Celebrate" brand is man made,very hard but cuts ok. Put an ok bevel on white 1.
> 
> The medium stone is different colors on both sides with one side coloured dark and light grey with darker grey swirls and specks. This side felt nice on a knife, gave a nice edge.
> The other side is a fairly even dark grey. This felt harder than the coloured side, harder to raise a burr.
> 
> The large block is black and hard. It's huge though, 1.5kg. Maybe a Turkish?


Austin sure is interesting. How would you describe how it cuts, very fine to very coarse?


----------



## bsfsu

Desert Rat said:


> Austin sure is interesting. How would you describe how it cuts, very fine to very coarse?


Cuts very fine, not as fine as my charnley, on the swirls. On the dark grey side it's definitely harder and cuts less. 

I've only had a quick slide with the steel on stone as the family has got home.


----------



## KingShapton

bsfsu said:


> The large block is black and hard. It's huge though, 1.5kg. Maybe a Turkish?


Looks like a Turkish


----------



## cotedupy

bsfsu said:


> I just had these arrive on my doorstep.
> Not washita's but what they are I don't know, .View attachment 164085
> View attachment 164090
> View attachment 164091
> View attachment 164092
> View attachment 164093
> View attachment 164094
> View attachment 164095
> View attachment 164096
> 
> The small stone makes a nice grey slurry. It has a greeny grey hue.
> 
> The "Celebrate" brand is man made,very hard but cuts ok. Put an ok bevel on white 1.
> 
> The medium stone is different colors on both sides with one side coloured dark and light grey with darker grey swirls and specks. This side felt nice on a knife, gave a nice edge.
> The other side is a fairly even dark grey. This felt harder than the coloured side, harder to raise a burr.
> 
> The large block is black and hard. It's huge though, 1.5kg. Maybe a Turkish?



Very cool!

The larger one isn’t a Turkish I’m afraid - it’s some kind of slate or schist.

The long, medium one looks very interesting. Some parts of it again look like slate, but those surface patterns don’t at all. Unless it’s a very weird old Coticule, I’ve not come across anything like it.

Definitely post some more pics if you lap or clean it up more!


----------



## Desert Rat

bsfsu said:


> Cuts very fine, not as fine as my charnley, on the swirls. On the dark grey side it's definitely harder and cuts less.
> 
> I've only had a quick slide with the steel on stone as the family has got home.


I think it's a Thuringian and a very attractive one.


----------



## Desert Rat

bfsu,
Here is link to another form thread with some Thuringians that are described as clouded. There are more scattered through out the thread.
I'm not %100 percent on my ID but I would literally put money on it.








Escher/Thuringian love. show of your rocks


Found a full sized mottled Escher/Thüri! 10*2 inches. other hones just for comparison. It is a little bit darker than the bouts from hatzicho, but feels and polishes the same. Colour difference with Y/G/Blue combo, and light Green/Blue combo. And a Dark Blue. Greetings Sebastian.




www.badgerandblade.com


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> bfsu,
> Here is link to another form thread with some Thuringians that are described as clouded. There are more scattered through out the thread.
> I'm not %100 percent on my ID but I would literally put money on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Escher/Thuringian love. show of your rocks
> 
> 
> Found a full sized mottled Escher/Thüri! 10*2 inches. other hones just for comparison. It is a little bit darker than the bouts from hatzicho, but feels and polishes the same. Colour difference with Y/G/Blue combo, and light Green/Blue combo. And a Dark Blue. Greetings Sebastian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.badgerandblade.com



That is interesting! I think you're onto something DR. This picture nabbed from that thread looks very similar to the side of your stone @bsfsu :






That's a very sweet find if it is a Thuri .


----------



## stringer

I sharpened some knives with that monster butterscotch washita. It is my new favorite knife stone. Beating out my unlabelled probably lily white washita. Super hard but super porous. Fast on the attack but leaves a fine crispy edge. I've tried it with water and oil and I definitely prefer the oil.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> I sharpened some knives with that monster butterscotch washita. It is my new favorite knife stone. Beating out my unlabelled probably lily white washita. Super hard but super porous. Fast on the attack but leaves a fine crispy edge. I've tried it with water and oil and I definitely prefer the oil.



I was literally just about to post these pictures and say - if anybody comes across stones that look like this (and your one) that they should be snapped up.

I've used these two a fair bit now in the last few days, and they're the best two Washitas I've had. Behave exactly as you describe yours. They've also both had several days of soaking, and that oil ain't going anywhere particularly quickly!


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> I sharpened some knives with that monster butterscotch washita. It is my new favorite knife stone. Beating out my unlabelled probably lily white washita. Super hard but super porous. Fast on the attack but leaves a fine crispy edge. I've tried it with water and oil and I definitely prefer the oil.



The other very cool thing about your stone is that it looks from some of the pictures like one side is harder and more translucent than the other? Like a natural combi. Is there a difference is use? Cos that would be awesome!


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> The other very cool thing about your stone is that it looks from some of the pictures like one side is harder and more translucent than the other? Like a natural combi. Is there a difference is use? Cos that would be awesome!



I haven't tried the side with the big chip in it yet. But it feels to the fingers much more homogenous than it looks.










Next to the lily white


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> I haven't tried the side with the big chip in it yet. But it feels to the fingers much more homogenous than it looks.
> 
> View attachment 164255
> 
> View attachment 164256
> 
> 
> Next to the lily white
> View attachment 164257
> 
> View attachment 164258



Cool! Yeah it does look like the two sides might be slightly different, I'd guess the chipped side might be harder and finer. There's a bit in the Griswold 1890 survey about the layers of Washita stone, and how they're cut.

This I guess is probably what has resulted in my little one that's much more translucent in the middle - it's been cut across layers, giving 'areas of unequal hardness'. But yours looks like it's been cut well - parallel to the layers. And might give you basically a natural combi, which would be pretty awesome! Definitely try it out and report back...







(And yeah I'd be with you - I think your other stone is very likely to be a Norton era Lily White.)


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> That is interesting! I think you're onto something DR. This picture nabbed from that thread looks very similar to the side of your stone @bsfsu :
> 
> View attachment 164240
> 
> 
> That's a very sweet find if it is a Thuri .


Ya, there are probably hundreds of Thuri's in that thread posted by some very serious collectors and Austin is probably probably the most unusual.
Quite a find indeed. 

Bsfsu, that small stone doesn't really look like a thuri ,but I'm not ready to discount it being a rubber stone to your Thuri. It also looks wider than the Thuri?


----------



## SirCutAlot

Thuringian Hones are really nice, for razors. They are much to fine for any kitchen cutlery. They outclass even the finest Nakayama`s.

I think the big one is a levante/turkey/cretan hone. And the Thuri is a Thuri. 

SirCutALot.


----------



## bsfsu

Desert Rat said:


> Ya, there are probably hundreds of Thuri's in that thread posted by some very serious collectors and Austin is probably probably the most unusual.
> Quite a find indeed.
> 
> Bsfsu, that small stone doesn't really look like a thuri ,but I'm not ready to discount it being a rubber stone to your Thuri. It also looks wider than the Thuri?


@Desert Rat I have been wondering about the small slurry stone. It is wider than the thuri and completely a different colour. 

@SirCutAlot I have got a nice edge on a W2 knife with the thuri but definitely quite hard. I want to have a play with some chisels and plane blades at some stage.











The large black slate looks to have been cut down at different times as there is 3 types of cut marks on it, I'm thinking it's been around for a while. It seems harder than the thuri but I need to have some more play time with it. I need some scissor finishing stones so these are all going into the collection.













I'm hoping to get some washita's soon! (might be SiC though)


----------



## captaincaed

had a great day with two pieces of Novaculite. huge cooking day with the boys, lots of fun both of them contributed really strongly to three fairly labor-intensive recipes. We’re making some friends a big Thai breakfast tomorrow for one of their birthdays. So we had to make pork stock, Thai pork meatballs, and what is essentially Thai flavored pork barbecue. Had to dress a huge piece of pork shoulder and my grandfathers Washita came to the rescue. Just look at how much steel it removed with a few swipes. Put a great Butchery edge on a semi stainless chicken knife. Later I decided to finally put a good edge on the MagnaCut knife. That stuff is a ***** to sharpen. And especially deburr properly. Once again the Soft Arkansas Stone was the star of the day to get rid of the last nasty butr left behind from the diamond stones. Great day in the kitchen, great day with some novaculite.
Plus some cats since you know, that's what the internet is for.


----------



## captaincaed

Also snagged a beautiful and fascinating "true hard" Ark that I'm hoping will play nicely with some white and blue steel in the kitchen.


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> From the looks of your colored soft it is indistinguishable from a modern Washita.



Though I’ve never tried a newer coloured Washita I imagine you’re probably right, and that my Soft Ark is a similar affair.

I went through Griswold again, while thinking about this a bit more and it threw up some very interesting things, which I’ll collate in another post. But here’s a bit to start (I’m sure you’ve seen this already, but worth highlighting again)...

It’s very obvious that the stones we’re calling ‘modern’ Washitas were also considered Washitas back in 1890, Griswold describes them in some detail. Generally they were considered somewhat inferior, second class stones. But they were still Washitas. Here’s his description of ‘Calico Washitas’, quite clearly what my Soft Ark is:







I also picked up a little stone yesterday for my collection of cardboard box Nortons, as I didn’t have a soft previously. This stone is very different from the Calico soft. The Norton isn’t even close to being a Washita - it bears more comparison to a hard ark, while the Calico stone does have some similarities to old Washitas.


----------



## cotedupy

Speaking of Thuris... a couple of other nice new stones I found recently. This little Bengall was a very cheap FB marketplace find and came with a 6x1.25 Escher 














And then a slightly weird paddle stone from ebay turned out to be Schwedenstein:






Which piqued my interest and so I swapped another stone for a larger example with someone on B&B. This stone is one of Peter / Hatzicho’s:


----------



## cotedupy

So for anyone still with me, a final follow-up post or two on the subject of if, and how, it is possible to make any firm distinction between Washita stones and Soft Arkansas.

Reading through Griswold again with particular reference to this question threw up a few interesting things: Firstly there appears to be no mention of 'Soft Arkansas' - in 1890 it was simply not a category of whetstone. The two types of stone were 'Arkansas' stones, which we would know as Translucent and probably Hard Black, and 'Ouachita' stones which seem to have encompassed everything else. There are detailed descriptions of the kinds of coloured, patterned, or mottled, stones that are sometimes sold today as Washitas. The 'Calico' Ouachita described below is very obviously what my brightly coloured Soft Arkansas is:






These are said to be of generally inferior quality to the pure white variety, but they were Ouachita stones nonetheless.

To say then that the modern Washita stones are merely 'a kind of soft ark', and that only Pike and Norton stones are true Washitas, is not quite accurate. The name Washita was originally applied in the early 1800s to stones transported down the Ouachita river to market, and I think it's fair to say for a good proportion of the 19th century was applied to both the stones we call 'Washitas' and 'Soft Arkansas'.

History as we all know, is written by the winners. And in this case the winners, having bought out all the competition, and bought up all the quarries, were Pike. I feel fairly confident that the earlier hypothesis that 'Soft Arkansas' stones were merely an invention of the Pike Manufacturing Co., is accurate. So let's again ask: Why?

In an earlier post I imagined two possible reasons:

_'The charitable answer might be that they too recognise the blurred lines of definition in geological formations, but use their years of expertise and experience to evaluate hardness, porosity and specific gravity, in order to determine what stones are Washitas, and what are Soft Arkansas.

The less charitable answer though might recognise that Pike were undeniably superb at reading and dictating the market for their products. And that in the late 19th Century had bought a number (all?) of the old Washita quarries, as well as George Reynolds - probably the only other company who were producing them. And so frankly Pike could sell whatever they want, as whatever they want, depending on what they thought might make the most money.'_

Though perhaps the actual answer is likely to be a combination of both.

I also tried to explain the importance of porosity on the workings of the Washita stone, and this is something looked at in considerable detail in the Griswold survey. At one point he even goes so far as to say that the porosity of the Ouachita stone means that it cannot be classed amongst the 'true novaculites'. While acknowledging that it is exactly this porosity that makes its cutting so remarkable, and that the best stones are the most porous examples.

The table below is particularly interesting. In it the first two rows are (hard) 'Arkansas' stones, the third is a control stone, and all the others are 'Ouachitas'. You want to be looking at the final column on the right, which is effectively a % measure of porosity:






Griswold tells us at one point later that Sutton No.6 (as well as No.1) was regarded by quarrymen as produced the highest quality of Washita stone, and pictures in Pike pamphlets in the early c.20th show Sutton #7 described as a Washita quarry. We can also assume from this table that Sutton No.5 was producing high quality Washita stone. In fact in that table we might even be able to draw a divinding line between Sutton No.s 5, 6, & 7 which run from about 14-19% water absorption, and the others ranging from 3-6%.

Could this be the kind of distinction made by Pike when determining their definitions of 'Washita' and 'Soft Arkanas' stones? Another question we will probably never know a certain answer to, though it seems a very plausible possibility to me.

---

I'm afraid I'm not going to dedicate the next six months to fully degreasing all of my Washitas in order to measure their % porosity in this way. So the impressions I'm going to give below are a little more subjective, though we'll have some microscope fun too at the end. From here I will be using the terms 'Washita' and 'Soft Arkansas' in the way we would now normally understand them.

At the weekend I found a little 30s/40s era Norton Soft Arkansas slip stone. From a distance the surface of this stone could be mistaken for a Washita stone, especially now that I've used it a little bit. Here it is next to a Norton No.1 Washita of the same era, the stones are both pure white, discolouring grey with oil and swarf:






Even up close these two are pretty damn similar, perhaps the Washita is slightly looser grained, less homogenous. But they are, without a doubt, of an ilk:






But in the hand they do feel different. The Soft Arkansas has a ceramic quality to it, like china or porcelain. And it feels noticeably smoother than almost all of my Washitas, like it'll be a higher grit stone. Far smoother than my 'Calico' Soft Arkansas, and it is not as fast as either in use. Though again it is not an entirely dissimilar stone - if this was labelled as a Norton Washita I wouldn't question it, it perhaps just wouldn't be my favourite.

So can we see any distinct differences at a microscopic level? The stones I've selected here are to hopefully give a reasonable selection of some different types of Washita, alongside the Norton Soft Arkansas, the Calico Soft Arkansas, and a Norton Hard Arkansas - again from the 30s/40s. I'm going to run out of pictures allowed on this post, so will continue in another below, but here are the stones we'll be looking at.

L to R: Norton Hard Translucent, Norton Soft Arkansas, NHI Calico Soft Arkansas, NOS Norton Lily White, Norton No.1, Unlabelled Washita, Unlabelled Older Washita, Pike Lily White.






TBC...


----------



## cotedupy

So under the microscope we're going to be looking at a couple of different things; Firstly how the Soft Arkansas Stones compare to the Washitas, but also how the two older Washitas at the end compare to the Norton era Washitas.

Norton completed their purchase of Pike Manufacturing Co. in 1933, and immediately slashed the number of 'quality grades' of Washita available. At various times under Pike there had been; Lily White, Rosy Red, Woodworkers' Delight, Mechanics Friend, Extra Quality, No.1, No.2, and possibly others I don't know about. After the Norton takeover these were reduced to simply; Lily White and No.1. And later, in the 60s I believe, just to a single 'Washita Oilstone'.

Was this rationalisation merely an effort to reduce confusion in the minds of the buying public? Or perhaps did they consider some of the old Pike quarries to not be economically viable, which would signify a true reduction in the range? Who knows!

---

Here's what an old Norton Hard Arkansas looks like. This is very typical of translucent Arkansas stones, it is incredibly uniform and fine:






Now the Norton Soft Arkansas, far less homogenous and generally slightly coarser grained, though still this is a very tightly packed stone:






Here's the Calico Soft Arkansas. I took this picture of one of the white parts of it, as the coloured bits were all over the place, and you couldn't really see what was going on. This is much more coarsely grained, and less densely packed, which is what I'd expect:






Now the NOS Norton Lily White. This stone is a little hard to take a picture of because I've only used it on one side for a couple of mins, so it's still got a load of lime on it, but here goes:






WOAH... that looks quite a lot like our Norton Soft Arkansas doesn't it?! Those stones are very similar, though the LW is a perhaps a little less tightly packed, but slightly more homogenous.

Continuing the theme - here's the Norton No.1. This stone has more oil in it, so is a slightly different colour, but this is even more similar to the Soft Ark, which were the two stones I pictured together in the post above:






And this is the unlabelled shorter Washita. In some ways this stone is a bit of an outlier. It's probably the least tightly packed and coarsest grained of the Washitas. Which again makes sense - this stone has the lowest specific gravity of any here:






Now a very interesting one - the unlabelled older Washita. This isn't wildly dissimilar from others, and toward the less compact end. What you can't tell from microscope images such as these is how hard a stone is; this is actually quite a hard stone, while looking less compact. This stone probably has a very high level of porosity.

It also, as you can see, has a load of bright pink* bits in it. These are all over the stone, though you can't see them at all with the naked eye. I have no idea what this is, initially I thought I must have spilled something weird on it, but looking back at the other stones afterwards it does appear, in far less quantity (just a handful of specks per stone) on all of them. Possibly this is a microscope image of whatever it was that gave Rosy Reds their name:






And lastly the Pike Lily White. As I'd expect this is quite densely packed and fine-grained. Again this stone has more of the pink bits than most of the others, though nothing like as much as the previous. Apart from the relatively high amount of pink these two old stones are not desperately alike.






---

So that basically concludes my thoughts about Washitas v Soft Arks for the time being.

I've just been back and used a few of them again. The Norton Soft Ark finishes as fine as a Washita, but has nothing like the speed. It's effectively like using a heavily clogged Washita stone. The NHI Calico stone is the other end of the spectrum - it'll work as fast as a Washita, but doesn't come close to the top end. In fact the two 'Soft Arkansas' are more dissimilar from each other than they are from the Washitas.

Though every one is the same kind of thing; you could call them all Washitas, or Soft Arkansas, and not be wrong. There's certainly something special about good Washitas, and even though I do really like the Calico stone, every one of my ‘Washitas’ is probably a better stone than the two 'Soft Arkansas'. But I don't see any reason that other companies** apart from Pike-Norton, either now or in the past, couldn't have been pulling up some rocks of equal quality.

(That’s what I think anyway. And it’s not particularly revolutionary I know!)

---

* The reason I've drawn little circles around some of them is because I know at least one person who follows this thread is quite colour-blind, and may not be able to see them. So yeah - those splodges in the circles are neon pink.

** If anybody reading this is lucky enough to have a Dan's Washita that they fancy selling or swapping, then give me a shout. Surely a rarer stone than 'real' Washitas...


----------



## stringer

This thing is pretty sweet. I can even date it approximately. Copyright 1977 on the box.

Norton India / Soft Arkansas 6" Bench


----------



## VICTOR J CREAZZI

Except for the soft Arkansas/India end cap, that box is identical to the box that my old Crystolon came in, down to the 1977 date on the bottom.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> This thing is pretty sweet. I can even date it approximately. Copyright 1977 on the box.
> 
> Norton India / Soft Arkansas 6" Bench
> 
> 
> View attachment 164748
> 
> 
> View attachment 164749
> 
> View attachment 164750
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 164751
> 
> View attachment 164752
> 
> View attachment 164753
> View attachment 164754



That's very cool! When my India x Washita combi arrives - you should give them a spin side by side, and see how much of a difference there is.

As I said the other day - these India x Soft Arks are still made by Norton, officially at least. Though when I had a look to see if I could buy one, they turn out to be rather difficult to track down, with lots of places being out of stock. I guess they're occasional, and quite limited, runs/releases.


----------



## Desert Rat

bsfsu said:


> @Desert Rat I have been wondering about the small slurry stone. It is wider than the thuri and completely a different colour.
> 
> @SirCutAlot I have got a nice edge on a W2 knife with the thuri but definitely quite hard. I want to have a play with some chisels and plane blades at some stage.
> View attachment 164349
> View attachment 164351
> View attachment 164352
> 
> 
> The large black slate looks to have been cut down at different times as there is 3 types of cut marks on it, I'm thinking it's been around for a while. It seems harder than the thuri but I need to have some more play time with it. I need some scissor finishing stones so these are all going into the collection.
> View attachment 164345
> View attachment 164346
> View attachment 164347
> View attachment 164348
> 
> I'm hoping to get some washita's soon! (might be SiC though)


I have no idea what the small stone is. It's interesting though.

I suspect the Thuri will put a wonderful edge on chisels and plane blades.


----------



## stringer

I think I might have scored a ruby red washita. In a ruby red painted box. Although the paint job isn't surviving the simple green much.

Before







After a few hours soak and some lapping


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> I think I might have scored a ruby red washita. In a ruby red painted box. Although the paint job isn't surviving the simple green much.
> 
> Before
> 
> View attachment 164932
> 
> 
> After a few hours soak and some lapping
> 
> View attachment 164935
> 
> 
> View attachment 164936



Another nice score! I've had a couple of stones that looked like that (one in fact is now in the possession of @KingShapton ) and they were toward the finer end of medium. So I don't think mine would've been Rosy Red type stones. But you never know - I've certainly never had or used anything that's known to be a RR, so I don't really have anything to compare to.

Your box though doesn't have the typical Pike/Norton joinery, so I'd guess has been made by someone who owned it previously. 

Looks a big size too . With the break down at the end so you could always just lap it even and still have a nice size stone plus a Washita 'rubbing stone'... make some sparks!


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> Another nice score! I've had a couple of stones that looked like that (one in fact is now in the possession of @KingShapton ) and they were toward the finer end of medium. So I don't think mine would've been Rosy Red type stones. But you never know - I've certainly never had or used anything that's known to be a RR, so I don't really have anything to compare to.
> 
> Your box though doesn't have the typical Pike/Norton joinery, so I'd guess has been made by someone who owned it previously.
> 
> Looks a big size too . With the break down at the end so you could always just lap it even and still have a nice size stone plus a Washita 'rubbing stone'... make some sparks!



I think someone put it in this box after it was broken. It's in their tight. I'll probably liberate it. But so far 36 hours in simple green and it hasn't budged. Usually the wood swells and breaks after that much time. I don't know if it's a ruby red or not. But it's definitely a red washita. I think someone painted that box red so they could identify it as the red one. It's very cool to see all the different strategies that old time woodworkers put into constructing their oil stone boxes. You really get a feeling for their personality sometimes. The ghost in the machine.


----------



## stringer

The reason I thought it might be is it looks very similar to this labelled 


one from a b and b thread









Rosy Red Washita


After 3-4 years I finally landed my Unicorn, (well, one of them) an 8x2 boxed Rosy Red Washita Oilstone. These are incredibly rare and only come up a few times a year on auction sites. The stone and labels are in great shape, but the box is oil soaked and showing its age. I haven't got to...




www.badgerandblade.com


----------



## stringer

stringer said:


> The reason I thought it might be is it looks very similar to this labelled View attachment 165047
> one from a b and b thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rosy Red Washita
> 
> 
> After 3-4 years I finally landed my Unicorn, (well, one of them) an 8x2 boxed Rosy Red Washita Oilstone. These are incredibly rare and only come up a few times a year on auction sites. The stone and labels are in great shape, but the box is oil soaked and showing its age. I haven't got to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.badgerandblade.com


But I also see labeled ones in that thread that are white so who knows? Were rosy reds supposed to be soft and fast?


----------



## Desert Rat

I think they were supposed to be the fastest.
If the stone is dirty it will be pretty hard to see the red.
I do wonder about them all coming from the same mine as some have claimed.

I think this later stone would have probably been graded as a Rosy Red if mined at an earlier date.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> I think someone painted that box red so they could identify it as the red one.



That's an interesting thought... could well be.

As DR said - they were supposedly like a particularly fast and coarse version of a LW, so they were white, but with a kinda pink/orange blush to parts of them (much like his picture above). Also had very low SGs, like 2 - 2.1. Whatever way - your new stone looks a good un to my eye .

To confuse matters - there was also a 'Red Washita' which are the only labelled No.2 Grades I've ever seen. I don't exactly know why they called them that, but perhaps they had some of the coloured banding that Griswold calls Calico stones (?). I also don't know if the Red Washita Label existed in the US, the only ones I've seen come up were in the UK.

(Your stone looks far too homogenous to be a No.2 I'd have thought. Just an interesting fact for you!)


----------



## cotedupy

Here's a picture of the old stone that had loads of pink dots under the microscope - I just pulled it out of degreaser to have a look. That kind of light orange-y colouring to some of the stone is what I assume is what Rosy Reds had. Very like @Desert Rat 's above.

(Not the darker brown colouring obviously - that's just where there's still oil in the stone).


----------



## cotedupy

So here’s a thing... soaking a Hindostan.

Hindos are not a million miles away from Dalmores. And I tried soaking my Dalmore recently which made it softer and quicker, and rather good. So a few evenings back I tried soaking Hindo. Except I forgot about it until today...

The effect is largely the same as soaking a Dalmore, though the Hindo still feels a bit nicer. When I was trying it, I thought it almost remided me of an Aoto. So I got out an old Tanaka Blue Aoto and had a look at comparing the polish:






Aoto:






Hindo:






The scratch pattern is quite similar, though perhaps the Hindo is slightly less aggressive. The biggest difference is that the Hindo has much darker cladding and more contrast. Which I though was pretty neat.

(I don’t think repeated soaking and drying would be great for a layered sandstone like a Hindostan TBH. But permasoaking hasn’t done it any damage it seems. Maybe I’ll leave one in the bucket!)


----------



## deltaplex

Does the hindo slurry more after the soaking? The one's I've used don't really self slurry much a a splash and go.


----------



## Desert Rat

Desert Rat said:


> Nice stones!
> I think the majority of vintage Washita's were white. Even the rosy red was mostly white so what we are seeing is old oil in the stone.
> Dirty stone.
> 
> 
> 
> Over night in Simple Green.
> [url=https://flic.kr/p/2m1fFg1]
> 
> 
> A couple of weeks in Simple Green.
> [url=https://flic.kr/p/2m5fG6h]


I have stored this stone in a sealed container of simple green since that photo was taken and forgotten about it until recently. I don't know how long it will take but eventually all traces of old oil might be removed. 

I kind of suspect that the old red oil that was in the stone was automatic transmission fluid. 

I can understand why the stone is so worn and dished. It's a very capable Washita, not sure if it's worth all the trouble to flatten it but I probably will at some point.


https://flic.kr/p/


----------



## stringer

Desert Rat said:


> I have stored this stone in a sealed container of simple green since that photo was taken and forgotten about it until recently. I don't know how long it will take but eventually all traces of old oil might be removed.
> 
> I kind of suspect that the old red oil that was in the stone was automatic transmission fluid.
> 
> I can understand why the stone is so worn and dished. It's a very capable Washita, not sure if it's worth all the trouble to flatten it but I probably will at some point.
> 
> 
> https://flic.kr/p/



I think you might be right about the transmission fluid. It's been soaking for several days now and it's gradually getting lighter and definitely no more red that my colorblind eyes can detect. But when I first put it in there the damn thing was bleeding from it's pores. It was something else.

It's interesting. I liberated it. The side that was in the box is badly dished. Somebody used it hard for years. Then it broke. They chiseled a wood box to match the curvature of the dished stone and fit it precisely. One of the cleanest tightest fits I have seen. Enough that I was sure they had repaired it with glue. But when I split the box with a swift blow from my trusty chisel, it turned out that the only thing holding it together was the pressure fit.

I'm not sure what I'll do with it now. I probably won't fix the dish. Seems like too much work. I think I will super glue the crack. Lap it nice. And then mount the dished side onto epoxy. Unless anyone had a better suggestion. I think it is going to be among the fastest of my washitas so far. My white one is quick but not as fast as this one. And that ancient butterscotch one is actually pretty hard and non-friable. More hard ark-like.

Here you can see they carved the box to match the dish to hold the cracked whetstone snug.















There's still a red dot of the transmission fluid or whatever the hell that is, but it's cleaning up nice


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> That's an interesting thought... could well be.
> 
> As DR said - they were supposedly like a particularly fast and coarse version of a LW, so they were white, but with a kinda pink/orange blush to parts of them (much like his picture above). Also had very low SGs, like 2 - 2.1. Whatever way - your new stone looks a good un to my eye .
> 
> To confuse matters - there was also a 'Red Washita' which are the only labelled No.2 Grades I've ever seen. I don't exactly know why they called them that, but perhaps they had some of the coloured banding that Griswold calls Calico stones (?). I also don't know if the Red Washita Label existed in the US, the only ones I've seen come up were in the UK.
> 
> (Your stone looks far too homogenous to be a No.2 I'd have thought. Just an interesting fact for you!)


To add to this the Woodworkers Delight was either a Rosy Red or Lilly White, so top of the line.

Some information from "Woodworkers Tools" catalog of 1897 by Charles A Strelinger & Co.

The first grade (which is the choicest selection) is usually given a fancy name, such as “Lily White,” “Rosy Red,” “Red Label,” etc. The second grade is called “Extra Washita.” The third “No. 1 Washita,” and the fourth “No. 2 Washita.” Of course the poorer grades predominate, and it is safe to estimate that eight-tenths of the Washita oil stones sold are of the third and fourth grades, and as only a limited percentage of the first grade are absolutely first- class, it is easy to understand why there are so many poor Washita oil stones, and so few good ones.

Wood Workers' Tools : Being a Catalogue of Tools, Supplies, Machinery, and Similar Goods : Charles A. Strelinger & Co. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Just editing to add that the grading system might well have changed through the years, I haven't really looked into it.


----------



## Desert Rat

stringer said:


> I think you might be right about the transmission fluid. It's been soaking for several days now and it's gradually getting lighter and definitely no more red that my colorblind eyes can detect. But when I first put it in there the damn thing was bleeding from it's pores. It was something else.
> 
> It's interesting. I liberated it. The side that was in the box is badly dished. Somebody used it hard for years. Then it broke. They chiseled a wood box to match the curvature of the dished stone and fit it precisely. One of the cleanest tightest fits I have seen. Enough that I was sure they had repaired it with glue. But when I split the box with a swift blow from my trusty chisel, it turned out that the only thing holding it together was the pressure fit.
> 
> I'm not sure what I'll do with it now. I probably won't fix the dish. Seems like too much work. I think I will super glue the crack. Lap it nice. And then mount the dished side onto epoxy. Unless anyone had a better suggestion. I think it is going to be among the fastest of my washitas so far. My white one is quick but not as fast as this one. And that ancient butterscotch one is actually pretty hard and non-friable. More hard ark-like.
> 
> Here you can see they carved the box to match the dish to hold the cracked whetstone snug.
> 
> View attachment 165168
> 
> 
> View attachment 165169
> 
> 
> View attachment 165170
> 
> There's still a red dot of the transmission fluid or whatever the hell that is, but it's cleaning up nice
> 
> View attachment 165173


Pretty nice fit he had there. Maybe Mohogany I'm not sure. Your right about getting a feel for the craftsman that made some of these boxes and I believe many handcrafted items. Some of that stuff has soul, not being able to find a better word to describe it.


----------



## Desert Rat

Some more from the Charles Stelinger catalog.

"There are various grades of Washita rock. The best whet-stones are very porous and uniform in texture. The poor grades are less porous, making them vitreous, or “glassy,” or they may have hard spots or sand holes"

So the more porous stones and probably faster seems to have been the highest grades. I'm not so sure I don't like the more vitreous stones more though.

I just came across this catalog today so this is all new information to me.


----------



## stringer

Desert Rat said:


> Some more from the Charles Stelinger catalog.
> 
> "There are various grades of Washita rock. The best whet-stones are very porous and uniform in texture. The poor grades are less porous, making them vitreous, or “glassy,” or they may have hard spots or sand holes"
> 
> So the more porous stones and probably faster seems to have been the highest grades. I'm not so sure I don't like the more vitreous stones more though.
> 
> I just came across this catalog today so this is all new information to me.



Back in the day they probably had a lot of choices for slow, fine stones. They must have really prized the quick cutting coarse ones because there wasn't a whole lot of other reliable options before synthetics hit the scene.


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> Some more from the Charles Stelinger catalog.
> 
> "There are various grades of Washita rock. The best whet-stones are very porous and uniform in texture. The poor grades are less porous, making them vitreous, or “glassy,” or they may have hard spots or sand holes"
> 
> So the more porous stones and probably faster seems to have been the highest grades. I'm not so sure I don't like the more vitreous stones more though.
> 
> I just came across this catalog today so this is all new information to me.



This is an interesting catalogue, cheers for posting! I haven't read through it all yet but one thing immediately jumped out at me:

_'The SOFT ARKANSAS OIL STONE might, perhaps, better be called Hard Washita, as it really par- takes more of the Washita than of the Arkansas nature. It cuts faster than the regular Arkansas, but not so fast as the Washita, leaves an edge not so fine as the Arkansas, but somewhat finer than the Washita; in price it is between the two.'_

So while Griswold in 1890 does not appear to have a category for Soft Arkansas, it clearly was a thing seven years later. As well as being noted that it is more like a type of Washita than an Arkansas.

---

There's certainly quite a lot in Griswold that talks about the best Washita stones being the most porous, as well as that table I posted above he says stuff like this quite often:

_'the more porous stones are the scarcer ones and the best stones for general use.'

'Thus, for carpenters' or mechanics' ordinary use, where it is not necessary to apply a pointed instrument to the stone, the most porous one is the best because it will abrade fastest.'_


----------



## cotedupy

deltaplex said:


> Does the hindo slurry more after the soaking? The one's I've used don't really self slurry much a a splash and go.



It does a little more, though still not massively. I used an atoma slurry for the polish, and then sharpened clean.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> I think you might be right about the transmission fluid. It's been soaking for several days now and it's gradually getting lighter and definitely no more red that my colorblind eyes can detect. But when I first put it in there the damn thing was bleeding from it's pores. It was something else.
> 
> It's interesting. I liberated it. The side that was in the box is badly dished. Somebody used it hard for years. Then it broke. They chiseled a wood box to match the curvature of the dished stone and fit it precisely. One of the cleanest tightest fits I have seen. Enough that I was sure they had repaired it with glue. But when I split the box with a swift blow from my trusty chisel, it turned out that the only thing holding it together was the pressure fit.
> 
> I'm not sure what I'll do with it now. I probably won't fix the dish. Seems like too much work. I think I will super glue the crack. Lap it nice. And then mount the dished side onto epoxy. Unless anyone had a better suggestion. I think it is going to be among the fastest of my washitas so far. My white one is quick but not as fast as this one. And that ancient butterscotch one is actually pretty hard and non-friable. More hard ark-like.
> 
> Here you can see they carved the box to match the dish to hold the cracked whetstone snug.
> 
> View attachment 165168
> 
> 
> View attachment 165169
> 
> 
> View attachment 165170
> 
> There's still a red dot of the transmission fluid or whatever the hell that is, but it's cleaning up nice
> 
> View attachment 165173



Yeah if the break’s clean enough it might be worth glue-ing back together. You’d obviously want a completely total degrease first cos glue generally doesn’t like oil.

I’d leave the dishing personally. Almost all my old novaculites are dished / unusable on one side. Far more trouble than it’s worth, as long as one side’s flat.


----------



## bsfsu

I just received this in the post











Then I did some cleaning








I finally got a Washita! So now my question is cleaning....

Everyone talks about simple green but do I dilute it? Or just straight like tequila should be drunk? (No salt/lime)


----------



## stringer

bsfsu said:


> I just received this in the post
> View attachment 165621
> View attachment 165622
> View attachment 165623
> 
> 
> Then I did some cleaning
> View attachment 165624
> View attachment 165625
> 
> 
> I finally got a Washita! So now my question is cleaning....
> 
> Everyone talks about simple green but do I dilute it? Or just straight like tequila should be drunk? (No salt/lime)


What I do is alternate dunking in straight simple green and clean water. Maybe start with 24 hours of each and see what happens.


----------



## stringer

Looks like a nice stone


----------



## captaincaed

bsfsu said:


> I just received this in the post
> View attachment 165621
> View attachment 165622
> View attachment 165623
> 
> 
> Then I did some cleaning
> View attachment 165624
> View attachment 165625
> 
> 
> I finally got a Washita! So now my question is cleaning....
> 
> Everyone talks about simple green but do I dilute it? Or just straight like tequila should be drunk? (No salt/lime)


If you dilute, it'll smell less strongly after, but take a bit longer. Remember washita are porous.


----------



## Desert Rat

bsfsu said:


> I just received this in the post
> View attachment 165621
> View attachment 165622
> View attachment 165623
> 
> 
> Then I did some cleaning
> View attachment 165624
> View attachment 165625
> 
> 
> I finally got a Washita! So now my question is cleaning....
> 
> Everyone talks about simple green but do I dilute it? Or just straight like tequila should be drunk? (No salt/lime)


Ooohh and it's a Lilly White.
Nice find!


----------



## stringer

I did decide to glue that broken washita. After several days of alternating soaking in simple green and plain water I gave the stone one final scrub. Then to try and get as much surface dust and grease off as I could, I did a final bath and scrub with rubbing alcohol. I super glued the crack with the gel super glue. After a few minutes I put the stone face down. Built a tape moat and flooded it with clear epoxy. The epoxy is still curing. But it looks pretty successful. I will have to do some more filling and lapping to get the crack smooth.





This is by far the least uniform washita I have.


----------



## stringer




----------



## cotedupy

bsfsu said:


> I just received this in the post
> View attachment 165621
> View attachment 165622
> View attachment 165623
> 
> 
> Then I did some cleaning
> View attachment 165624
> View attachment 165625
> 
> 
> I finally got a Washita! So now my question is cleaning....
> 
> Everyone talks about simple green but do I dilute it? Or just straight like tequila should be drunk? (No salt/lime)



Oooh... Pike LW. Very swish, congrats!

The stone itself you can just soak in any degreaser. SG works well, though stronger stuff is better. Undiluted. Then just put it in some water for a bit after.

Much as I hate to sound like a wanky stone collector, but the thing you really need to pay attention to is that label... I would clean further round the inside walls of the box using SG on a sponge or rag, but don't touch the label itself any more than you have to. Then when you've got the sides all clean, and any areas of the bottom that you can without damaging the label - seal it. Clear nail varnish, or wood varnish, just to make sure it's not gonna get beaten up or go anywhere.

Enjoy! It'll be an amazing stone .


----------



## KingShapton

stringer said:


> I did decide to glue that broken washita. After several days of alternating soaking in simple green and plain water I gave the stone one final scrub. Then to try and get as much surface dust and grease off as I could, I did a final bath and scrub with rubbing alcohol. I super glued the crack with the gel super glue. After a few minutes I put the stone face down. Built a tape moat and flooded it with clear epoxy. The epoxy is still curing. But it looks pretty successful. I will have to do some more filling and lapping to get the crack smooth.
> 
> View attachment 165666
> 
> This is by far the least uniform washita I have.
> View attachment 165667
> 
> 
> View attachment 165668
> 
> View attachment 165669
> 
> 
> View attachment 165670
> 
> View attachment 165671


Hmm, with the piece glued on, the stone looks odd, not great.

Better do yourself a favor and break off the glued piece. And so that you can't come up with such stupid ideas again, I'll write you my address and you'll send me the small piece to be on the safe side.

And just to please you, I'll use the little piece of Washita as a pocket whetstone....no problem for me, I'm happy to help....I'm known for my selflessness....and my sense of humor


----------



## KingShapton

stringer said:


> View attachment 165673


And if I leave out the humor... nicely done, I like it very much.


----------



## Desert Rat

KingShapton, I like them broken stones too. Like you said great for small knifes but also larger tools where I take the stone to the edge. Machete's, draw knifes, axes ect.
I think I paid ten or fifteen bucks for this one that is just the right size to fit in my hand. It didn't have the matching half or I would have probably done like Stringer and put them back together.


----------



## KingShapton

Desert Rat said:


> KingShapton, I like them broken stones too. Like you said great for small knifes but also larger tools where I take the stone to the edge. Machete's, draw knifes, axes ect.
> I think I paid ten or fifteen bucks for this one that is just the right size to fit in my hand. It didn't have the matching half or I would have probably done like Stringer and put them back together.


I'm actually still looking for a smaller Washita or a broken stone the size of yours.

But when I do find a stone of this size, they usually charge an outrageously high price for it. In addition, I live in Germany, which means high shipping costs and additional import duties. And in this way such a small stone usually becomes too expensive for my liking. Or rather, I currently have a "wish list" that is too big for my budget and have to think carefully about what I'm spending my money on.


----------



## BoSharpens

Desert Rat said:


> KingShapton, I like them broken stones too. Like you said great for small knifes but also larger tools where I take the stone to the edge. Machete's, draw knifes, axes ect.



Also works for touching up my Exacto blades and razor blades to get them back in shape quick.


----------



## captaincaed

Seeing what the SG reveals...


----------



## Luftmensch

cotedupy said:


> SG works well, though stronger stuff is better. Undiluted.



What would you recommend for stronger? I tried simple green.... not bad... but not transformative either. I was considering trying oven cleaner.... I am guessing the foam wouldnt absorb well. It would be great for stripping the surface but perhaps not anything below that... maybe straight lye solution would be better? Not sure if either of these are a bad idea for the bond of the stone.... likely not...





Luftmensch said:


> We moved in mid/late December. ...
> 
> Meanwhile... I have been looking for my stone holder for about two weeks



Found it yesterday!!


----------



## Greasylake

Luftmensch said:


> What would you recommend for stronger


Maybe varsol?


----------



## Luftmensch

Greasylake said:


> varsol



Interesting recommendation.... good point! Straight mineral turpentine might be quite effective... stinky stuff though!


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> Seeing what the SG reveals...View attachment 165721
> View attachment 165760



Woah there are some serious finds on this thread of late!

That’s another label very definitely worth preserving. It’s a very old stone - ‘Use Sperm Oil’ Pike Washitas are rare .


----------



## Luftmensch

cotedupy said:


> It’s a very old stone - ‘Use Sperm Oil’ Pike Washitas are rare .



I'm gonna let that one go through to the keeper...


----------



## cotedupy

Luftmensch said:


> I'm gonna let that one go through to the keeper...



I just tossed that one up for you, as it were .

Bloody Aussie batsmen!


----------



## rocketman

So, I started to send this home made Arkansas stone to Australia for expert opinion, only to find the UPS, and the USPS wanted to have someone carry it personally, at least that I what I thought after the cost quote. So I took a picture, and did a specific gravity measurement.. Turns out the SG is 2.27.
So based on that, ??????


----------



## deltaplex

Just by appearances it looks like a soft ark to me


----------



## captaincaed

I have on that looks similar, and was marketed as a Washita. I get the sense the label isn't terribly specific, but then again, there aren't hard distinctions in performance based on looks alone.


----------



## cotedupy

rocketman said:


> So, I started to send this home made Arkansas stone to Australia for expert opinion, only to find the UPS, and the USPS wanted to have someone carry it personally, at least that I what I thought after the cost quote. So I took a picture, and did a specific gravity measurement.. Turns out the SG is 2.27.
> So based on that, ??????View attachment 166797
> View attachment 166797



It certainly does look like the kind of soft ark that gets sold as Washitas nowadays. And that SG is bang in the middle of the range of old Pike-Norton Washitas, perhaps slightly above average.

Looks like a pretty cool stone tbh... Damn you American postal services!


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> I have stored this stone in a sealed container of simple green since that photo was taken and forgotten about it until recently. I don't know how long it will take but eventually all traces of old oil might be removed.
> 
> I kind of suspect that the old red oil that was in the stone was automatic transmission fluid.
> 
> I can understand why the stone is so worn and dished. It's a very capable Washita, not sure if it's worth all the trouble to flatten it but I probably will at some point.
> 
> 
> https://flic.kr/p/


Wow I missed a lot thanks email notifications hah.. Thought the thread died... Your nice boxed one @stringer isn't horribly dished as ours...  Luckily. I guess ours are like bowls.


Top one is so bad I'm debating taking it to the tile saw... If I cut at the lines I'll be left with a 1" thick stone still. 


@Desert Rat, this is mine I wanted perfectly flat... After a good hour on sandpaper. All I got was this and wanted and elbow replacement... It only had about 3mm dish max, almost across the whole length... Almost there! Haha... My 2 cents on fixing dished washitas. And yours looks like it maybe more dense as mines pretty porous. Probably have better luck with SiC powder and a steel sheet. They will Kill your diamond plate...

Also, nice finds!


----------



## Skylar303

rocketman said:


> So, I started to send this home made Arkansas stone to Australia for expert opinion, only to find the UPS, and the USPS wanted to have someone carry it personally, at least that I what I thought after the cost quote. So I took a picture, and did a specific gravity measurement.. Turns out the SG is 2.27.
> So based on that, ??????View attachment 166797
> View attachment 166797


These are some that I have that look similar, pretty sure the left is a soft ark. 


My arm got tired flattening some new stones... 


The right might be a washita since it transfers light slightly. (Incandescent light, LED was too bright to get a good pic)


----------



## cotedupy

KingShapton said:


> I'm actually still looking for a smaller Washita or a broken stone the size of yours.
> 
> But when I do find a stone of this size, they usually charge an outrageously high price for it. In addition, I live in Germany, which means high shipping costs and additional import duties. And in this way such a small stone usually becomes too expensive for my liking. Or rather, I currently have a "wish list" that is too big for my budget and have to think carefully about what I'm spending my money on.



PM sent mate... 

This is a cleaned up half of a broken 8x2, which I imagine was a Norton era Lily White. Very nice stone!


----------



## cotedupy

Everybody likes a good 'head-to-head' don't they? So let's look at the two best knife sharpening stones anyone has ever pulled up out of the ground anywhere....

*Turkish Oilstone vs Washita*













What Are They, and How Do They Work?

Both the Turkish stone and the Washita are usually classified as novaculites, though they're quite different from each other, and show the fluidity of the term.

Turkish Oilstones come/came from the island of Crete, which until 1898 was part of the Ottoman Empire, there isn't the space to look at this again but I've written about it quite extensively here. The Turkish stone is a very fine grained novaculite, yet is remarkably friable - it slurries quite unlike any other. Which means with pressure you can work a mud and the stone will act faster and coarser, whereas light pressure on a clean stone will leave an exceptionally fine finish.

Washitas come/came from the Hot Springs area of Arkansas, though what some people regard as 'true Washitas' are no longer quarried. Earlier in this thread I've talked about why that might not be quite accurate in a historical setting, nevertheless the better Washitas tend to be the very porous kind, that were sold for some time by Pike-Norton. Despite its porosity the Washita stone is very hard, and the combination of the two is essential in how they work; when using a Washita you are sharpening on a non-friable surface with thousands of tiny pores - which effectively act as thousands of cutting surfaces. On a microscopic level the surface of Washita stone is quite rough, and when used with more pressure you can take advantage of that to make the stone work coarser and faster. When used with light pressure the stone behaves more like other hard novaculites and will finish very fine.

Both the Turkish and the Washita are basically 100% Silica. But the porosity of the Washita stone means that it's specific gravity goes between about 2.0 - 2.4, whereas the Turkish stone has a SG of 2.6 - 2.64. To make a slightly simplified analogy: A Washita is like a highly porous version of a Arkansas, whereas the Turkish is like a friable version.


Appearance

Both of these stones are effectively white when new, because they're 100% silica, but will tend to come covered in many decades or hundreds of years of oil and swarf, so can be very difficult to identify. Though there are a couple of 'tells' which can help in identifying them in pictures. Both stones though can vary in appearance quite a lot, because of their structure.

Here are two Turkish stones, one brown the other black:






Both stones have distinctive lines running along the length of the surface, and these can sometimes be seen under the black grime. The other thing can be too are cracks. The Turkish stone almost always has cracks an inclusions in it - almost every one I've had has noticeable cracks on the underside. The larger of the two stones above was an ebay gamble, but as soon as I took it out of the holder and looked at the bottom I knew what the stone was. They hadn't pictured this because it's cracked, but if they had I would have bought it in a heartbeat and been happy to pay considerably more than the pittance I did. This is very distinctive of Turkish stones, and you only need one good surface anyway:







The Washita stone likewise can vary in appearance. The larger of these two stones has a distinctive mottled appearance because it has areas of different porosity, that have absorbed and retained oil differently, and this also can sometimes been seen or detected under the grime. The small stone is what a brand new, untouched Washita looked like. Though the brightness isn't actually the stone itself; the best, most desirable stones in the quarries were pure white, but when they were cut for sale they were treated with pumice powder, so every stone of every grade looked like this. This is actually a Lily White, but all of them looked like this because of the pumice:







In Use

As mentioned above both of these stones have a very large and comparable range of workable grits. Though the Washita stone is a little coarser going from maybe around 600 up to about 5k, whereas the Turkish might run from around 800 to 7k. Obviously these depend the stone in question - there is variation - but it means that either can be used quite happily as a 'one-stop-shop' for sharpening kitchen knives. And they do it very well indeed; leaving fine, but _very _toothy edges. Though both have a slightly tendency to create wire edges, because they're very fast for quite fine stones. The Turkish stone in particular can be difficult to deburr on. But when you have, the results are rather impressive. In both of these videos the knives had been breadknifed on coarse sandpaper before using the stone:






Verdict

I love both of these stones. They are way out ahead as my favourite sharpening stones, as you can probably tell from how many I've kept. I rarely sell either when I find them, they tend to just get added to the collection. But obviously part of the fun of a head-to-head is saying which is better.

The Turkish Oilstone was regarded for hundreds, probably thousands of years as the best sharpening stone in the world - they're described by Pliny the Elder as the best available in ancient Rome. But on the discovery and commercialisation of the Washita stone in the first half of the c.19th, it was branded as the 'Turkey Stone Killer' - able to do everything the Turkish stone could, with more consistency, at half the price. And indeed because of this they rapidly replaced the Turkish Oilstone in many markets.

If you'd asked me six months ago; I would have said I preferred the Turkish Oilstone by a whisker, but I think I might have changed my mind. The Washita is slightly easier to use that the Turkish, and though both are fast, it works a little quicker for coarse work. Forced to choose one, for knife sharpening based simply on performance... I would probably take a very good Washita over any other stone in the world.


----------



## cotedupy

(And yes... perhaps even over the mighty India Coarse and Fine! But that's why I can't wait to get my hands on a recently purchased Coarse India x Lily White Washita combi ).


----------



## KingShapton

cotedupy said:


> PM sent mate...


PM sent back. And thank you for your help.


----------



## captaincaed

Finally out of the simple green and lapped flat. Not really a looker, and still has a bit of a divot but feels great. Didn’t have the heart to lose all that stone, I’ll just sharpen around the divot until it needs more flattening. You know, in 2032.


----------



## Desert Rat

Skylar303 said:


> Wow I missed a lot thanks email notifications hah.. Thought the thread died... Your nice boxed one @stringer isn't horribly dished as ours...  Luckily. I guess ours are like bowls.
> View attachment 166983
> 
> Top one is so bad I'm debating taking it to the tile saw... If I cut at the lines I'll be left with a 1" thick stone still.
> View attachment 166984
> 
> @Desert Rat, this is mine I wanted perfectly flat... After a good hour on sandpaper. All I got was this and wanted and elbow replacement... It only had about 3mm dish max, almost across the whole length... Almost there! Haha... My 2 cents on fixing dished washitas. And yours looks like it maybe more dense as mines pretty porous. Probably have better luck with SiC powder and a steel sheet. They will Kill your diamond plate...
> 
> Also, nice finds!


The closer we get to flat the more material needs to be removed. It's a cruel proccess.
I have a couple of stones that have a divet in the very center.


----------



## Desert Rat

The difference between a colored Washita and a soft Ark can be almost impossible to tell apart from a photo. I thought at one time that the colored stones were not Washita's at all. They are different from the vintage ones but they are also different from the soft arks.

Washita, soft, washita, soft.





[url=https://flic.kr/p/2n67bDK]


----------



## KingShapton

Desert Rat said:


> The difference between a colored Washita and a soft Ark can be almost impossible to tell apart from a photo. I thought at one time that the colored stones were not Washita's at all. They are different from the vintage ones but they are also different from the soft arks.
> 
> Washita, soft, washita, soft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [url=https://flic.kr/p/2n67bDK]


Until some time ago (and some info here) I would never have thought that the colored stone is a Washita... beautiful stone!


----------



## Desert Rat

KingShapton said:


> Until some time ago (and some info here) I would never have thought that the colored stone is a Washita... beautiful stone!


The white parts are harder and less friable than the colored areas. A flawed stone but still useful. The colored soft ark beside it is uniform throughout.

Seems a color change doesn't necessarily mean a change in the stone but every time I notice a change in an Ark it's marked by a color change.

Has any one noticed a change in an ark with out a change in color?


----------



## deltaplex

Desert Rat said:


> The difference between a colored Washita and a soft Ark can be almost impossible to tell apart from a photo. I thought at one time that the colored stones were not Washita's at all. They are different from the vintage ones but they are also different from the soft arks.
> 
> Washita, soft, washita, soft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [url=https://flic.kr/p/2n67bDK]


Do you just determine this by how they feel while lapping and/or sharpening with?


----------



## Desert Rat

deltaplex said:


> Do you just determine this by how they feel while lapping and/or sharpening with?


 Looks, feel and feedback.
The surface of a Washita has a more mottled appearance. The colored ones are also more friable, faster than softs. This can be felt in the feedback. Most soft arks also glaze a lot faster than the Washita's.

I will see if my better half might help me make a video so that it can be seen.


----------



## VICTOR J CREAZZI

Desert Rat said:


> Has any one noticed a change in an ark with out a change in color?


My, what I'm pretty sure is a washita, is a uniform mottled white and does have a softer area near the center. Usually it's not very noticeable in feel and not at all visually.


----------



## Desert Rat

Here is a video of the difference between the soft Arks and the Washita's. Visually it's not as apparent as it is in person.


----------



## Desert Rat

Some more stone nerd stuff.

Ringing arks to judge density...


----------



## captaincaed

Desert Rat said:


> Some more stone nerd stuff.
> 
> Ringing arks to judge density...



Man those first three are clearly (as a bell) different. Very cool


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> Here is a video of the difference between the soft Arks and the Washita's. Visually it's not as apparent as it is in person.



Thanks for the video, subtle differences. It seems the white non molted ones cut faster? Or is it just easier to see swarf? The first 2 sets didn't seem to have as much? 

Also, what is the molted (I want to say it is the soft) backed with?


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> Some more stone nerd stuff.
> 
> Ringing arks to judge density...



Interesting, I haven't actually tapped mine with anything metal. (In fears of hitting it too hard and breaking, since most of mine are under 1/4th") I've tapped on them with my nail like the first video, that one in the first set made a pretty auditory ring when tapped. 

For those still confused most of the time by ark-shitas... Were the first 3 the same type of arks or 3 different? Then soft/washitas?

I'm going to have to re-watch the video a few times as I tap my stones along with hah.


----------



## stringer

Desert Rat said:


> Some more stone nerd stuff.
> 
> Ringing arks to judge density...




Had to try it 

Cheers


----------



## Desert Rat

Skylar303 said:


> Thanks for the video, subtle differences. It seems the white non molted ones cut faster? Or is it just easier to see swarf? The first 2 sets didn't seem to have as much?
> 
> Also, what is the molted (I want to say it is the soft) backed with?


The Mottled one is a Smith's Washita, hard ark combo. 

The colored washita's are on the fast side but they are not as fast as that particular vintage stone. 
IMO, vintage washta > colored > soft.

Not sure how a denser Washita can be faster than a less dense ark but that has been my experience.


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> The Mottled one is a Smith's Washita, hard ark combo.
> 
> The colored washita's are on the fast side but they are not as fast as that particular vintage stone.
> IMO, vintage washta > colored > soft.
> 
> Not sure how a denser Washita can be faster than a less dense ark but that has been my experience.


Ah very cool! That's sort of what I'm trying to do with some of the pocket stones.

Yeah interesting, variances between the 'vintage' and new arks/washitas.

Hmm more uniform abrasives? Almost like a diamond plate. Where the porous ones would be missing 'diamonds' in those spots? Bad wording... So continual abrasive vs sporadic? (For lack of a better term atm...)


----------



## Desert Rat

Skylar303 said:


> Interesting, I haven't actually tapped mine with anything metal. (In fears of hitting it too hard and breaking, since most of mine are under 1/4th") I've tapped on them with my nail like the first video, that one in the first set made a pretty auditory ring when tapped.
> 
> For those still confused most of the time by ark-shitas... Were the first 3 the same type of arks or 3 different? Then soft/washitas?
> 
> I'm going to have to re-watch the video a few times as I tap my stones along with hah.


I should have said in the video. The first three are arks, soft, hard and black in that order.

They next four in order are Wasita, soft, Washita and translucent.

Can you hear the differences in the smaller stones?


----------



## Skylar303

stringer said:


> Had to try it
> 
> Cheers



The first washita you tested. What did you say? Is it "this was bought washita"? 

That ring on that surgical black though! Hard to miss that one.


----------



## stringer

Skylar303 said:


> The first washita you tested. What did you say? Is it "this was bought washita"?
> 
> That ring on that surgical black though! Hard to miss that one.



Buck Washita. NOS from the 1960s or 1970s.

Yeah, that black rang so hard it about cracked the phone mic.


----------



## Desert Rat

Skylar303 said:


> Ah very cool! That's sort of what I'm trying to do with some of the pocket stones.
> 
> Yeah interesting, variances between the 'vintage' and new arks/washitas.
> 
> Hmm more uniform abrasives? Almost like a diamond plate. Where the porous ones would be missing 'diamonds' in those spots? Bad wording... So continual abrasive vs sporadic? (For lack of a better term atm...)


I honestly have know idea why. Maybe some one with a scope could figure it out?

Additionally some stones just seem to cut better and I can't explain why. I have small Smith's soft hard combo that the hard seems to cut faster than the soft and it never seems to get polished enough to stop.


----------



## Desert Rat

stringer said:


> Buck Washita. NOS from the 1960s or 1970s.
> 
> Yeah, that black rang so hard it about cracked the phone mic.


That hammer is kind of scary! 
I dropped one end of my hard black making that ringing video. Might be a good thing I always put a towel down.


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> I should have said in the video. The first three are arks, soft, hard and black in that order.
> 
> They next four in order are Wasita, soft, Washita and translucent.
> 
> Can you hear the differences in the smaller stones?


Yeah subtle but definitely different. I have a few that ring and a few that 'thud' or sound like its being hit with a dead blow hammer. Like the first, and the smaller ones. 

Would overall thickness affect the tone of the ring? I'm testing some that are as little as 4mm and as thick as close to 2". But avg probably 1/4-1/2".

Also, even after googling it, for the life of me can't figure out SG of my rectangle stones... LxWxH÷M=V? (I literally can't math to save my life...) I used that and came out with numbers like 44.x hah...


----------



## stringer

Skylar303 said:


> Also, even after googling it, for the life of me can't figure out SG of my rectangle stones... LxWxH÷M=V? (I literally can't math to save my life...) I used that and came out with numbers like 44.x hah...



I have my setup ready right now. I'll do a video.


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> I honestly have know idea why. Maybe some one with a scope could figure it out?
> 
> Additionally some stones just seem to cut better and I can't explain why. I have small Smith's soft hard combo that the hard seems to cut faster than the soft and it never seems to get polished enough to stop.


Insert *cotedupy* here. *cough*.

Hah that's is interesting. Smith's is one of the more recent companies? Like Dan's, with new grading standards. 

It could even boil down to which mine it was from. But certain ones had more abrasive stones. And all were forced into the few categories for grading, which might of been on the cusp of being one or the other? Like what was it pikes mine no. 9? Was supposed to have the 'best' stones. And I think Dan's owns it now?


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> That hammer is kind of scary!
> I dropped one end of my hard black making that ringing video. Might be a good thing I always put a towel down.


Yeah I might use something that's meant for less destruction haha.

Yeah I saw that the first time and was like yikes!


----------



## Desert Rat

Skylar303 said:


> Yeah subtle but definitely different. I have a few that ring and a few that 'thud' or sound like its being hit with a dead blow hammer. Like the first, and the smaller ones.
> 
> Would overall thickness affect the tone of the ring? I'm testing some that are as little as 4mm and as thick as close to 2". But avg probably 1/4-1/2".
> 
> Also, even after googling it, for the life of me can't figure out SG of my rectangle stones... LxWxH÷M=V? (I literally can't math to save my life...) I used that and came out with numbers like 44.x hah...


Yes the shape of the stone matters. It's just comparable to like sized stones.


----------



## stringer

Basically you need to weigh the stone in grams. Then see how much water the stone displaces to get it's volume. Divide mass by volume.


----------



## Desert Rat

Skylar303 said:


> Insert *cotedupy* here. *cough*.
> 
> Hah that's is interesting. Smith's is one of the more recent companies? Like Dan's, with new grading standards.
> 
> It could even boil down to which mine it was from. But certain ones had more abrasive stones. And all were forced into the few categories for grading, which might of been on the cusp of being one or the other? Like what was it pikes mine no. 9? Was supposed to have the 'best' stones. And I think Dan's owns it now?


Virtually impossible to tell what mines these stones come from with the trading between company's. Doesn't most of it come off of one mountain?


----------



## stringer

Skylar303 said:


> Yeah I might use something that's meant for less destruction haha.
> 
> Yeah I saw that the first time and was like yikes!



It's actually a tiny ball peen hammer. I use it to peen razor pins. It just looked big because I was holding it very close to the camera. I was definitely more concerned with dropping the stone than hitting it with the hammer.


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> Virtually impossible to tell what mines these stones come from with the trading between company's. Doesn't most of it come off of one mountain?


Yeah definitely is, even with x-ray and all that fancy noise.

I think the main ones were, I think they had side mines on other in the area. That's a question for cotedupy, hah.


----------



## Skylar303

stringer said:


> Basically you need to weigh the stone in grams. Then see how much water the stone displaces to get it's volume. Divide mass by volume.



This is how I do it with gemstones. But other mentioned a dry method which isn't as accurate. But since I may not have a scale that can hold a tub of water + stone, I maybe out of luck... And of course for whatever dumb reason my bathroom scale requires foot prints to even operate...


----------



## stringer

Skylar303 said:


> This is how I do it with gemstones. But other mentioned a dry method which isn't as accurate. But since I may not have a scale that can hold a tub of water + stone, I maybe out of luck... And of course for whatever dumb reason my bathroom scale requires foot prints to even operate...



This is the most accurate way. If your stone has regular dimensions then you can measure the volume that way. Length * width * height. One mL water = 1 cm cubed = 1 gram. 

Specific density is mass divided by the mass of water that would occupy the same volume. 

So in this case 363 grams for the stone.

20.3cm X 50.8cm X 6.4cm = 133

363/133 = 2.73

Close but most stones aren't perfectly square.


----------



## Skylar303

stringer said:


> This is the most accurate way. If your stone has regular dimensions then you can measure the volume that way. Length * width * height. One mL = 1 cm cubed.
> 
> So in this case 363 grams
> 
> 20.3cm X 50.8cm X 6.4cm = 133
> 
> 363/133 = 2.73
> 
> Close but most stones aren't perfectly square.


Off to check the weight tolerances of my scales hah. Yeah I think my mess up was not using cm but mm (somewhat the same) and trying to convert those into inches maybe if i just did cm it would've worked... Like I said -Anti-Maths...


----------



## stringer

Skylar303 said:


> Off to check the weight tolerances of my scales hah. Yeah I think my mess up was not using cm but mm (somewhat the same) and trying to convert those into inches maybe if i just did cm it would've worked... Like I said -Anti-Maths...



You might not even need to remeasure. Just move your decimal three places on the volume calculation


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> I should have said in the video. The first three are arks, soft, hard and black in that order.
> 
> They next four in order are Wasita, soft, Washita and translucent.
> 
> Can you hear the differences in the smaller stones?



This is all very interesting... Fetch me my Pealing Spoon!

(I shall watch the videos in a bit, but I'm assuming that for direct comparisons I'm going to need to compare same size stones...?)


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> This is all very interesting... Fetch me my Pealing Spoon!
> 
> (I shall watch the videos in a bit, but I'm assuming that for direct comparisons I'm going to need to compare same size stones...?)



In an ideal world they would all be the same dimension. But I think this is one of those cases where you can get some usual information anyways. From coarse muted ones to those blacks and translucents that ring like a bell.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

We gots some Archimedes measuring going on.

Science.


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> The Mottled one is a Smith's Washita, hard ark combo.
> 
> The colored washita's are on the fast side but they are not as fast as that particular vintage stone.
> IMO, vintage washta > colored > soft.
> 
> Not sure how a denser Washita can be faster than a less dense ark but that has been my experience.



So my understanding of this is (again) do to with porosity and structure, though it's slight guesswork...

If novaculite is a combination of micro and cryptocrystalline quartz then you would assume that the ratio of one to the other, in the formation of the novaculite from chert, is going to affect the SG. More crypto is going to result in more dense novaculites like hard black and tran arks.

But unlike 'Arkansas' stones the specific gravity of Washitas doesn't only depend on this; it's thrown completely off by its porosity, which gives the cutting speed. So a Washita stone can have a SG that's made higher by how hard it is and the proportion of cryptocrystalline quartz, and then lowered somewhat by it's high porosity. When compared to a Soft Ark that has a higher proportion microcrystalline quartz in the structure but lower porosity, the Washita stone can end up having a higher SG, and yet cut faster.

Did that make sense...? Probably not, and it's only a guess anyway.


----------



## cotedupy

I measured all my Washita SGs the other day. These get screwed up slightly because of how much oil is still in the stones; 1, 4 and 5 in particular would probably be lower than this if fully degreased, but I've done it for weeks now and they seemed to have reached their happy place. Nevertheless here they are fwiw:







1 (Pike Lily White) - 2.45
2 (30s/40s Norton Lily White) - 2.33
3 (30s/40s Norton No.1) - 2.19
4 - 2.35
5 - 2.36
6 - 2.21
7 - I've glued this to an India to make a combi, so can't measure.


Trying to judge a Washita by its looks, as people have said above, is something of a fool's errand. But to some extent I think it can be done, if you know how you like 'em and what to look for. My favourite two I've ever had are 4 & 5 in the picture above and they look very similar; the way the oil has been retained is uneven giving them a mottled appearance. Perhaps uncoincidentally they also look quite similar the @stringer 's recent stone that he rates highly.

I assume it's different levels of porosity within the stone, as it doesn't wear at different rates - the structure across them is equally hard. Looked at alongside stone 1, a labelled Pike Lily White probably of a similar age and still with lots of oil in it, and you can see the uniformity of the Lily White in relation.

It also shows why you can't also really judge them by their labels either - the Pike LW is probably my least favourite stone there, because I largely use Washitas for knife work. It's my go-to for razors, but (imo) using a Washita on a razor is a bit like all those people who have a Lamborghini in the garage but only drive it occasionally, through central London, in solid traffic.

It's just about what you like really!


----------



## cotedupy

HumbleHomeCook said:


> We gots some Archimedes measuring going on.
> 
> Science.



We're at the cutting edge of scientific thinking here on the Washita thread!


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> Finally out of the simple green and lapped flat. Not really a looker, and still has a bit of a divot but feels great. Didn’t have the heart to lose all that stone, I’ll just sharpen around the divot until it needs more flattening. You know, in 2032.
> View attachment 167790



Not a looker!? Take that back! She's _beautiful_. And also looks like she'll have some of that mottled oil appearance I mentioned above.

If ever you want to sell or swap it, you know where to come .


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> The difference between a colored Washita and a soft Ark can be almost impossible to tell apart from a photo. I thought at one time that the colored stones were not Washita's at all. They are different from the vintage ones but they are also different from the soft arks.
> 
> Washita, soft, washita, soft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [url=https://flic.kr/p/2n67bDK]



Of the two reddish coloured stones on the right, I'd be interested to hear if the Washita was notably harder than the soft ark in terms of friability. As I mentioned above; something I associate with Washitas is porosity combined with hardness of structure - like a sponge made out of Hard Arkansas material. My red stripy soft ark is far softer and more friable than any Washita I have, even ones of identical SG.

But I've never had a modern stripy Washita, so it'd be interesting to know if that thinking held true for them too.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

cotedupy said:


> We're at the cutting edge of scientific thinking here on the Washita thread!



Forgive my momentary wandering...

Once upon a lifetime ago, my freshman science teacher was Doug Cooper. Now, to say that school was not a high priority for me at that time would be a gross understatement but I liked and respected Mr. Cooper. My family knew him and he was a volunteer firefighter in my dad's battalion. So, I made an effort to go to his class.

I don't remember the lead in anymore but I remember Mr. Cooper trying to get us to understand how you could tell what a goblet weighed without weighing it, or something like that. Twenty-odd, mostly pre-cable, let alone internet, 14 year olds, wracked our brains but clearly gave incorrect answers. So Mr. Cooper asked what happens when you sit in a bathtub. Getting wet, warm, clean, etc were not the answers he was looking for and while I don't remember the actual term he used for our lack of mental acuity, I do remember the sentiment. He went on to explain how the water rises, or displaces, and how math can get you a weight.

Now, me and math get along like lions and hyenas and my relationship with school was even worse. So, I managed to scrape out a diploma and join the military.

Fast forward some decades, and as nearly impossible as it would've seemed to anyone back then, I now work in a highly scientific job with some brilliant minds. I'm not one of them. But I found myself as the project leader of a new product that required Archimedes to determine specific gravity and I fondly remembered Mr. Cooper's lesson. 

The water rises.

Anyways... Washita stones...


----------



## ethompson

Next time I’m at my parents’ place I’m going stone hunting (Hot Springs general area, got some family and friends with land that could have novaculite deposits). Already got some antique stones heading my way from asking around with some of our older family friends if they had anything in the shed etc. If I ever find anything worthwhile I’ll do a mass drop or host people for a “mine your own” party 

seriously though, I never appreciated until a few months ago that I grew up just down the road from a sharpening Mecca.


----------



## cotedupy

HumbleHomeCook said:


> Forgive my momentary wandering...
> 
> Once upon a lifetime ago, my freshman science teacher was Doug Cooper. Now, to say that school was not a high priority for me at that time would be a gross understatement but I liked and respected Mr. Cooper. My family knew him and he was a volunteer firefighter in my dad's battalion. So, I made an effort to go to his class.
> 
> I don't remember the lead in anymore but I remember Mr. Cooper trying to get us to understand how you could tell what a goblet weighed without weighing it, or something like that. Twenty-odd, mostly pre-cable, let alone internet, 14 year olds, wracked our brains but clearly gave incorrect answers. So Mr. Cooper asked what happens when you sit in a bathtub. Getting wet, warm, clean, etc were not the answers he was looking for and while I don't remember the actual term he used for our lack of mental acuity, I do remember the sentiment. He went on to explain how the water rises, or displaces, and how math can get you a weight.
> 
> Now, me and math get along like lions and hyenas and my relationship with school was even worse. So, I managed to scrape out a diploma and join the military.
> 
> Fast forward some decades, and as nearly impossible as it would've seemed to anyone back then, I now work in a highly scientific job with some brilliant minds. I'm not one of them. But I found myself as the project leader of a new product that required Archimedes to determine specific gravity and I fondly remembered Mr. Cooper's lesson.
> 
> The water rises.
> 
> Anyways... Washita stones...




Excellent diversion! It reminded me of a physics teacher I once had, who was perhaps a slightly more combatative and less nice version of your Mr. Cooper.

He'd do stuff like - arrive to the class, shout "How many blind Piano Tuners are there in Greater London?", and then sod off for a cup of coffee in the staff room. Returning only for the final ten minutes to tell us how we were all idiots who couldn’t think straight, and bark “What garbage!” “UTTER ROT!” a few times.

Nevertheless I rather liked him. Though it was so well known that he didn’t touch even on the fringes of the curriculum, that our class had to have a second physics teacher to take half the lessons, and actually get us through the exams.


----------



## BoSharpens

If all the above isn't confusing, I don't know what confusion is.

I simply use what stones I've collected over decades and they sharpen or hone ... or not.

It is very interesting to me all the types of natural stones and comments on use, but I've got to get the work out ... so ... back to work.


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> Of the two reddish coloured stones on the right, I'd be interested to hear if the Washita was notably harder than the soft ark in terms of friability. As I mentioned above; something I associate with Washitas is porosity combined with hardness of structure - like a sponge made out of Hard Arkansas material. My red stripy soft ark is far softer and more friable than any Washita I have, even ones of identical SG.
> 
> But I've never had a modern stripy Washita, so it'd be interesting to know if that thinking held true for them too.


The Washita is friable the soft ark not so much. Soft arks are very good at glazing over compared to Washita's. The feedback on the soft is softer than the Washita but the Washita is more friable.

I suspect you are going to tell me that is how your soft is?


----------



## Desert Rat

HumbleHomeCook said:


> Forgive my momentary wandering...
> 
> Once upon a lifetime ago, my freshman science teacher was Doug Cooper. Now, to say that school was not a high priority for me at that time would be a gross understatement but I liked and respected Mr. Cooper. My family knew him and he was a volunteer firefighter in my dad's battalion. So, I made an effort to go to his class.
> 
> I don't remember the lead in anymore but I remember Mr. Cooper trying to get us to understand how you could tell what a goblet weighed without weighing it, or something like that. Twenty-odd, mostly pre-cable, let alone internet, 14 year olds, wracked our brains but clearly gave incorrect answers. So Mr. Cooper asked what happens when you sit in a bathtub. Getting wet, warm, clean, etc were not the answers he was looking for and while I don't remember the actual term he used for our lack of mental acuity, I do remember the sentiment. He went on to explain how the water rises, or displaces, and how math can get you a weight.
> 
> Now, me and math get along like lions and hyenas and my relationship with school was even worse. So, I managed to scrape out a diploma and join the military.
> 
> Fast forward some decades, and as nearly impossible as it would've seemed to anyone back then, I now work in a highly scientific job with some brilliant minds. I'm not one of them. But I found myself as the project leader of a new product that required Archimedes to determine specific gravity and I fondly remembered Mr. Cooper's lesson.
> 
> The water rises.
> 
> Anyways... Washita stones...


Lab tech?


----------



## VICTOR J CREAZZI

Desert Rat said:


> The Washita is friable the soft ark not so much. Soft arks are very good at glazing over compared to Washita's. The feedback on the soft is softer than the Washita but the Washita is more friable.
> 
> I suspect you are going to tell me that is how your soft is?


I just about have myself convinced that my washita is a washita and now you describe them as friable. I wouldn't describe my stone as friable at all.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

Desert Rat said:


> Lab tech?



Manufacturing Engineering Tech and Project Manager.


----------



## Desert Rat

VICTOR J CREAZZI said:


> I just about have myself convinced that my washita is a washita and now you describe them as friable. I wouldn't describe my stone as friable at all.


It's all relative and I'm comparing it to the soft ark.

I think most of the confusion is because the manufactures have been mixing the stones up for a long time now. Washita's tagged as soft Arks (thanks Norton) and more recently even softs tagged as Washita's and that's before we bring in the colored Washita.

The colored Washita shares the splotchy pattern that is prevalent in many of the old Washita's. It's an identifier that the soft doesn't have. I think the only way to tell them apart for most is experience by handling enough examples of all kinds.

I thought I could help others sort it out but I have failed.

Carry on.......


----------



## cotedupy

.


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> The Washita is friable the soft ark not so much. Soft arks are very good at glazing over compared to Washita's. The feedback on the soft is softer than the Washita but the Washita is more friable.
> 
> I suspect you are going to tell me that is how your soft is?



Yep! My coloured soft is quite friable with a slightly sandy feel. It's pretty quick, certainly comparable to a fast P-N Washita, though can't be made to finish as fine because it's not as hard.. My Norton Soft is very different; much slower, less friable, and feels like a very glazed Washita even to begin with. They also have very different SGs, which I'll post below.

In use the coloured stone acts more similarly to a P-N Washita, though the Norton Soft looks more like one, and I certainly prefer the coloured one even though I imagine it's quite a cheap stone. In my mind (and seems to be confirmed by what you've said) my coloured 'soft' is the kind of Calico stone that some companies sell as Washitas.



Desert Rat said:


> It's all relative and I'm comparing it to the soft ark.
> 
> I think most of the confusion is because the manufactures have been mixing the stones up for a long time now. Washita's tagged as soft Arks (thanks Norton) and more recently even softs tagged as Washita's and that's before we bring in the colored Washita.
> 
> The colored Washita shares the splotchy pattern that is prevalent in many of the old Washita's. It's an identifier that the soft doesn't have. I think the only way to tell them apart for most is experience by handling enough examples of all kinds.
> 
> I thought I could help others sort it out but I have failed.
> 
> Carry on.......



You know all these US stones far better than I do, but FWIW - this is basically exactly the conclusions I've come to.

It's probably a little reductive to try to draw very hard definitions and distinctions between stones that are all effectively the same thing and exist on spectrums of porosity and hardness. There's so much in Griswold about this kind of thing, and the massive variation in Ouachita stones anyway.

Frankly I think anyone should call the stones whatever they fancy, as you say - the companies all did. And other companies have every bit as much right to call a stone a 'Washita' as P-N did.

---

@VICTOR J CREAZZI - If you don't have one, would you like an old P-N Washita sometime, so you have something to compare...?

For a variety of reasons they're far, far more common to come across in Aus and the UK than they are in the US. I'm probably going to keep all the ones I have atm, but I find them often, so will have more to move on at some point, and can give you a shout if you'd like? Also shipping to the US from Aus isn't all that bad.


----------



## captaincaed

cotedupy said:


> Not a looker!? Take that back! She's _beautiful_. And also looks like she'll have some of that mottled oil appearance I mentioned above.
> 
> If ever you want to sell or swap it, you know where to come .


----------



## cotedupy

Excluding Washitas I only have a handful of 'Arkansas' stones, so this isn't a particularly exhaustive example, but there are a couple of interesting things to see.








Norton Soft Arkansas - 2.47
Norton Hard (Translucent) Arkansas - 2.62
Norton Hard (Black) Arkansas - 2.66
Natural Hones Co. Soft Arkansas - 2.14

Well the first thing that jumps out at you here is wild difference between the two Soft Arks, though having used them it doesn't surprise me - the stones very different beasts. For reference; the Natural Stones Soft has an SG that would be pretty low for a P-N Washita, while the Norton Soft probably exceeds the high end of their range. One of the reasons I've stopped trying to strongly define Washitas and Soft Arks is because these two stones are more different from each other, both in use and SG, than each of them is from a P-N Washita.

The Hard Ark SGs did surprise me though - that Black reading is _very _high. I'd never much bought into the idea that the finest Black Arks were finer than Translucents, to me these stones are indistinguishable in use. But the SGs are probably different enough that a more expert razor-person I imagine could tell that the black was marginally finer.

It also highlights something that I've said elsewhere - SG readings are useless you're comparing two stones of the exact same type. The SG reading of the translucent would be at the lower end of Turkish Oilstones, which probably average around 2.63, but no Turkish is as fine as a translucent ark. SG comparisons even between two novaculites are pretty meaningless as a gauge for how fine a stone is, unless they are the same type. Because there are all sorts of other factors involved as well as density.


----------



## ables

Hello thread. I have a few washita stones too, they are by far my favorite knife stone. To my hands nothing beats the perfect steel ripping friction on a fresh washita for most blades. 

Here are a few of mine. Norton LW and a once dirty stone I degreased which is a bit bigger and faster. The bigger one is used most in my house and shreds knife steel. 













This one below was a "Keen Kutter Lily White Grit" and is almost identical to the norton in feel and dimensions.


----------



## ables

bsfsu said:


> @Desert Rat I have been wondering about the small slurry stone. It is wider than the thuri and completely a different colour.
> 
> @SirCutAlot I have got a nice edge on a W2 knife with the thuri but definitely quite hard. I want to have a play with some chisels and plane blades at some stage.
> View attachment 164349
> View attachment 164351
> View attachment 164352
> 
> 
> The large black slate looks to have been cut down at different times as there is 3 types of cut marks on it, I'm thinking it's been around for a while. It seems harder than the thuri but I need to have some more play time with it. I need some scissor finishing stones so these are all going into the collection.
> View attachment 164345
> View attachment 164346
> View attachment 164347
> View attachment 164348
> 
> I'm hoping to get some washita's soon! (might be SiC though)



Im not sure if you figured it out, but I am 95% certain that the small slurry stone you have here is a Frictionite barber hone "rubber stone" for cleaning/refreshing the stone. Or atleast an American hone company rubber stone. Here is mine I got out of a barber mixed lot.




It actually is a fantastic slurry stone and works great on softer stones such as coticule/thurigan which don't have a matching stone. In the barbers lot I got thats what the old barber used it for as it was covered in coti slurry. It doesn't seem to spit harmful grit and will work up a slurry decently quick.


----------



## bsfsu

ables said:


> Im not sure if you figured it out, but I am 95% certain that the small slurry stone you have here is a Frictionite barber hone "rubber stone" for cleaning/refreshing the stone. Or atleast an American hone company rubber stone. Here is mine I got out of a barber mixed lot.
> View attachment 168241
> View attachment 168242
> 
> 
> It actually is a fantastic slurry stone and works great on softer stones such as coticule/thurigan which don't have a matching stone. In the barbers lot I got thats what the old barber used it for as it was covered in coti slurry. It doesn't seem to spit harmful grit and will work up a slurry decently quick.


That looks exactly like mine! Thanks @ables. It does make a nice slurry on naturals.


----------



## rocketman

So today, I dug around in the shop, and exposed three Norton 313 sharpening stone sets.. These are the ones 11.5" long, with three stones involved.
I do not remember where the stones came from, but instead of the normal 1/2" thickness, I have three 1" thick stones...The other two tri hones are normal
India, and crystalon stones I actually cleaned them up, as all of the c


lean stones y


ou guys are showing are embarrassing me. 


Arkansas images enclosed.


----------



## Desert Rat

rocketman said:


> So today, I dug around in the shop, and exposed three Norton 313 sharpening stone sets.. These are the ones 11.5" long, with three stones involved.
> I do not remember where the stones came from, but instead of the normal 1/2" thickness, I have three 1" thick stones...The other two tri hones are normal
> India, and crystalon stones I actually cleaned them up, as all of the cView attachment 168348
> lean stones yView attachment 168347
> ou guys are showing are embarrassing me. View attachment 168349
> Arkansas images enclosed.


Those are some impressive arks. I would love to have a go on them.


----------



## captaincaed

I keep hunting for those tri hones with Arks but they're not common. Great looking bit of kit!

I was lucky enough to find an NOS black Ark, Queer Creek and mystery natural in a used tool shop today. Curious to see if the queer creek is any good at polishing/kasumi


----------



## deltaplex

captaincaed said:


> I keep hunting for those tri hones with Arks but they're not common. Great looking bit of kit!
> 
> I was lucky enough to find an NOS black Ark, Queer Creek and mystery natural in a used tool shop today. Curious to see if the queer creek is any good at polishing/kasumi
> View attachment 168688


Since it's sandstone, like the hindos, I would think it wouldn't be half bad for polishing. Whenever I end up with one, that's what I plan on using it for.


----------



## cotedupy

ables said:


> Im not sure if you figured it out, but I am 95% certain that the small slurry stone you have here is a Frictionite barber hone "rubber stone" for cleaning/refreshing the stone. Or atleast an American hone company rubber stone. Here is mine I got out of a barber mixed lot.
> View attachment 168241
> View attachment 168242
> 
> 
> It actually is a fantastic slurry stone and works great on softer stones such as coticule/thurigan which don't have a matching stone. In the barbers lot I got thats what the old barber used it for as it was covered in coti slurry. It doesn't seem to spit harmful grit and will work up a slurry decently quick.



This is interesting. Would I be able to use a regular BH in the same manner? Or is this different material?


----------



## ables

captaincaed said:


> I keep hunting for those tri hones with Arks but they're not common. Great looking bit of kit!
> 
> I was lucky enough to find an NOS black Ark, Queer Creek and mystery natural in a used tool shop today. Curious to see if the queer creek is any good at polishing/kasumi
> View attachment 168688



Nice stones, I have an old queer creek that I like alot. It functions so much like a 1-1.5k waterstone for me it it is shocking. Kind of a harder king stone! It self slurrys some and the slurry feels like grains of sand rolling around which is cool. It can get glazed but a quick rub on a dmt brings it back to life quick.


----------



## ables

cotedupy said:


> This is interesting. Would I be able to use a regular BH in the same manner? Or is this different material?



If I had to guess this is a little piece of ceramic. I think most barber hones were some variation on fired ceramic stone. I assume the masterminds at American Hone Company made the little stone purposeful to work with the Frictionite. In the Frictionite instructions it says a normal person would never even need this rubber stone since 500! or something razors could be honed before needed haha. 

As for using this stone on other naturals to make slurry, its not much different than using a diamond plate or a hard arkansas. I have a 4x1 hard norton hard arkansas with one side roughed up that I've used as a slurry stone many times if I dont have a matching stone. Works fine and hard arkansas stones laugh at most other rocks.


----------



## cotedupy

ables said:


> If I had to guess this is a little piece of ceramic. I think most barber hones were some variation on fired ceramic stone. I assume the masterminds at American Hone Company made the little stone purposeful to work with the Frictionite. In the Frictionite instructions it says a normal person would never even need this rubber stone since 500! or something razors could be honed before needed haha.
> 
> As for using this stone on other naturals to make slurry, its not much different than using a diamond plate or a hard arkansas. I have a 4x1 hard norton hard arkansas with one side roughed up that I've used as a slurry stone many times if I dont have a matching stone. Works fine and hard arkansas stones laugh at most other rocks.



Ah that's another interesting idea that I hadn't thought of! I have a couple of old Norton Hards; a 4x2 translucent and 5x2 black, which might work well. As you say - the fineness, and hardness / lack of friability presumably makes them very good for this.

My atoma combi is 140 x 400, and even the latter I find can leave some wayward scratches on harder stones.


----------



## Greasylake

Just got this stone in the mail, not too sure what it is yet but I'm guessing some sort of Arkansas. It feels pretty fine but has some parts that feel rougher, so not sure what that's about. It also smells like gun oil, I'll report back after some time in the degreaser.


----------



## cotedupy

Greasylake said:


> Just got this stone in the mail, not too sure what it is yet but I'm guessing some sort of Arkansas. It feels pretty fine but has some parts that feel rougher, so not sure what that's about. It also smells like gun oil, I'll report back after some time in the degreaser.
> View attachment 169000
> View attachment 169001
> View attachment 169002



Looks like a soft ark from here. Useful little stone I imagine .


----------



## cotedupy

Inspired by @bsfsu 's recent Turkish find I put a knife on one of mine yesterday for a few mins of bevel-polish type work and sharpening:







While I probably can't split which edges I prefer between Turkish and Washitas. The latter will definitely not do stuff like this. Maybe I've changed my mind again... Turkish really are feckin' awesome!


----------



## cotedupy

So here's an interesting thing while I'm on the subject of Turkish Oilstones...

The screenshot below is from the introduction of a 1902 Edition of Pike's '_Oil Stones: How to Select and Use Them'. _This is, by at least 100 years, the first acknowledgement I've been able to find that the Turkey Stone is the same as the modern Cretan stone, and indeed Pliny's oilstone. I personally still don't buy the 'interior of Asia Minor' line... but you never know!







Curiously this specific reference to Crete as the origin of the Turkey stone is omitted from the same pamphlet published in 1905, as well as from a 1915 edition of Pike's '_History of Sharpening Stones'._


----------



## KingShapton

cotedupy said:


> The screenshot below is from the introduction of a 1902 Edition of Pike's '_Oil Stones: How to Select and Use Them'. _This is, by at least 100 years, the first acknowledgement I've been able to find that the Turkey Stone is the same as the modern Cretan stone, and indeed Pliny's oilstone.


Really interesting stuff!


----------



## Desert Rat

I gotta have one of them Cretans. Can't find a source in the US at the moment.

I did come across this recent review though....








 A Sharpening Stone Known By A Variety Of Names, And What I Like About It – Doug Berch


An introduction to chunks of rock that have become some of my favorite tools.




www.dougberch.com


----------



## deltaplex

Yeah, shipping from Europe essentially doubled the price when I was looking for them.


----------



## deltaplex

cotedupy said:


> Inspired by @bsfsu 's recent Turkish find I put a knife on one of mine yesterday for a few mins of bevel-polish type work and sharpening:
> 
> View attachment 169011
> 
> 
> 
> While I probably can't split which edges I prefer between Turkish and Washitas. The latter will definitely not do stuff like this. Maybe I've changed my mind again... Turkish really are feckin' awesome!
> 
> View attachment 169010
> 
> 
> View attachment 169009


Was this with oil or water?


----------



## KingShapton

Desert Rat said:


> I gotta have one of them Cretans. Can't find a source in the US at the moment.
> 
> I did come across this recent review though....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Sharpening Stone Known By A Variety Of Names, And What I Like About It – Doug Berch
> 
> 
> An introduction to chunks of rock that have become some of my favorite tools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dougberch.com


The review is well written, making it fun to read.

And I like the idea of using an Arkansas pocketstone as a nagura for slurry on natural stones more and more. I think I have to try that too!

There are some more well written articles on sharpening on this blog.

Thank you for sharing.


----------



## stringer

KingShapton said:


> The review is well written, making it fun to read.
> 
> And I like the idea of using an Arkansas pocketstone as a nagura for slurry on natural stones more and more. I think I have to try that too!
> 
> There are some more well written articles on sharpening on this blog.
> 
> Thank you for sharing.



I have several different Ark nagura. They come in handy often.

Surgical black with surgical black tomo nagura





Translucent Ark with translucent nagura





I also like coticules, bbws, slates, jnats, and sandstones as naguras. Ok, I admit it, I like to rub rocks together in my free time.


----------



## cotedupy

deltaplex said:


> Was this with oil or water?



Oil. I personally wouldn't advise water, though I think @KingShapton said he used his with water... (?)

Even if shipping is the same price as the stone I'd still be a bargain IMO, they really are very good. Also - it should still be cheaper than buying it in the US. The ones that GSG used to sell for $90 can be picked up for about 30 euro in Greece, and it's all the same rock.


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> I gotta have one of them Cretans. Can't find a source in the US at the moment.
> 
> I did come across this recent review though....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Sharpening Stone Known By A Variety Of Names, And What I Like About It – Doug Berch
> 
> 
> An introduction to chunks of rock that have become some of my favorite tools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dougberch.com



Definitely worth hunting one down, even if you have to get from Europe. 

My Cretan stone is very clearly the same thing as my old Turkish, and works as well as any of them. Plus modern ones are less likely to be cracked or have massive incursions, as well as being cut wider - every old Turkish I have is cut to standard bench stone proportions, 2 - 2.25", whereas my Cretan is about 3.5" from memory. I have seen some old ones that were wider, but they tend also to be shorter than normal.


----------



## cotedupy

KingShapton said:


> Really interesting stuff!



Isn't it just! I spent quite a long time last year looking for a historical source that linked the two.

I also wonder why it was later omitted. The 1905 pamphlet simply doesn't have this introductory bit at all, but the 1915 one does, it just doesn't explicitly link Pliny's Cretan Oilstone to the Turkey Stone:







If I was being _very _cynical I might note that the Crete officially became part of Greece in 1913. A country that in 1915 presumably had considerably better trade links with the west in comparison to the Ottoman Empire, with whom Britain, and later America, were at war. And if you can make everybody believe that the famous Turkey Stone comes only from darkest Asia Minor, then all of a sudden the Washita has no comparable competition whatsoever in Western markets.

That might be over-thinking it I concede. Though I wouldn't put it past Pike... they seem to have enjoyed re-writing history to suit the narrative!


----------



## Skylar303

So not sure what I was trying to accomplish since all I have are basic knives. But decided to mess around with a new stone that came in a small lot of arks. I have a basic deba or the other similar one lol... That has that weird bevel about 1/4" from the edge and then those indentations to 'help release food stuffs'. Anyways I heard of other people thinning the knive down so it's not beveled. Pic 3 shows what I'm referring to with my horrible explanation...


Start.


After a bit, wanted to see what the surface looked like.


Swarf from first side, but the untouched side of the knife... The bevel im talking about is sort of in the middle of the indents. I wasn't going to take pictures since I don't usually and it was late and indoors... So whoops...


First side almost done, I also switched stones but forgot to picture before... I like the noticeable swarf difference though.



Annnnddd getting more and more convinced I shouldn't just buy my knives from the thrift store... Never noticed before but the knife has an S bend in it. Which the thinning revealed... It's still pretty thick compared to some I've seen so I'll probably continue till passed the low and high spots on both sides.

I basically use a single nakiri for almost everything...


----------



## KingShapton

cotedupy said:


> Oil. I personally wouldn't advise water, though I think @KingShapton said he used his with water... (?)


I use my Turkish with water, I tried both, oil and water but I like this stone much more with water.

I have to add, in general I have no problem with oil on stones, only in this special case I like the stone better with water. But that may also be due to this stone, I would not generalize.


----------



## cotedupy

Here's a fun thing for all you porosity geeks* out there...

I said somewhere earlier in this thread that if you had an old Washita with some areas that seemed to have more oil in them after degreasing, or a stone which had lots of oil in it in comparison to others, then that was actually likely to be a sign of it being _less _porous rather than more. Because your cleaner or degreaser hadn't been able to work its way into the stone as easily.

Here's a pic of a Washita I just pulled out of some degreaser and then used. You can see very clearly how the swarf has now got back into the highly porous white areas, but not the darker, less porous areas.






---

* It's nothing to be ashamed of - we're all porosity geeks here. This a safe space.


----------



## deltaplex

Have you lapped this stone since the dip in degreaser?


----------



## Skylar303

I just got an ark/washita in. Has anyone noticed on which stones the swarf doesn't come free in SG, and scrubbing? Pretty much all my others came clean of the swarf and most of the oil.

Just interested to see if there's a correlation between types and how hard/easy they clean.


----------



## Desert Rat

Skylar303 said:


> I just got an ark/washita in. Has anyone noticed on which stones the swarf doesn't come free in SG, and scrubbing? Pretty much all my others came clean of the swarf and most of the oil.
> 
> Just interested to see if there's a correlation between types and how hard/easy they clean.


I suspect a sonic cleaner may be the best bet for removing the deeply imbedded swarf but I don't have one. I am currently trying an experiment with setting the stone in cleaning solution on top of a clothes drier. An idea I picked up from another forum. The container I am using is a foodsaver container that allows it to be vacuumed sealed though. Might not make a bit of difference, I will see. I have also thought of securing the container with stone to the top of my vibrating case cleaner. I might try that next.

BTW I have never noticed a negative impact from using an ark that had lots of swarf imbedded in the stone. It just doesn't seem to matter at all. I guess what ever is in the stone after cleaning or wiping the surface is deep enough that it is of no concern.


----------



## Skylar303

Hmm this stone arrived today. Was a gamble one. Looked sorta arky. But in hand not sure, it probably is, has glittery specks all over. Not good enough of a microscope, more like don't have one to see if it's quartz. 

It also looks sort of like a coarse SiC, not sure if any company made white stones... Has a rather porous and grainy structure. Really thirsty stone. Very sandy/gritty release... I'll try it more later, going to take advantage of the nice weather before we get more random snow...


----------



## KingShapton

Skylar303 said:


> Hmm this stone arrived today. Was a gamble one. Looked sorta arky. But in hand not sure, it probably is, has glittery specks all over. Not good enough of a microscope, more like don't have one to see if it's quartz.
> 
> It also looks sort of like a coarse SiC, not sure if any company made white stones... Has a rather porous and grainy structure. Really thirsty stone. Very sandy/gritty release... I'll try it more later, going to take advantage of the nice weather before we get more random snow...
> View attachment 170083
> View attachment 170084
> View attachment 170085


I never heard about a company making white sic stones. Judging from the pics I see some kind of natural stone, but I have no clue what kind.


----------



## cotedupy

Skylar303 said:


> Hmm this stone arrived today. Was a gamble one. Looked sorta arky. But in hand not sure, it probably is, has glittery specks all over. Not good enough of a microscope, more like don't have one to see if it's quartz.
> 
> It also looks sort of like a coarse SiC, not sure if any company made white stones... Has a rather porous and grainy structure. Really thirsty stone. Very sandy/gritty release... I'll try it more later, going to take advantage of the nice weather before we get more random snow...
> View attachment 170083
> View attachment 170084
> View attachment 170085



Ah, so when I said I'd seen a couple of people that had stones that looked similar but that they didn't think were arks... this is what they had I think. I suspect it probably _was _sold as a soft ark; Griswold talks about some stones being almost like sandstones, which might explain the glittery parts.

The translucency is the big thing here. Outside of novaculites I don't know any whetstones, natural or synthetic, that pass light.


----------



## cotedupy

deltaplex said:


> Have you lapped this stone since the dip in degreaser?



I've kinda been degreasing it for a while - it's probably spent a month in total. But yeah - I lapped it to begin with, and have refreshed the surface a couple of times since.

That's my favourite Washita btw, it's an extraordinarily good stone.


----------



## cotedupy

Just to note with regards to my picture above - what I've said is potentially a slight simplification, because the porosity of something is going to depend on two things; size of pores and number. The white areas that have loaded with swarf certainly have _larger _pores, but it's theoretically possible that a dark oil-filled stone could be equally porous by virtue of having more, but smaller pores.


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> I suspect a sonic cleaner may be the best bet for removing the deeply imbedded swarf but I don't have one. I am currently trying an experiment with setting the stone in cleaning solution on top of a clothes drier. An idea I picked up from another forum. The container I am using is a foodsaver container that allows it to be vacuumed sealed though. Might not make a bit of difference, I will see. I have also thought of securing the container with stone to the top of my vibrating case cleaner. I might try that next.
> 
> BTW I have never noticed a negative impact from using an ark that had lots of swarf imbedded in the stone. It just doesn't seem to matter at all. I guess what ever is in the stone after cleaning or wiping the surface is deep enough that it is of no concern.



Be interested to hear how this goes, potentially a good idea of Tom's I thought, though I think my wife would have kittens if I brought my stone degreasing bucket into the laundry for a weeks experimentation.

---

@Skylar303 - I'd echo what DR has said here... once you've cleaned the surface of a stone then further degreasing is simply an aesthetic thing. I likewise have not known it to have any practical effect.


----------



## Skylar303

cotedupy said:


> Be interested to hear how this goes, potentially a good idea of Tom's I thought, though I think my wife would have kittens if I brought my stone degreasing bucket into the laundry for a weeks experimentation.
> 
> ---
> 
> @Skylar303 - I'd echo what DR has said here... once you've cleaned the surface of a stone then further degreasing is simply an aesthetic thing. I likewise have not known it to have any practical effect.


Yeah I wouldn't think it effects function, it's just a pretty stone hah...


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> I suspect a sonic cleaner may be the best bet for removing the deeply imbedded swarf but I don't have one. I am currently trying an experiment with setting the stone in cleaning solution on top of a clothes drier. An idea I picked up from another forum. The container I am using is a foodsaver container that allows it to be vacuumed sealed though. Might not make a bit of difference, I will see. I have also thought of securing the container with stone to the top of my vibrating case cleaner. I might try that next.
> 
> BTW I have never noticed a negative impact from using an ark that had lots of swarf imbedded in the stone. It just doesn't seem to matter at all. I guess what ever is in the stone after cleaning or wiping the surface is deep enough that it is of no concern.


No ultrasonic, but I could definitely give the washwasher/dryer a go.


----------



## Skylar303

cotedupy said:


> Ah, so when I said I'd seen a couple of people that had stones that looked similar but that they didn't think were arks... this is what they had I think. I suspect it probably _was _sold as a soft ark; Griswold talks about some stones being almost like sandstones, which might explain the glittery parts.
> 
> The translucency is the big thing here. Outside of novaculites I don't know any whetstones, natural or synthetic, that pass light.


Yeah it's definitely an interesting one for sure... Honestly my first impression of it was ew... watching little peices particles of the stone fly off hah. And the feedback feels like running a blade over a rough brick.


----------



## cotedupy

Skylar303 said:


> Yeah it's definitely an interesting one for sure... Honestly my first impression of it was ew... watching little peices particles of the stone fly off hah. And the feedback feels like running a blade over a rough brick.



Very peculiar! I wonder if @VICTOR J CREAZZI might have any thoughts about what type of stone this might be... could it be quartzite (?)


----------



## Skylar303

cotedupy said:


> Very peculiar! I wonder if @VICTOR J CREAZZI might have any thoughts about what type of stone this might be... could it be quartzite (?)


Yeah I'll SG test it today, as I was going to try to do some woodwork but got hit with snow last night again after it being 70° yesterday... Sigh... Up close it has a weird look, like I said before almost like a coarse SiC of sorts.


----------



## Skylar303

This was the stone I was asking about the swarf build up. Just because it's a pretty stone wanted some clean pictures before it'll never be that clean again. (Pre-Soak)












Was sold as a washita, in a Hiram A. Smith box. While on this subject. Does anyone know off the top of their head if Hiram, and the current Smith's (Whetstone Company, maybe the full name?) Are the same company or different and the new one sort of took the prestige around the old name and used a similar one for easier marketing, both being Arkansas stone companies?

Looks like one of the newer colored softs. Gonna SG test it in water to get accurate readings, also wanted to do some others while was at it. (Dimensions/weight if anyone was curious 153x48x23-24mm. 351g.) 

(After, right out SG and dried.)










I tried to match up correct sides in the 2 sets. At least the one side came out clean, I'll give the dirtier side a quick lap and see how deep it actually goes. Maybe I'm just being too OCD again ha.

Hopefully this stone makes up for that weird white one...


----------



## stringer

Skylar303 said:


> This was the stone I was asking about the swarf build up. Just because it's a pretty stone wanted some clean pictures before it'll never be that clean again. (Pre-Soak)
> 
> View attachment 170318
> 
> View attachment 170319
> 
> View attachment 170320
> 
> View attachment 170321
> 
> View attachment 170322
> 
> 
> Was sold as a washita, in a Hiram A. Smith box. While on this subject. Does anyone know off the top of their head if Hiram, and the current Smith's (Whetstone Company, maybe the full name?) Are the same company or different and the new one sort of took the prestige around the old name and used a similar one for easier marketing, both being Arkansas stone companies?
> 
> Looks like one of the newer colored softs. Gonna SG test it in water to get accurate readings, also wanted to do some others while was at it. (Dimensions/weight if anyone was curious 153x48x23-24mm. 351g.)
> 
> (After, right out SG and dried.)
> 
> View attachment 170324
> 
> View attachment 170323
> 
> View attachment 170326
> 
> View attachment 170327
> 
> 
> I tried to match up correct sides in the 2 sets. At least the one side came out clean, I'll give the dirtier side a quick lap and see how deep it actually goes. Maybe I'm just being too OCD again ha.
> 
> Hopefully this stone makes up for that weird white one...



I think that @Desert Rat said that the modern Dan's started by buying out Smith's.


----------



## Skylar303

stringer said:


> I think that @Desert Rat said that the modern Dan's started by buying out Smith's.


Ah, that's a good jumping off point to do some digging. Guess they want to monopolies the ark game.


----------



## Desert Rat

stringer said:


> I think that @Desert Rat said that the modern Dan's started by buying out Smith's.


I think it was Washita Mountain. I came across a picture of Dan's Whetstones shop that still had the Washita Mountain sign in front of it. Maybe they just kept it there and never took it down?


----------



## stringer

Desert Rat said:


> I think it was Washita Mountain. I came across a picture of Dan's Whetstones shop that still had the Washita Mountain sign in front of it. Maybe they just kept it there and never took it down?



I think it's RH Preyda that bought out Smith's then.


----------



## stringer

stringer said:


> I think it's RH Preyda that bought out Smith's then.


Nope. Preyda bought out Hall's. I guess the point is that there aren't that many quarries and they have all switched hands a couple of times over the years. Lol.


----------



## Desert Rat

stringer said:


> Nope. Preyda bought out Hall's. I guess the point is that there aren't that many quarries and they have all switched hands a couple of times over the years. Lol.


Ya, I think I was wrong too. I believe it was Indian Mountain.


----------



## KingShapton

stringer said:


> I think it's RH Preyda that bought out Smith's then.


I'm pretty sure RH Preyda bought Hall's Sharpening Stones.


----------



## stringer

Yeah, it looks like Smith's is still around






Smith's Consumer Products Store. About us







smithsproducts.com





And then Dan's (Indian Mountain), Saint-Gobain (Norton), Natural Whetstone Company, RH Preyda (Hall's). 

There is also Best, which according to the internet is not the best.


----------



## Skylar303

stringer said:


> Yeah, it looks like Smith's is still around
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smith's Consumer Products Store. About us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smithsproducts.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then Dan's (Indian Mountain), Saint-Gobain (Norton), Natural Whetstone Company, RH Preyda (Hall's).
> 
> There is also Best, which according to the internet is not the best.


Is that the same Smith's as the Hiram A. Smith branded stones? Or 2 different Smith's?


----------



## cotedupy

Skylar303 said:


> This was the stone I was asking about the swarf build up. Just because it's a pretty stone wanted some clean pictures before it'll never be that clean again. (Pre-Soak)
> 
> View attachment 170318
> 
> View attachment 170319
> 
> View attachment 170320
> 
> View attachment 170321
> 
> View attachment 170322
> 
> 
> Was sold as a washita, in a Hiram A. Smith box. While on this subject. Does anyone know off the top of their head if Hiram, and the current Smith's (Whetstone Company, maybe the full name?) Are the same company or different and the new one sort of took the prestige around the old name and used a similar one for easier marketing, both being Arkansas stone companies?
> 
> Looks like one of the newer colored softs. Gonna SG test it in water to get accurate readings, also wanted to do some others while was at it. (Dimensions/weight if anyone was curious 153x48x23-24mm. 351g.)
> 
> (After, right out SG and dried.)
> 
> View attachment 170324
> 
> View attachment 170323
> 
> View attachment 170326
> 
> View attachment 170327
> 
> 
> I tried to match up correct sides in the 2 sets. At least the one side came out clean, I'll give the dirtier side a quick lap and see how deep it actually goes. Maybe I'm just being too OCD again ha.
> 
> Hopefully this stone makes up for that weird white one...



Lovely! You could always seal the bottom (and possibly sides) and only use one surface. Should keep it clean-ish.


----------



## cotedupy

Been a little while since I've found any cheap old stones here in SA, but back with a bang a couple of evenings ago at a local old tool auction. Where I picked up 2 lots - 10 stones and $20 in total. 7 were Silicon Carbide off to join my pile in the shed, with three gems nestled in amongst them...

Two Idwals; the larger (9.5 x 2) is a coarser knife type stone:








While the smaller is a slightly peculiar one; extremely fine, yet relatively soft for an Idwal:







You can see how if one hadn't had an Idwal before they might be somewhat difficult to ID, as they can be coarser or finer, lighter or darker, patterned, mottled or plain. And for a while when cleaning the smaller one I wasn't quite sure as it's a fairly atypical example. Very happy about both though, as I'm a big fan of these stones.

Though perhaps not quite as happy as I was about the final stone:







I know that a lot of people who read this thread are into stones, or razors, or both, so will know why this is exciting. But I'll explain anyway...

The 'Dual Hones' were produced in relatively small numbers by the Tam O'Shanter Hone Works, comprising two different types of natural stone stuck together. Usually Dalmore Blue and TO'S to create a stone for knives or tools. And less commonly TO'S with an exceptionally fine finishing stone called the 'Water of Ayr' to give something for razors and precision instruments, which is what I've got here. And apparently there are also some Dual Hones that involve the Dalmore Yellow - the coarsest stone they produced.

Labelled stones are both a blessing and a curse. Because people can google what they are and find out they're worth a gazillion dollars on ebay, so the chances of coming across them on the cheap are small. Compounded by the fact this is a rare stone meant that I didn't really suppose I would ever get a Water of Ayr x Tam O'Shanter Dual Hone, as labelled ones go for quite preposterous amounts of money (well into the $100s).

Which made me sad, because I've never had a WoA, and as we all know - combis are inherently cool. So when I won the lot for the princely sum of $5 I couldn't quite believe it. I was happy as a pig in s**t.

















[Not Washita content I know, but I've snuck a couple of novaculites in there for people.]


----------



## KingShapton

cotedupy said:


> Been a little while since I've found any cheap old stones here in SA, but back with a bang a couple of evenings ago at a local old tool auction. Where I picked up 2 lots - 10 stones and $20 in total. 7 were Silicon Carbide off to join my pile in the shed, with three gems nestled in amongst them...
> 
> Two Idwals; the larger (9.5 x 2) is a coarser knife type stone:
> 
> View attachment 170436
> 
> 
> 
> While the smaller is a slightly peculiar one; extremely fine, yet relatively soft for an Idwal:
> 
> View attachment 170435
> 
> 
> 
> You can see how if one hadn't had an Idwal before they might be somewhat difficult to ID, as they can be coarser or finer, lighter or darker, patterned, mottled or plain. And for a while when cleaning the smaller one I wasn't quite sure as it's a fairly atypical example. Very happy about both though, as I'm a big fan of these stones.
> 
> Though perhaps not quite as happy as I was about the final stone:
> 
> View attachment 170438
> 
> 
> 
> I know that a lot of people who read this thread are into stones, or razors, or both, so will know why this is exciting. But I'll explain anyway...
> 
> The 'Dual Hones' were produced in relatively small numbers by the Tam O'Shanter Hone Works, comprising two different types of natural stone stuck together. Usually Dalmore Blue and TO'S to create a stone for knives or tools. And less commonly TO'S with an exceptionally fine finishing stone called the 'Water of Ayr' to give something for razors and precision instruments, which is what I've got here. And apparently there are also some Dual Hones that involve the Dalmore Yellow - the coarsest stone they produced.
> 
> Labelled stones are both a blessing and a curse. Because people can google what they are and find out they're worth a gazillion dollars on ebay, so the chances of coming across them on the cheap are small. Compounded by the fact this is a rare stone meant that I didn't really ever suppose I would ever get a Water of Ayr x Tam O'Shanter Dual Hone, as labelled ones go for quite preposterous amounts of money (well into the $100s).
> 
> Which made me sad, because I've never had a WoA, and as we all know - combis are inherently cool. So when I won the lot for the princely sum of $5 I couldn't quite believe it. I was happy as a pig in s**t.
> 
> View attachment 170437
> 
> 
> View attachment 170439
> 
> 
> View attachment 170433
> 
> 
> 
> [Not Washita content I know, but I've snuck a couple of novaculites in there for people.]


CONGRATULATIONS, sounds like a jackpot hit!

The WoA is almost like a unicorn, you hear about it, you might see pictures but you will probably never get one (without spending a crazy amount of money).

And you found it in the natural stone combination variant, WOW! Your luck has surpassed itself this time, what a terrific catch!!

I am extremely curious about your impressions of the stone!

Can't imagine what would have happened if you hadn't gone to the auction that night and bought two lottery tickets instead...don't think about it....


----------



## KingShapton

stringer said:


> Natural Whetstone Company


Natural whetstone company - I have personally had extremely bad experiences with this company.

Bought a stone once and I was pissed off! Both about the stone and the behavior of the customer service, I will never buy anything there again!

But apart from that, this company claims that they mine Arkansas stones themselves - but there are statements in other forums that this company only buys Arkansas blanks that have already been mined and then processes them further. Does anyone here know for sure, i.e. as a fact, that this company mines Arkansas stone itself?


----------



## Skylar303

cotedupy said:


> Lovely! You could always seal the bottom (and possibly sides) and only use one surface. Should keep it clean-ish.


Wowza, amazing finds again! Thought you had a WoA already? Guess not.

Did some SG tests last night, this guy came out at 2.07. Interestingly some I thought were softs came up as Washitas. These I thought were softs. (1.93, 1.96 SG)


And a few the other way around. Most notable is the large white 8x2 came out 2.23 SG, but my tub might not have been large enough so I need to re-test.

Another is the molted semi translucents, rated out as a hard ark, and soft range. (2.40, 2.29 SG.) The one on the right definitely doesn't look or feel like a soft though.



I tried with that new mystery white stone, 'fake ark'. First test came out 2.40, but also absorbed 103g of water... After soaked with water the SG dropped to 1.88.


----------



## captaincaed

cotedupy said:


> Been a little while since I've found any cheap old stones here in SA, but back with a bang a couple of evenings ago at a local old tool auction. Where I picked up 2 lots - 10 stones and $20 in total. 7 were Silicon Carbide off to join my pile in the shed, with three gems nestled in amongst them...
> 
> Two Idwals; the larger (9.5 x 2) is a coarser knife type stone:
> 
> View attachment 170436
> 
> 
> 
> While the smaller is a slightly peculiar one; extremely fine, yet relatively soft for an Idwal:
> 
> View attachment 170435
> 
> 
> 
> You can see how if one hadn't had an Idwal before they might be somewhat difficult to ID, as they can be coarser or finer, lighter or darker, patterned, mottled or plain. And for a while when cleaning the smaller one I wasn't quite sure as it's a fairly atypical example. Very happy about both though, as I'm a big fan of these stones.
> 
> Though perhaps not quite as happy as I was about the final stone:
> 
> View attachment 170438
> 
> 
> 
> I know that a lot of people who read this thread are into stones, or razors, or both, so will know why this is exciting. But I'll explain anyway...
> 
> The 'Dual Hones' were produced in relatively small numbers by the Tam O'Shanter Hone Works, comprising two different types of natural stone stuck together. Usually Dalmore Blue and TO'S to create a stone for knives or tools. And less commonly TO'S with an exceptionally fine finishing stone called the 'Water of Ayr' to give something for razors and precision instruments, which is what I've got here. And apparently there are also some Dual Hones that involve the Dalmore Yellow - the coarsest stone they produced.
> 
> Labelled stones are both a blessing and a curse. Because people can google what they are and find out they're worth a gazillion dollars on ebay, so the chances of coming across them on the cheap are small. Compounded by the fact this is a rare stone meant that I didn't really suppose I would ever get a Water of Ayr x Tam O'Shanter Dual Hone, as labelled ones go for quite preposterous amounts of money (well into the $100s).
> 
> Which made me sad, because I've never had a WoA, and as we all know - combis are inherently cool. So when I won the lot for the princely sum of $5 I couldn't quite believe it. I was happy as a pig in s**t.
> 
> View attachment 170437
> 
> 
> View attachment 170439
> 
> 
> View attachment 170433
> 
> 
> 
> [Not Washita content I know, but I've snuck a couple of novaculites in there for people.]


I hate you. Again.


----------



## Skylar303

captaincaed said:


> I hate you. Again.


I do envy his luck! A simple look at "Scotch" should of raised some eyebrows for some searching... Maybe because he's in SA, all the good deals down under!


----------



## inferno

are the coarse ones here washitas or arks?









Arkansas Bench Stone, Soft, 205 x 50 x 13 mm | Natural Arkansas stones | Dictum


Arkansas Bench Stone, Soft, 205 x 50 x 13 mm from category Natural Arkansas stones with 30-day right of return at Dictum




www.dictum.com


----------



## KingShapton

inferno said:


> are the coarse ones here washitas or arks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arkansas Bench Stone, Soft, 205 x 50 x 13 mm | Natural Arkansas stones | Dictum
> 
> 
> Arkansas Bench Stone, Soft, 205 x 50 x 13 mm from category Natural Arkansas stones with 30-day right of return at Dictum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictum.com


Looks like a soft ark from RH Preyda


----------



## Desert Rat

Skylar303 said:


> Wowza, amazing finds again! Thought you had a WoA already? Guess not.
> 
> Did some SG tests last night, this guy came out at 2.07. Interestingly some I thought were softs came up as Washitas. These I thought were softs. (1.93, 1.96 SG)
> View attachment 170481
> 
> And a few the other way around. Most notable is the large white 8x2 came out 2.23 SG, but my tub might not have been large enough so I need to re-test.
> 
> Another is the molted semi translucents, rated out as a hard ark, and soft range. (2.40, 2.29 SG.) The one on the right definitely doesn't look or feel like a soft though.
> View attachment 170482
> 
> 
> I tried with that new mystery white stone, 'fake ark'. First test came out 2.40, but also absorbed 103g of water... After soaked with water the SG dropped to 1.88.


The mottled one on the bottom right looks a lot like a hard Smith's I have. Lacking a better term I call it a semi translucent. I initially failed with it as a razor hone but after I put in some effort to properly flatten it it produces razor edges very comparable to my translucents or blacks. Mine is very fast for a fine ark. I very much want to find a larger example.


----------



## Skylar303

inferno said:


> are the coarse ones here washitas or arks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arkansas Bench Stone, Soft, 205 x 50 x 13 mm | Natural Arkansas stones | Dictum
> 
> 
> Arkansas Bench Stone, Soft, 205 x 50 x 13 mm from category Natural Arkansas stones with 30-day right of return at Dictum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictum.com


Says 'Soft' before the dimensions.  So they would be considered arks not washitas.


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> The mottled one on the bottom right looks a lot like a hard Smith's I have. Lacking a better term I call it a semi translucent. I initially failed with it as a razor hone but after I put in some effort to properly flatten it it produces razor edges very comparable to my translucents or blacks. Mine is very fast for a fine ark. I very much want to find a larger example.


Yeah sounds just like mine! Mine also has little orange dots across the face along with the molting as well, does yours? (In the listing pics it almost looked like a coticule before I got it in hand) Also those strange oil spots, or what we think are oil spots. Mine is pretty translucent as well, but not as translucent as an actual one. So I put it in the 'semi hard translucent' category as well.

It is one of my favorites unfortunately it's only about 5mm thick so the person before me definitely loved the stone also. It's one I'm going to back with a soft ark or maybe not even an ark at all. And I also wish I could find a stone just like this but bigger... And it looks like ours are around the same dimensions? Mines 4x2".

If yours is the same there's a good chance a company produced these at one point?


----------



## Desert Rat

Skylar303 said:


> Yeah sounds just like mine! Mine also has little orange dots across the face along with the molting as well, does yours? (In the listing pics it almost looked like a coticule before I got it in hand) Also those strange oil spots, or what we think are oil spots. Mine is pretty translucent as well, but not as translucent as an actual one. So I put it in the 'semi hard translucent' category as well.
> 
> It is one of my favorites unfortunately it's only about 5mm thick so the person before me definitely loved the stone also. It's one I'm going to back with a soft ark or maybe not even an ark at all. And I also wish I could find a stone just like this but bigger... And it looks like ours are around the same dimensions? Mines 4x2".
> 
> If yours is the same there's a good chance a company produced these at one point?


Mine doesn't have any orange spots. It's a 2x4 soft hard combo from Smith's. The soft side is a pretty worthless soft that glazes really fast and stops cutting. I bought the stone new sometime in the 70's.


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> Mine doesn't have any orange spots. It's a 2x4 soft hard combo from Smith's. The soft side is a pretty worthless soft that glazes really fast and stops cutting. I bought the stone new sometime in the 70's.


Ah that's the combi stone. Yeah I have a woodcraft soft ark that does that... I'm debating cutting that one up for backing of other good pocket size washitas. Could maybe do 3-4.


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> I hate you. Again.




Haha! Sorry mate 

If I come across another you can have first dibs. (And it's not quite as remote a possibility as it sounds, for reasons I'll explain below).




Skylar303 said:


> I do envy his luck! A simple look at "Scotch" should of raised some eyebrows for some searching... Maybe because he's in SA, all the good deals down under!





KingShapton said:


> The WoA is almost like a unicorn, you hear about it, you might see pictures but you will probably never get one (without spending a crazy amount of money).
> 
> And you found it in the natural stone combination variant, WOW! Your luck has surpassed itself this time, what a terrific catch!!
> 
> I am extremely curious about your impressions of the stone!




I didn't actually realise the WoA was quite that rare until reading up more about them recently. I was mostly just happy initially because I found one of the Dual Hone combis .

I was hoping the WoA would be quite good but I wasn't quite expecting just how excellent it is - it's an absolutely superb razor stone. Very similar in use, feel, and effect to a Thuri, though actually a little bit faster. I tend to try out all new stones on the same Aogami 2 knife first, and Thuris won't really raise any kind of noticeable burr, but the WoA can do (just), while finishing a razor every bit as fine. I still wouldn't use it for knives, but it showed the stone is a little bit quicker than the Thuris I've had, and that was confirmed when honing a razor - it took very few passes to get a superb edge.

The TO'S side of the stone is right at the finest end of the ones I've had. Which was a bit of a shame, as again it's not really suitable for knives. I guess perhaps that on this kind of Dual Hone for razors &c. they might have selected particularly fine examples for the Tam side perhaps... (?)

You'll remember that 10" YG Thuringian I found a couple of months ago at the second hand tool shop; where the owner had very kindly set me a box of stones aside so I could have a look through, and then let me have what I wanted for next to nothing. He's the president of the _South Australia Historical Tool Association, _and it was one of their auctions where I got the Dual Hone. I think all of the lots were donated stuff to raise money for the club, and he would have known exactly what that stone was and how much it was worth. I've seen him (correctly) ID an unlabelled, completely black and grimy stone as a Dalmore a few weeks back... he knows his stuff! And I'm pretty certain kept all three of those back for the auction knowing I was coming, rather than selling in his shop.

More generally though - I had often thought it curious how often the Scottish stones show up here. Until someone on B&B told me recently that they actually used to export them in very large quantities to Sydney, and Australia was clearly one of their best markets. So I'll keep an eye out for you @captaincaed !


----------



## Skylar303

cotedupy said:


> More generally though - I had often thought it curious how often the Scottish stones show up here. Until someone on B&B told me recently that they actually used to export them in very large quantities to Sydney, and Australia was clearly one of their best markets. So I'll keep an eye out for you @captaincaed !


Seconds!  Great bit of info yet again. What a nice gent. I bet that's a killer razor hone! Looked rather dirty, wonder what the previous owner used it for?


----------



## KingShapton

cotedupy said:


> You'll remember that 10" YG Thuringian I found a couple of months ago at the second hand tool shop; where the owner had very kindly set me a box of stones aside so I could have a look through, and then let me have what I wanted for next to nothing. He's the president of the _South Australia Historical Tool Association, _and it was one of their auctions where I got the Dual Hone. I think all of the lots were donated stuff to raise money for the club, and he would have known exactly what that stone was and how much it was worth. I've seen him (correctly) ID an unlabelled, completely black and grimy stone as a Dalmore a few weeks back... he knows his stuff! And I'm pretty certain kept all three of those back for the auction knowing I was coming, rather than selling in his shop.


I assume you have invited this man to dinner in the meantime and ordered him a large steak in addition to a few beers?!  
He deserved it.

But I'm happy for you that the WoA is really that good!

And it is also very interesting to read your assessment of this stone. I know how you judge stones and how you compare them. I appreciate your review, thanks.

The fact that Australia was one of the main export countries for Scottish stones is of course an incredible stroke of luck for you. I can see you "hunting" again...


----------



## pentryumf

As a compelete black hole of a question.
How do you know it’s a 'Water of Ayr' if it’s not labelled?

sweet find, congrats. Can I come visit your stone library. I’ll bring a superb Chianti.


----------



## cotedupy

pentryumf said:


> As a compelete black hole of a question.
> How do you know it’s a 'Water of Ayr' if it’s not labelled?
> 
> sweet find, congrats. Can I come visit your stone library. I’ll bring a superb Chianti.



Anyone bringing good Italian Sangiovese to my door will be welcomed with open arms!

---

WoA do have the potential to be a little bit difficult to ID, though there are sometimes some signs I think...

They look like dark-ish blue grey slate, though without much noticeable cleavage. Leaning more toward blue than grey. If you have one in your hands - they slurry a dark and inky blue-black and not many stones do that, though there are a couple of others. They're not particularly hard (at least my one). Used with a razor they feel a lot like a Thuri, especially the stiction thing.

The big one though visually is the surface patterns are not particularly even usually, unlike most slates which are fairly uniform. Stones from the Meikledale quarry will usually have distinctive black spots, often arranged in kinda lines, which is a really big giveaway for WoA. As well often as white markings. There's some of this on my stone, but here are some more prominent examples:












Stones from the Enterkine quarry are slightly less fine apparently, but more uniform in terms of patterning. These could be a lot harder to ID visually:












(None of those are my pics btw. They were from a friend on B&B).


----------



## Desert Rat

I wonder.....


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> Anyone bringing good Italian Sangiovese to my door will be welcomed with open arms!
> 
> ---
> 
> WoA do have the potential to be a little bit difficult to ID, though there are sometimes some signs I think...
> 
> They look like dark-ish blue grey slate, though without much noticeable cleavage. Leaning more toward blue than grey. If you have one in your hands - they slurry a dark and inky blue-black and not many stones do that, though there are a couple of others. They're not particularly hard (at least my one). Used with a razor they feel a lot like a Thuri, especially the stiction thing.
> 
> The big one though visually is the surface patterns are not particularly even usually, unlike most slates which are fairly uniform. Stones from the Meikledale quarry will usually have distinctive black spots, often arranged in kinda lines, which is a really big giveaway for WoA. As well often as white markings. There's some of this on my stone, but here are some more prominent examples:
> 
> View attachment 171346
> 
> 
> View attachment 171348
> 
> 
> 
> Stones from the Enterkine quarry are slightly less fine apparently, but more uniform in terms of patterning. These could be a lot harder to ID visually:
> 
> View attachment 171347
> 
> 
> View attachment 171349
> 
> 
> 
> (None of those are my pics btw. They were from a friend on B&B).


Like this or no?


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> Like this or no?



Quite like that, though mine is slightly lighter and more blue, less grey-black.

I think your stone is likely to be the same as my YL Siltstone that I mentioned before. It's fairly similar to the WoA in a lot of ways, though isn't quite as fine when finishing a razor.

(Bearing in mind I'm speaking from a sample size of having only one of each. I'll snap some closeup of both stones and slurries when I'm back home in a few days and you can see what you think.)


----------



## cotedupy

A few recent UK ebay punts...

Having sold my only 9x2" Washita and then slightly regretted it, I was pretty hopeful at least one of these two would turn out both to be a suitable replacement:







And indeed after a little cleanup:






The bottom stone there is quite translucent and rather fine:







The top one a lot coarser, and has the ghost of the original label.







Interestingly this doesn't look to my eye like the dimensions of the normal P-N labels. I think this was likely to be a stone that I believe was for the UK market which they called a 'Red Washita', the only labelled No.2 quality stones I know of. Someone's else's pic below:






---

Had no idea what this one was, though even bigger at almost 9.5 x 2.5, felt natural though:







After a little bit of a scrub with some soap, and I'm now pretty sure I know what this is...







That's right... it's a Hindostan! I've had a few of these before, and that's how they look when you start cleaning them up. It took quite some considerable effort to get it out of the box, but when I did and gave a bit more of a scrub, my suspicions were confirmed:







All of those now back in some hardcore degreaser to get them properly ship-shape .


----------



## cotedupy

A couple of other fun things too...

Don't ask me where the hunch came from on this stone:







And cleaned up it's a very pretty, and very fine Idwal:











---

This one I could tell what it was, because I could make out the stamp in the listing:







Here's a closeup:







A very old stone, predating the use of labels, there aren't many old box-stamped Tams I've seen. Advises: _'Sharpen With Spittle or Water Don't Use Oil', _this label / stamp wording was changed at some point later in the c.19th to read _'Sharpen With Water or a Thin Oil'._

Anyhow here she is:


----------



## cotedupy

After all those hits, here are the last two to have a laugh at, and tickle your sense of schadenfreude. These were very cheap, and both from the same seller, who had some quite interesting other stones, so perhaps I'd snag a bargain...







As soon as I saw it in the flesh the top one is clearly cheap SiC. But the bottom still had potential, especially as this had come from an 1890 rubbish dump, uncovered in London in the 1970s.

So I degreased it a bit, and I tried to remove the base to get a proper look, which was pretty difficult so I chucked it in the oven to soften the glue and... everything softened. The base and the stone as well. Which isn't traditionally what's meant to happen.

It turns out that it wasn't a stone and base at all. Just a weird bit of hard black rubbery plastic that someone had thrown away.







(Even though it was only five or eight quid, I might ask for my money back on that one!)


----------



## Desert Rat

I'm like a kid at Christmas when I get a rusty old tool or dirty old stone. Just can't wait to see what is underneath. So much excitement! The good surprises far out way the occasional lump of coal. At least they do in my mind. I don't keep score.


----------



## Skylar303

cotedupy said:


> After all those hits, here are the last two to have a laugh at, and tickle your sense of schadenfreude. These were very cheap, and both from the same seller, who had some quite interesting other stones, so perhaps I'd snag a bargain...
> 
> View attachment 171727
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as I saw it in the flesh the top one is clearly cheap SiC. But the bottom still had potential, especially as this had come from an 1890 rubbish dump, uncovered in London in the 1970s.
> 
> So I degreased it a bit, and I tried to remove the base to get a proper look, which was pretty difficult so I chucked it in the oven to soften the glue and... everything softened. The base and the stone as well. Which isn't traditionally what's meant to happen.
> 
> It turns out that it wasn't a stone and base at all. Just a weird bit of hard black rubbery plastic that someone had thrown away.
> 
> View attachment 171726
> 
> 
> 
> (Even though it was only five or eight quid, I might ask for my money back on that one!)


Haha at least your amazing finds outweigh the rubber lol! Great snag on the Tam. Wish shipping from EU wasn't ridiculous... Been a quite a few good stones but didn't warrant the added shipping... With my luck I'd get 1 good stone and 4 SiC.


----------



## cotedupy

Here was a nice discovery earlier today...

I had half a cow's worth of beef ribs to trim, so got out the finer of the two recent 9x2 Washitas to sharpen a knife beforehand. This is a very high quality bit of rock - very consistent, quite fine, but also softer than some, which gives it so nice low end speed too. I would have said with a reasonable degree of certainty this was an old Lily White:













Afterwards I decided after to clean up the old box it came in, and found something I hadn't noticed when removing it originally, the remnants of an old 30s/40s era Norton side label. The box is not original, this label would have been on the side of the stone:












So that was nice! Unfortunately I only managed to save a few scraps as it largely just dissolved as soon as I put water on it, but enough to ID it as another LW for the collection. This is particularly cool because 9 inch Washitas are rare; they don't appear in the old Norton catalogues, though there are some 9 and 10" labelled stones out there, I assume part of special orders for particular retailers.

Here's a picture of the same side label from my other (5x2) Norton LW of the same era:


----------



## captaincaed

Turns out my vintage Pike washita is on the “quite hard” side, and burnishes more than cuts. Looks like I’m now on the hunt for a less common “soft” washita. So far the very best washita I have is the small orange one from the Buck set I inherited from my grandfather. It’s an excellent, fast cutter with one side fine from use and the other lapped coarse by me. It’s like Jekyll and Hyde and I love it. Now. I’m chasing that in a larger stone. 

Maybe I also need to do some density tests…


----------



## Skylar303

captaincaed said:


> Turns out my vintage Pike washita is on the “quite hard” side, and burnishes more than cuts. Looks like I’m now on the hunt for a less common “soft” washita. So far the very best washita I have is the small orange one from the Buck set I inherited from my grandfather. It’s an excellent, fast cutter with one side fine from use and the other lapped coarse by me. It’s like Jekyll and Hyde and I love it. Now. I’m chasing that in a larger stone.
> 
> Maybe I also need to do some density tests…


Interesting, one of my favorites is a spotted orange one also. I think @Desert Rat has one that he really likes that is orange-ish as well? (If memory serves) Too bad mine also is a small pocket sized one... 

I actually had fun SG testing an assortment of small pockets/broken peices. A lot more than I thought fell into the washita range, and some others I thought were X turned out to test Y. Both small peices of hard trans I have left pinged at 2.75. I stupidly sold off a lot of pocket trans in the beginning I gathered from different stone lots for like $30...  I didn't have a use for small pocket/pocket knife size stones. Good thing I don't remember exactly what was in there but enough to remember to be regretful... 

Another interesting one was the 8x2x1 I thought was maybe a No.1 Washita tested in the Soft range but the container was a bit tight for that big of stone so I need to re-test. Because it doesn't feel like a soft. 





This is a new-ish acquisition little beaut. 6x2x1. Came out at 2.07. Been working on other stuff so haven't given it a proper run through... I know I know... 

I spent most of my Saturday helping my neighbor clear rocks from his farming plot. Haha... BTW those tiny pines in the far far end on the right is the end of the plot... And then trees on the sides. Sort of odd things that end up taking up a lot of my free time...


----------



## captaincaed

It sounds like rocks are taking alot of your attention. I’m not sure why we ever moved out of the stone age, as a species. Overrated, this communications age stuff.


----------



## Skylar303

captaincaed said:


> It sounds like rocks are taking alot of your attention. I’m not sure why we ever moved out of the stone age, as a species. Overrated, this communications age stuff.


Haha, I know right? Whether intentionally or not. Too bad none were whetstone suitable... Mostly just basic big quartz, rough sandstone. I have some other peices of red sandstone I was working on for coarse razor work but gave that up since they were too coarse ha. But now that I'm into knives I might revisit some different sandstone. 




Basic red sandstone/flag stone. Ugly peice but one of the flatter ones to start since doing by hand. This specimen has a lot of holes. But is uniform, feels maybe like a 500 grit stone?...



A more suitable specimen, finer grain than the red. And clean/smooth surfaces. 15-20lbs... 5" Santoku for reference. Ran a pocket knife dry in the bottom Left to see what it did before lugging the thing back. If wondering what the smear is.




Going back to these one of these days. Hopefully sooner than later. If works good, may try to cut the ends flat as 3 of the other sides are pretty much flat. But could be a pain with it being 3.5x3.75".


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> Turns out my vintage Pike washita is on the “quite hard” side, and burnishes more than cuts. Looks like I’m now on the hunt for a less common “soft” washita. So far the very best washita I have is the small orange one from the Buck set I inherited from my grandfather. It’s an excellent, fast cutter with one side fine from use and the other lapped coarse by me. It’s like Jekyll and Hyde and I love it. Now. I’m chasing that in a larger stone.
> 
> Maybe I also need to do some density tests…



Funnily enough the only (labelled) Pike I have is the same - a very hard, fine, and highly translucent Lily White, which tbh I don't use very much. Fun to have something a bit different I suppose, and some people really like this kind of old Washita. But if I can only save one in a fire... it ain't gonna be that!


----------



## cotedupy

Skylar303 said:


> Interesting, one of my favorites is a spotted orange one also. I think @Desert Rat has one that he really likes that is orange-ish as well? (If memory serves) Too bad mine also is a small pocket sized one...
> 
> I actually had fun SG testing an assortment of small pockets/broken peices. A lot more than I thought fell into the washita range, and some others I thought were X turned out to test Y. Both small peices of hard trans I have left pinged at 2.75. I stupidly sold off a lot of pocket trans in the beginning I gathered from different stone lots for like $30...  I didn't have a use for small pocket/pocket knife size stones. Good thing I don't remember exactly what was in there but enough to remember to be regretful...
> 
> Another interesting one was the 8x2x1 I thought was maybe a No.1 Washita tested in the Soft range but the container was a bit tight for that big of stone so I need to re-test. Because it doesn't feel like a soft.
> 
> View attachment 173310
> 
> This is a new-ish acquisition little beaut. 6x2x1. Came out at 2.07. Been working on other stuff so haven't given it a proper run through... I know I know...
> 
> I spent most of my Saturday helping my neighbor clear rocks from his farming plot. Haha... BTW those tiny pines in the far far end on the right is the end of the plot... And then trees on the sides. Sort of odd things that end up taking up a lot of my free time...
> View attachment 173312



Really pretty stone . Nice one mate!

---

Re specific gravity... I only have two labelled Soft Arks, and they come in at 2.08 and 2.55 from memory. _Every _old Washita I have atm falls within that range. Make of it what you will!


----------



## captaincaed

I just measured SG on a pile of novaculite.
Performance, labels and density are not correlated. You gotta use your eyes and experience. It's like saying you know how well a knife will perform because you know the HRC. Not so. Microstructure will tell you much more.
This was my takeaway :


----------



## Skylar303

cotedupy said:


> Really pretty stone . Nice one mate!
> 
> ---
> 
> Re specific gravity... I only have two labelled Soft Arks, and they come in at 2.08 and 2.55 from memory. _Every _old Washita I have atm falls within that range. Make of it what you will!


Thanks, even though it pinged in the 'Washita' range, it looks like the structure of a soft. I better test it and be sure before my return window closes ha... Especially since you have some softs that came up .01 over this one.

I suppose since they're labeled you can tell us if they are newer or older ones.


----------



## Skylar303

captaincaed said:


> I just measured SG on a pile of novaculite.
> Performance, labels and density are not correlated. You gotta use your eyes and experience. It's like saying you know how well a knife will perform because you know the HRC. Not so. Microstructure will tell you much more.
> This was my takeaway :View attachment 173420
> View attachment 173417


Very cool, it looks like you already knew what you have. Not many surprises. You have way better hand writing than my chicken scratch, but what is the 4th washita down? Dan's? Otherwise it looks like diavis or something? Blame my eyesight...


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> I just measured SG on a pile of novaculite.
> Performance, labels and density are not correlated. You gotta use your eyes and experience. It's like saying you know how well a knife will perform because you know the HRC. Not so. Microstructure will tell you much more.
> This was my takeaway :View attachment 173420
> View attachment 173417




1.) You have _beautiful _handwriting!

2.) That's a very low reading for the Pike Washita if it's quite a hard and slow stone. Curious...

3.) The Idwal reading is an interesting one too, because it's also quite low for an Idwal. I'm gonna guess this is the smaller but thicker one, that I said would be better for razors...? If so - that would correlate to a hunch I have that finer Charnleys and Idwals tend to have lower SGs than coarser examples. (I'll explain this tomorrow, it's late here!)


----------



## Skylar303

cotedupy said:


> 1.) You have _beautiful _handwriting!
> 
> 2.) That's a very low reading for the Pike Washita if it's quite a hard and slow stone. Curious...
> 
> 3.) The Idwal reading is an interesting one too, because it's also quite low for an Idwal. I'm gonna guess this is the smaller but thicker one, that I said would be better for razors...? If so - that would correlate to a hunch I have that finer Charnleys and Idwals tend to have lower SGs than coarser examples. (I'll explain this tomorrow, it's late here!)


Interested to see the answers to 2, 3. How many CFs you have to test? I'll SG mine today/tomorrow. I only have 2, one looks like it was cut for razors, the others just a large bench. But visually they both look similar. I heard there was also some correlations between the colors in the stone vs fineness.

Also, if u got time @cotedupy check your messages.


----------



## captaincaed

1. Well thanks y'all!
2. I was surprised too. May need to repeat since it was late when I did this, may have goofed.
3. Correct! Curious to hear part II.

The fourth washita says "Dean's" - inherited from my grandfather. I see why that causes confusion! Lovely little butterscotch job.

The Norton soft is damn near translucent, and doesn't look a thing like modern, chalky soft stones. The labeling has clearly changed dramatically. I'll get some pics later. This is the one I washed the label off, still pissed at myself.





Will remeasure tonight, maybe add a couple others.


----------



## cotedupy

So here's a little follow-up post explaining something I mentioned yesterday...

As we know the fineness of Arkansas novaculites is often graded or analysed according to specific gravity. And to an extent this correlation is useful, _if comparing Arkansas novaculites. _Translucent and Black Arks have higher SGs than Softs and Wahsitas. One cannot though fall into the trap of trying to apply the same principal to other stones, it works for the Arkansas stones because they are effectively 100% silica and the SG of them is a measure of porosity, or how compact they are, and the more compact, less porous stones are finer.

Almost every other natural stone I've measured has a SG higher than that of a translucent ark, slates for instance go from about 2.7 - 2.9. Because in the grand scheme of things silica isn't that heavy, so as soon as you start getting other stuff in a stone it can push the SG up higher. But the fineness of the stone has nothing do to with these other minerals, if your stone isn't 100% cryptocrystalline silica then you need to analyse fineness in the traditional way - according to the _size _of the abrasive silica particles and how hard the stone is, not the weight of whatever else might be in there too.

---

In fact we can't really even compare specific gravity across two different types of novaculite, because not all novaculites are created equal. Here are some microscope images, the first two are Llyn Idwals which tend to have SGs around 2.75, the 3rd and 4th are Charnleys which are usually a little lower at around 2.70. These images are ordered in descending order of SG; 2.75, 2.74, 2.71, 2.70.























When I first looked at a Charnley under a microscope I was more than a little surprised. Charnley Forest stones are a _very _pure form of novaculite - this is almost what trans arks look like. The Idwal stones are noticeably more heterogenous, and perhaps coarser grained. In person too an Idwal stone is clearly less homogenous than a CF, it has other things going on, with slate-like folliation, and flinty fracture to it. It's basically less novaculite-y. The reason an Idwal will finish as fine as a Charnley is because how fine a stone is relates to both grain size _and hardness, _and an Idwal is harder than a Charnley.

---

What all this means is that if you want to try to look at SGs and fineness across different types of novaculites (and I don't necessarily advise that anyway because it's difficult to gauge how hard something is from its SG), then it's probably more useful to think about it not as a straight line of correlation in which higher SGs equate to finer stones. But rather as an inverse parabola or 'n' shape, with the high point of 'fineness' being a trans or black ark with an SG around that of pure silica at 2.64, and coarser stones below that if they're less compact, or above that if they're less pure. Hence why, in my experience, finer Idwals and Charnleys tend to have lower SGs than coarser examples of the same. Because fineness in a novaculite _tends t_o an SG of 2.64, it does not increase above that.

---

That's just my take on this, from using stones, comparing them under a scope, and measuring their SGs. It may all be complete nonsense, but it seems to hold for the stones I have. And it's why I guessed above that @captaincaed 's Idwal with a surprisingly low SG, was the finer of the two stones he picked up from me recently.


----------



## captaincaed

The labeled Pike density is as correct as my system can measure, around 2.0. It’s either a dud or a fine burnisher. More experiments needed. Oh good!


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> The labeled Pike density is as correct as my system can measure, around 2.0. It’s either a dud or a fine burnisher. More experiments needed. Oh good!



That is very peculiar! Whenever I've had low SG Washitas they've all kinda gone along the normal line of being coarser and faster stones. I assume you're using with oil...?

---

All this theorizing inspired me to go and measure some SGs of come stones I hadn't done before...

A couple of Idwals I have on BST at the moment where the coarser came in at 2.73, with the finer razor-stone at 2.67(!), which is lower / closer to silica than any Idwal or CF I've tested before. Will be interesting to see what it looks like under a scope!

Then some Tams and Hindos, which I'd never tested before, and interestingly were are all far lower than I was expecting. Tams went from 2.47 to 2.65, and Hindos 2.27 - 2.33. So perhaps I was wrong when I said above that most other stones had higher SGs than arks, it seems perhaps sedimentary stones are lower, while metamorphic stones such as slates are higher... (?)


----------



## inferno

are the lily white washitas the cocaine of the washita world?


----------



## captaincaed

cotedupy said:


> perhaps sedimentary stones are lower, while metamorphic stones such as slates are higher... (?)


This is where I'd bet my money!


----------



## Desert Rat

inferno said:


> are the lily white washitas the cocaine of the washita world?


One of the most sought after labels for collectors. A Rosy Red is less common and more sought after. 
From a users prospective it's a little different. Most labels are long gone from them vintage stones and the label doesn't necessarily make the stone any better or worse. The labeled stones are a pain to use because nobody wants to mess the label up.


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> That is very peculiar! Whenever I've had low SG Washitas they've all kinda gone along the normal line of being coarser and faster stones. I assume you're using with oil...?
> 
> ---
> 
> All this theorizing inspired me to go and measure some SGs of come stones I hadn't done before...
> 
> A couple of Idwals I have on BST at the moment where the coarser came in at 2.73, with the finer razor-stone at 2.67(!), which is lower / closer to silica than any Idwal or CF I've tested before. Will be interesting to see what it looks like under a scope!
> 
> Then some Tams and Hindos, which I'd never tested before, and interestingly were are all far lower than I was expecting. Tams went from 2.47 to 2.65, and Hindos 2.27 - 2.33. So perhaps I was wrong when I said above that most other stones had higher SGs than arks, it seems perhaps sedimentary stones are lower, while metamorphic stones such as slates are higher... (?)


I need to get another Idwal to see if my opinion of them changes. The one I have will get edges all kinds of sharp but it is not a comfortable shaving edge. It produces a sharper edge than my coticules but a little behind most of my other finishers.

Conchoidal fractures even. It's plenty dense.


----------



## BillHanna

I think there’s one on BST


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

BillHanna said:


> I think there’s one on BST



If I didn't think shipping would be a killer there wouldn't be!


----------



## Desert Rat

Whats BST?


----------



## stringer

Desert Rat said:


> Whats BST?


Buy sell trade


----------



## Desert Rat

stringer said:


> Buy sell trade


Is that a face book thing? Can't find it.

Older people and computers.....


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

Desert Rat said:


> Is that a face book thing? Can't find it.
> 
> Older people and computers.....








SOLD - Rocks!


A few stones from the last few months that are looking for a new home, or at least one with some free shelf space ;). Prices are intentionally low as they do not include shipping, though as ever - postage from here is cheaper than pretty much anywhere else afaics. Ping me a message with what you...




www.kitchenknifeforums.com





Click that link.

It's the Buy, Sale, Trade section here on the forum. There's a knife and non-knife section.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

Well, someone bought it. @Desert Rat ?


----------



## cotedupy

inferno said:


> are the lily white washitas the cocaine of the washita world?



A few subtle differences. I have enough LWs for instance, yet always seem to find myself running out of blow. I blame its relative friability by comparison.


----------



## cotedupy

HumbleHomeCook said:


> If I didn't think shipping would be a killer there wouldn't be!



Larger one went, smaller still available, but it’s definitely a razor stone, rather than a knife one.

I'll weigh it later to find out US shipping and put in the sale thread. It's a lot less sending Aus to US than the other way for some reason.

Though @Skylar303 has first dibs, as he said he might be interested, and I promised I’d give him a heads up next time I was moving anything on... and then forgot!


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

cotedupy said:


> Larger one went, smaller still available, but it’s definitely a razor stone, rather than a knife one.
> 
> I'll weigh it later to find out US shipping and put in the sale thread. It's a lot less sending Aus to US than the other way for some reason.
> 
> Though @Skylar303 has first dibs, as he said he might be interested, and I promised I’d give him a heads up next time I was moving anything on... and then forgot!



Thank you sir. I believe I got confused and was looking at Idwal 1 but second stone in the listing. Just didn't look close enough on my return check.


----------



## Desert Rat

HumbleHomeCook said:


> Well, someone bought it. @Desert Rat ?


Wasn't me but if it had a label I would have been very tempted.
I just went from screwing up a stone order because of a language barrier to spending that cash on another hobby. Sometimes I just have to pounce when something scarce shows up.
I won't be buying any new rocks for a little awhile.


----------



## Skylar303

cotedupy said:


> Larger one went, smaller still available, but it’s definitely a razor stone, rather than a knife one.
> 
> I'll weigh it later to find out US shipping and put in the sale thread. It's a lot less sending Aus to US than the other way for some reason.
> 
> Though @Skylar303 has first dibs, as he said he might be interested, and I promised I’d give him a heads up next time I was moving anything on... and then forgot!


All good, you're a busy man! Next time though!  Might as well close that BST thread also.


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> Wasn't me but if it had a label I would have been very tempted.
> I just went from screwing up a stone order because of a language barrier to spending that cash on another hobby. Sometimes I just have to pounce when something scarce shows up.
> I won't be buying any new rocks for a little awhile.


Ah that's a bummer! But hopefully you ended up with something nicer! Definitely right on those deals that pop up here and there, gotta grab it before it's gone! 

Also, still no update on my find. This maybe a bit harder than anticipated... Which could end up being a good thing.


----------



## Desert Rat

Skylar303 said:


> Ah that's a bummer! But hopefully you ended up with something nicer! Definitely right on those deals that pop up here and there, gotta grab it before it's gone!
> 
> Also, still no update on my find. This maybe a bit harder than anticipated... Which could end up being a good thing.


I've been scraping by for years buying partial boxes here and there of bullets for my favorite deer, antelope rifle. It's an obsolete rifle and cartridge for all practical purposes, never mind that the new stuff is not really any better. I just happened to find a bunch of bullets but I had to buy them in bulk. Worth it to not to scrounge around for them and I think I have enough now to outlast me. 

Not sure why everything I seem to really like is either no longer made, or is well on it's way to being gone. Be it stones, tools or straight razors. Just fortunate a lot of that stuff has survived for us to rediscover.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

Desert Rat said:


> I've been scraping by for years buying partial boxes here and there of bullets for my favorite deer, antelope rifle. It's an obsolete rifle and cartridge for all practical purposes, never mind that the new stuff is not really any better. I just happened to find a bunch of bullets but I had to buy them in bulk. Worth it to not to scrounge around for them and I think I have enough now to outlast me.
> 
> Not sure why everything I seem to really like is either no longer made, or is well on it's way to being gone. Be it stones, tools or straight razors. Just fortunate a lot of that stuff has survived for us to rediscover.



When I was stationed in Mtn. Home, I used to marvel at the antelope herds.


----------



## Desert Rat

HumbleHomeCook said:


> When I was stationed in Mtn. Home, I used to marvel at the antelope herds.


My Dad retired out of Mountain Home. Went from there to the Bruneau valley. Dad had several remote cow camps in Owyhee Co, I've ate a lot of that Owyhee Co dust. Sounds like you might have too?


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

Desert Rat said:


> My Dad retired out of Mountain Home. Went from there to the Bruneau valley. Dad had several remote cow camps in Owyhee Co, I've ate a lot of that Owyhee Co dust. Sounds like you might have too?



Indeed sir. I tromped all over central to southern Idaho for seven years. Both on and off duty. I was predominantly a bird hunter and fisherman but would accompany friends on big game hunts.


----------



## Desert Rat

HumbleHomeCook said:


> Indeed sir. I tromped all over central to southern Idaho for seven years. Both on and off duty. I was predominantly a bird hunter and fisherman but would accompany friends on big game hunts.


When did you get out or leave Mountain Home?

The ranch in Bruneau Valley was a bird hunters paradise at one time. We simply couldn't give permission to everyone that asks to hunt. We never turned away a father taking his son hunting though.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

Desert Rat said:


> When did you get out or leave Mountain Home?
> 
> The ranch in Bruneau Valley was a bird hunters paradise at one time. We simply couldn't give permission to everyone that asks to hunt. We never turned away a father taking his son hunting though.



'88-'95


----------



## BoSharpens

Just to add something from the geophysists, check the Wikipedia article on Silicate Minerals and see the multitude of different classes of bare silicate crystal structures found in nature. Those things were beaten down and weathered and reformed into the geologic silicate rocks we all used for stoning.


----------



## cotedupy

So here's a very nice thing that happened to me recently, courtesy of the exceptional generosity of a another couple of KKF members ...

I'm a long way from being as knowledgeable about Arkansas stones as many people here are, I have a bit of experience with old Washitas, but there are still lots of people who've been using them far longer than me. So it came as something of a surprise when @rocketman offered a while back to send me a piece of Arkansas stone he'd collected and cut himself, to see what I thought of it. Happily at the time @stringer was also very kindly helping me fulfil some of my old Norton collection (more on this later), and sending some stones I'd bought on US Ebay on to me, so we could combine shipping .

---

My package arrived today, including a little note about the aforementioned Ark.








Well that's feckin cool for a start! And all the break meant was that it's now become a 7x2 bench stone plus a little hand hone, or rubbing stone. Even better frankly. Here's the main part:







Straight off the bat this is quite obviously a high quality (and rather pretty) piece of Soft Arkansas, easily as good and consistent as commercially sold stones. You can see the purity here in the broken end of the smaller piece:







I was pretty certain it wasn't going to disappoint, and yeah... it's an excellent stone. Really quick in kicking up slurry:







The stone is _fast_, with a big range, and finishes relatively high (random guess here but I'd say something like 800 - 3k). The black parts are marginally coarser than the rest I think. Deburring is slightly tricky because of how quick it is, which isn't a bad problem to have in the grand scheme of things. Afterwards though, push cutting kitchen towel is hot-knife-through-butter stuff:







And something people don't often note about slightly friable versions of Soft Arks is this - they can polish rather nicely too. I had a bit of rust to remove from that nakiri, and I think it's done a pretty stellar job in getting those layers singing again:







---

As I said, I am not a particular expert on Soft Arkansas, in fact I only have two others: a Norton and a calico stone from a company called 'Natural Hones Inc.' or somesuch. This stone sits somewhere between the harder, slower Norton Stone and the coarser calico NHI... and it's better than both of them. This is a _really _lovely soft ark in my book, made doubly cool by the backstory, and I am very grateful to have it!


----------



## Desert Rat

That' s a beautiful stone cotedupy. It even looks fast standing still.

Here's a demonstration I did with a soft vs modern Wasita for cutting speed. The soft has a size advantage and they were both freshly lapped.


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> That' s a beautiful stone cotedupy. It even looks fast standing still.
> 
> Here's a demonstration I did with a soft vs modern Wasita for cutting speed. The soft has a size advantage and they were both freshly lapped.




It’s a bit of a peach eh! I’m sure @rocketman knew it was a good stone, just wanted to know about it measured up against others. The answer being - rather favourably!

Your video is interesting. It’s probably likely that RM’s stone is the kind that that get sold as Washitas now. It certainly has an impressive range and speed Though the way that it (and the calico stone) work seems just a bit different from my old Washitas.

I measured the SG just after writing the post above, and it was basically exactly what I was expecting: 2.25, which sits almost in the middle of of my other two softs leaning slightly toward the calico. Also interestingly - about the middle point, and a bit of a sweet spot, for old Washitas ime.


----------



## KingShapton

cotedupy said:


> So here's a very nice thing that happened to me recently, courtesy of the exceptional generosity of a another couple of KKF members ...
> 
> I'm a long way from being as knowledgeable about Arkansas stones as many people here are, I have a bit of experience with old Washitas, but there are still lots of people who've been using them far longer than me. So it came as something of a surprise when @rocketman offered a while back to send me a piece of Arkansas stone he'd collected and cut himself, to see what I thought of it. Happily at the time @stringer was also very kindly helping me fulfil some of my old Norton collection (more on this later), and sending some stones I'd bought on US Ebay on to me, so we could combine shipping .
> 
> ---
> 
> My package arrived today, including a little note about the aforementioned Ark.
> 
> View attachment 174061
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's feckin cool for a start! And all the break meant was that it's now become a 7x2 bench stone plus a little hand hone, or rubbing stone. Even better frankly. Here's the main part:
> 
> View attachment 173990
> 
> 
> 
> Straight off the bat this is quite obviously a high quality (and rather pretty) piece of Soft Arkansas, easily as good and consistent as commercially sold stones. You can see the purity here in the broken end of the smaller piece:
> 
> View attachment 173989
> 
> 
> 
> I was pretty certain it wasn't going to disappoint, and yeah... it's an excellent stone. Really quick in kicking up slurry:
> 
> View attachment 173985
> 
> 
> 
> The stone is _fast_, with a big range, and finishes relatively high (random guess here but I'd say something like 800 - 3k). The black parts are marginally coarser than the rest I think. Deburring is slightly tricky because of how quick it is, which isn't a bad problem to have in the grand scheme of things. Afterwards though, push cutting kitchen towel is hot-knife-through-butter stuff:
> 
> View attachment 173986
> 
> 
> 
> And something people don't often note about slightly friable versions of Soft Arks is this - they can polish rather nicely too. I had a bit of rust to remove from that nakiri, and I think it's done a pretty stellar job in getting those layers singing again:
> 
> View attachment 173984
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> As I said, I am not a particular expert on Soft Arkansas, in fact I only have two others: a Norton and a calico stone from a company called 'Natural Hones Inc.' or somesuch. This stone sits somewhere between the harder, slower Norton Stone and the coarser calico NHI... and it's better than both of them. This is a _really _lovely soft ark in my book, made doubly cool by the backstory, and I am very grateful to have it!


This is a absolute beautiful stone, a real beauty! And @Desert Rat is absolute right, this stone even looks fast.

@stringer - we need to talk


----------



## cotedupy

KingShapton said:


> This is a absolute beautiful stone, a real beauty! And @Desert Rat is absolute right, this stone even looks fast.
> 
> @stringer - we need to talk




Just gone back and found RM's earlier post about the origins of it, and sounds like he picked up a load (50-75 pieces?!). Frankly this could be a very nice little side hustle, as I believe he's quite well set up for cutting and shaping them, and it's basically my completely ideal Soft Ark / 'modern' Washita. People stateside should be petitioning him to do a run of them... .

(I don't think this was his intention btw, and would probably be far more trouble than it's worth. But if ever he does decide to cut more - I'd say jump on!)






The Washita Thread


Dipping my toe in the water. Hope it's a real washita.




www.kitchenknifeforums.com


----------



## cotedupy

Here then is a picture of my current collection of Nortons-in-cardboard-boxes. Apart from various random old Barber's Hones which I don't have much interest in, still I'm missing No.1 Washita (I have the wooden box version in the bottom left) and Fastcut. Ones I received recently in Stringer's parcel were; Queer Creek, Crystolon combi, small Medium India, and India x Washita ccombi (woooo!)







Something interesting to note is that in the original 1935 catalogue after Norton bought Pike it was only the QC and No.1 Washita that came in the slightly flimsier beige coloured boxes / sleeves, all the others had the sturdier boxes with trinagles. At some point later I believe this changed and all stones came in the triangle boxes. So my collection will be as it was at first, just after buying Pike.


----------



## cotedupy

Another interesting thing I noticed yesterday was a stone on US ebay atm...

















This surprised me a little because it shows the box style change, printing on stones rather than side labels, and move to having only the one 'Washita Oilstone' in the range (rather than LW and No.1) was as early as 1953. I had assumed it was perhaps 20 years later than that.


----------



## KingShapton

cotedupy said:


> Just gone back and found RM's earlier post about the origins of it, and sounds like he picked up a load (50-75 pieces?!). Frankly this could be a very nice little side hustle, as I believe he's quite well set up for cutting and shaping them, and it's basically my completely ideal Soft Ark / 'modern' Washita. People stateside should be petitioning him to do a run of them... .
> 
> (I don't think this was his intention btw, and would probably be far more trouble than it's worth. But if ever he does decide to cut more - I'd say jump on!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Washita Thread
> 
> 
> Dipping my toe in the water. Hope it's a real washita.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kitchenknifeforums.com


Thanks for the tip, but I totally agree with you that it wasn't RM's intention to make a sideline out of his 50-75 pieces. And I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be so pleased with a "barrage" of inquiries about these stones - and neither would I.

While what I see in your picture is exactly the type of stone I'm really, really passionate about having (it looks really like a completely ideal Soft Ark / 'modern' Washita) - your description of the properties confirms that. That would definitely be a Highlight of my collection that I would be very proud of! Especially since my Arkansas/Novaculite stones are becoming more and more my favorite natural stones.

But as much as I would like to have one of these stones, I will not "bother" anyone I have no relationship with who just wanted to please someone here with the stone you now have. That would be disrespectful and I wouldn't be doing RM, you or me any favors by doing so.

However, should there ever be another unsolicited sale of the remaining pieces, I would absolutely try to get one of these stones! But realistically I don't think so.

BTW, the little pocket washita got to me safely and I love this stone! Thank you again for that @cotedupy .


----------



## rocketman

Ok, really I just picked up a few, like 3 or 4 "rocks", and kept them as rocks till the last few years, when I joined the Houston Gem and Mineral Society, and found that they have a complete lapidary lab... Then I cut the rocks into slabs, and some of those into sharpening sized stones... I have no intention of trying to sell stones.. Never even thought of that concept. Really for my use only, or the fellow who I forge knives with. Since I picked these rocks up in a couple of different spots around Hot Springs when I visited the mines, and shot the bull with some "old" miners, old when you are 24 is very different than when you are 78, the stones which came from the rocks are different not only in appearance, but in density. Fun, but when you sell stuff turns into a job.


----------



## KingShapton

rocketman said:


> Ok, really I just picked up a few, like 3 or 4 "rocks", and kept them as rocks till the last few years, when I joined the Houston Gem and Mineral Society, and found that they have a complete lapidary lab... Then I cut the rocks into slabs, and some of those into sharpening sized stones... I have no intention of trying to sell stones.. Never even thought of that concept. Really for my use only, or the fellow who I forge knives with. Since I picked these rocks up in a couple of different spots around Hot Springs when I visited the mines, and shot the bull with some "old" miners, old when you are 24 is very different than when you are 78, the stones which came from the rocks are different not only in appearance, but in density. Fun, but when you sell stuff turns into a job.


I assumed something like that - that fun should remain fun and not degenerate into work.

And as I have already explained - I would never consider harassing someone without being asked, with whom I have no contact or connection. That would be disrespectful and pushy. And I don't intend to be one or the other!


----------



## Skylar303

cotedupy said:


> Here then is a picture of my current collection of Nortons-in-cardboard-boxes. Apart from various random old Barber's Hones which I don't have much interest in, still I'm missing No.1 Washita (I have the wooden box version in the bottom left) and Fastcut. Ones I received recently in Stringer's parcel were; Queer Creek, Crystolon combi, small Medium India, and India x Washita ccombi (woooo!)
> 
> View attachment 174370
> 
> 
> 
> Something interesting to note is that in the original 1935 catalogue after Norton bought Pike it was only the QC and No.1 Washita that came in the slightly flimsier beige coloured boxes / sleeves, all the others had the sturdier boxes with trinagles. At some point later I believe this changed and all stones came in the triangle boxes. So my collection will be as it was at first, just after buying Pike.


Cool you found the combi! (Along with the others! I might need to have a chat with @stringer ) I still have that fastcut still with your name on it. @cotedupy

Although I looked back and all your stuff is Norton, not sure if Norton had a fastcut. Think it was a Pike thing?


I unfortunately botched the label of the NO. 1 a bit... I should of just glued the rest down, since the end was glued already... Thing was So dirty though.  ALSO IF ANYONE WAS CURIOUS. Starbond CA, will hold up in SG. I wasn't sure if it would, hence trying to remove the label.


How the stone was... Lovely black washita no. 1... Soaking atm...


----------



## Skylar303

rocketman said:


> Ok, really I just picked up a few, like 3 or 4 "rocks", and kept them as rocks till the last few years, when I joined the Houston Gem and Mineral Society, and found that they have a complete lapidary lab... Then I cut the rocks into slabs, and some of those into sharpening sized stones... I have no intention of trying to sell stones.. Never even thought of that concept. Really for my use only, or the fellow who I forge knives with. Since I picked these rocks up in a couple of different spots around Hot Springs when I visited the mines, and shot the bull with some "old" miners, old when you are 24 is very different than when you are 78, the stones which came from the rocks are different not only in appearance, but in density. Fun, but when you sell stuff turns into a job.


Nice! I should check out my local rock and mineral clubs. The only place I know that has lapidary stuff is a metal smith school for jewelry, so it's not a very big section. But I'm sure they got a slab saw. Or hope so at least... Since they do require you to buy a membership. I'll check it out one of these days now that restrictions have lifted a bit more around here. Glad you got some good stones.  Would be a bummer to haul them back for them to be duds ha!


----------



## Skylar303

cotedupy said:


> Another interesting thing I noticed yesterday was a stone on US ebay atm...
> 
> View attachment 174371
> 
> 
> View attachment 174372
> 
> 
> View attachment 174373
> 
> 
> 
> This surprised me a little because it shows the box style change, printing on stones rather than side labels, and move to having only the one 'Washita Oilstone' in the range (rather than LW and No.1) was as early as 1953. I had assumed it was perhaps 20 years later than that.


I'd buy that for $1.50.


----------



## BillHanna

Skylar303 said:


> I'd buy that for $1.50.


I thought that might have been a serious assessment, then I looked at the box again lol


----------



## Skylar303

cotedupy said:


> Here then is a picture of my current collection of Nortons-in-cardboard-boxes. Apart from various random old Barber's Hones which I don't have much interest in, still I'm missing No.1 Washita (I have the wooden box version in the bottom left) and Fastcut. Ones I received recently in Stringer's parcel were; Queer Creek, Crystolon combi, small Medium India, and India x Washita ccombi (woooo!)
> 
> View attachment 174370
> 
> 
> 
> Something interesting to note is that in the original 1935 catalogue after Norton bought Pike it was only the QC and No.1 Washita that came in the slightly flimsier beige coloured boxes / sleeves, all the others had the sturdier boxes with trinagles. At some point later I believe this changed and all stones came in the triangle boxes. So my collection will be as it was at first, just after buying Pike.


Haha my triangle box I think is already flimsy af... Hard to imagine stones in something worse...


----------



## Skylar303

BillHanna said:


> I thought that might have been a serious assessment, then I looked at the box again lol


Someone lucked out with that find! We haven't talked much @BillHanna, but I see you buy a bit of knives from the box thread. Hope your recent purchases have been good.  I'm hoping to learn more about these knives and maybe up my game from thrift store knives.


----------



## cotedupy

Skylar303 said:


> Cool you found the combi! (Along with the others! I might need to have a chat with @stringer ) I still have that fastcut still with your name on it. @cotedupy
> 
> Although I looked back and all your stuff is Norton, not sure if Norton had a fastcut. Think it was a Pike thing?
> View attachment 174431
> 
> I unfortunately botched the label of the NO. 1 a bit... I should of just glued the rest down, since the end was glued already... Thing was So dirty though.  ALSO IF ANYONE WAS CURIOUS. Starbond CA, will hold up in SG. I wasn't sure if it would, hence trying to remove the label.
> View attachment 174433
> 
> How the stone was... Lovely black washita no. 1... Soaking atm...




The Fastcut _did _make the transition post 1933, though I'm not sure how long for. TBH until you posted pics of yours, I never knew that Pike produced it originally, it's not mentioned as such in any of their old literature that I've seen (Hindostans are, just not under the name 'Fastcut' afaics).

Norton aren't much better in talking about the stone either, in fact I've only found a single reference to it being a Hindostan in one of their catalogues, in relation to an axe sharpening puck. Mostly it's described as stuff like 'a fine and soft natural stone'. Interestingly Norton sold another Hindostan stone at the same time, priced identically.


----------



## Skylar303

cotedupy said:


> The Fastcut _did _make the transition post 1933, though I'm not sure how long for. TBH until you posted pics of yours, I never knew that Pike produced it originally, it's not mentioned as such in any of their old literature that I've seen (Hindostans are, just not under the name 'Fastcut' afaics).
> 
> Norton aren't much better in talking about the stone either, in fact I've only found a single reference to it being a Hindostan in one of their catalogues, in relation to an axe sharpening puck. Mostly it's described as stuff like 'a fine and soft natural stone'. Interestingly Norton sold another Hindostan stone at the same time, priced identically.
> 
> 
> View attachment 174504
> 
> 
> View attachment 174505
> 
> 
> View attachment 174503


Interesting, coming in with the hard facts again.  And if they're hindos then I don't think I have one unless they're super soft ones I have. In comparison to the Pike. I see they say those fastcuts are "soft", but the ones I thought maybe are even softer... 

I don't have it on hand atm, but interestingly the Pike one I believe is 6/7x2x1/4". Maybe Norton made them thicker since they were fast and soft stones?


----------



## Desert Rat

I like the feel of the Hindostan. I used one a few days ago to set the bevel on a beater straight I recently purchased. It worked perfectly well for that but I think most would hate it because of it's speed or lack of.
Are the "Fast Cut" stones softer, finer or coarser?


----------



## Desert Rat

Desert Rat said:


> That' s a beautiful stone cotedupy. It even looks fast standing still.
> 
> Here's a demonstration I did with a soft vs modern Wasita for cutting speed. The soft has a size advantage and they were both freshly lapped.



What a polite group we have on this form. I can't believe nobody gave me flack over that Henckels santoku. I actually own that knife, it's a terrible thing and a gift from my dear old mother. It holds an edge like no other in my kitchen because it never gets used. Decoration I suppose..


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> I like the feel of the Hindostan. I used one a few days ago to set the bevel on a beater straight I recently purchased. It worked perfectly well for that but I think most would hate it because of it's speed or lack of.
> Are the "Fast Cut" stones softer, finer or coarser?


Did you grab the one in the BST? And sorry not having a hindo, I can't really compare. Pike also had something called "quick cut" that were apparently emery.

From the old catalog description, I'd say definitely faster, softer, maybe not more fine. (Just based on softer stones tend to be coarser.) Just based on the descriptions, as they just list hindo for axes n such. I can see it being good for bevel but past that probably not the best choice. I haven't used the fastcut yet since it went into my "oil box" I'm finally getting around to since they are some good stones that I now realize don't Need oil, but may work better.

The washita no. 1 from earlier, with the part of the label that was already glued down... At least I got most of the label off...  Got close to clean, can see where under the label is almost snow white. Has some pinkish/Orange splotches. A lot better compared to before.





I'll put it through it's paces with some chisels when I get a chance.

AFTER A FEW SOAKS, THE SG DID START TO EAT AT THE CA GLUE ON THE LABEL! So I retract my previous statement that it doesn't affect it. Just takes a while. You can see the label on the stone is slightly "fuzzy" looking. It's the CA that has worn, the shiney on the left is where the CA held up. I'm sure it will look fine with another thin coat. (Straight out SG, and rinsed)


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> What a polite group we have on this form. I can't believe nobody gave me flack over that Henckels santoku. I actually own that knife, it's a terrible thing and a gift from my dear old mother. It holds an edge like no other in my kitchen because it never gets used. Decoration I suppose..


Haha, very true. Although I don't know any better if it's good or not. If nothing else your mom was thinking of you when she bought it, so that's always nice. 

I did get one comment on the fact I have a kiwi though.


----------



## Desert Rat

Skylar303 said:


> Did you grab the one in the BST? And sorry not having a hindo, I can't really compare. Pike also had something called "quick cut" that were apparently emery.
> 
> From the old catalog description, I'd say definitely faster, softer, maybe not more fine. (Just based on softer stones tend to be coarser.) Just based on the descriptions, as they just list hindo for axes n such. I can see it being good for bevel but past that probably not the best choice. I haven't used the fastcut yet since it went into my "oil box" I'm finally getting around to since they are some good stones that I now realize don't Need oil, but may work better.
> 
> The washita no. 1 from earlier, with the part of the label that was already glued down... At least I got most of the label off...  Got close to clean, can see where under the label is almost snow white. Has some pinkish/Orange splotches. A lot better compared to before.
> View attachment 174754
> View attachment 174755
> View attachment 174756
> 
> I'll put it through it's paces with some chisels when I get a chance.
> 
> AFTER A FEW SOAKS, THE SG DID START TO EAT AT THE CA GLUE ON THE LABEL! So I retract my previous statement that it doesn't affect it. Just takes a while. You can see the label on the stone is slightly "fuzzy" looking. It's the CA that has worn, the shiney on the left is where the CA held up. I'm sure it will look fine with another thin coat. (Straight out SG, and rinsed)
> View attachment 174760


 I didn't buy the one on BST. I have had one for awhile now, an ebay stone that I was hoping for something else. If I remember correctly the Hindostans were graded by color. I'm not sure on how they differ.

I like to challenge myself and setting the bevel on the Hindostan was part of that. Hindo to a translucent. It worked out as well as one might expect and I went to a coticule and then the translucent.

That's a good looking No 1. Are you making a box for it?


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> I didn't buy the one on BST. I have had one for awhile now, an ebay stone that I was hoping for something else. If I remember correctly the Hindostans were graded by color. I'm not sure on how they differ.
> 
> I like to challenge myself and setting the bevel on the Hindostan was part of that. Hindo to a translucent. It worked out as well as one might expect and I went to a coticule and then the translucent.
> 
> That's a good looking No 1. Are you making a box for it?


Eh, at least it wasn't a synth . Which did you like. Hindo>Translucent, Coti>Translucent?

Thanks, it was in a box if tools, I bought it for the stone though... Yeah, I got a few coticule ones I need to finish... Along with many other projects hah... Weather, along with trying to get some wood has delayed it a bit.


----------



## BillHanna




----------



## captaincaed

You and that damn toaster, Bill


----------



## BillHanna

Even if I get a new one, you’ll only see it once. On top of this one. Then never again.


----------



## captaincaed

"Challenge accepted"


----------



## Desert Rat

Skylar303 said:


> Eh, at least it wasn't a synth . Which did you like. Hindo>Translucent, Coti>Translucent?
> 
> Thanks, it was in a box if tools, I bought it for the stone though... Yeah, I got a few coticule ones I need to finish... Along with many other projects hah... Weather, along with trying to get some wood has delayed it a bit.


Hindo, coti to translucent progression. I just tried to skip a stone to see if I could pull it off on a relatively fast translucent. I couldn't.

I use coticules quite a bit as an intermediate stone between a bevel setter and a finisher even though they can do both. Amazing stones.


----------



## VICTOR J CREAZZI

Just did a SG on what I think is my Lily White and got 2.44. I didn't think that my decagram scale would be accurate enough but things were heavy enough that it seemed pretty good.


----------



## captaincaed

Hello....


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> Hello....
> View attachment 175433



Just gorgeous! That was the unused NOS stone that came in a different box right? I was bidding on that too, just cos it was so pristine.

Went a bit beyond my budget in the end, but I slightly regret that. Even though it wasn't cheap... how often are you going to find an unused example of what must surely be the best knife stone ever made? Nice pickup .


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> I like the feel of the Hindostan. I used one a few days ago to set the bevel on a beater straight I recently purchased. It worked perfectly well for that but I think most would hate it because of it's speed or lack of.
> Are the "Fast Cut" stones softer, finer or coarser?




Err... the catalogues describe them as 'soft and fast cutting'. Which doesn't sound much like a Hindo to me at all tbh! But perhaps they meant _comparatively_.


----------



## captaincaed

cotedupy said:


> Just gorgeous! That was the unused NOS stone that came in a different box right? I was bidding on that too, just cos it was so pristine.
> 
> Went a bit beyond my budget in the end, but I slightly regret that. Even though it wasn't cheap... how often are you going to find an unused example of what must surely be the best knife stone ever made? Nice pickup .


Turns out it was just down the road from me all along, could have driven it home for half the price of shipping. The box is a bit of a mismatch, but not bad. It's definitely been used probably just a couple times, but at least covered in oil. That said, I'm pretty happy. You inspired me!


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> Turns out it was just down the road from me all along, could have driven it home for half the price of shipping. The box is a bit of a mismatch, but not bad. It's definitely been used probably just a couple times, but at least covered in oil. That said, I'm pretty happy. You inspired me!



Ah it's a gem! The reason I was bidding is because the one I picked up recently was the opposite - nice original box, ok label, and then the stone had been broken and badly fixed. I got it pretty cheap knowing that I could repair properly to make it unnoticeable in use. So I was going to be a wanky collector and have the pristine one sitting in the box, and my mended one to use . 

Good that it's gone to a home where it'll actually get some action though!

Here's mine, with my new Sportsman India x Washita pocket stone.


----------



## Logan09

Picked up this stone. I took a gamble on it which I hate doing as I've been burned to many times(and still am) it was much more than I'd normally throw at an unknown stone, but I loved the Mahagony box it came in. 

First picture with the box is what I saw. I knew it was a natural(I figured no-one would make such a nice box for for a synthetic) the stone was not coming out, I had to clamp it in my wood vise and after several attempts(i didn't want to break it or the box) it popped out. To my surprise the original label was still stuck on the stone. "Pike Rosy Red Washita" Going to try and save the label and attach it to the inside of the lid and give this a good de-greasing. Box also had initials and a date of 1931 carved in it which I was unaware of during purchase. It appears to be added much later and "crudely" done.


----------



## cotedupy

Logan09 said:


> Picked up this stone. I took a gamble on it which I hate doing as I've been burned to many times(and still am) it was much more than I'd normally throw at an unknown stone, but I loved the Mahagony box it came in.
> 
> First picture with the box is what I saw. I knew it was a natural(I figured no-one would make such a nice box for for a synthetic) the stone was not coming out, I had to clamp it in my wood vise and after several attempts(i didn't want to break it or the box) it popped out. To my surprise the original label was still stuck on the stone. "Pike Rosy Red Washita" Going to try and save the label and attach it to the inside of the lid and give this a good de-greasing. Box also had initials and a date of 1931 carved in it which I was unaware of during purchase. It appears to be added much later and "crudely" done.View attachment 175566
> View attachment 175567



WOAH!!!

This thread has a winner. Amazing. Congrats .


----------



## Desert Rat

Logan09 said:


> Picked up this stone. I took a gamble on it which I hate doing as I've been burned to many times(and still am) it was much more than I'd normally throw at an unknown stone, but I loved the Mahagony box it came in.
> 
> First picture with the box is what I saw. I knew it was a natural(I figured no-one would make such a nice box for for a synthetic) the stone was not coming out, I had to clamp it in my wood vise and after several attempts(i didn't want to break it or the box) it popped out. To my surprise the original label was still stuck on the stone. "Pike Rosy Red Washita" Going to try and save the label and attach it to the inside of the lid and give this a good de-greasing. Box also had initials and a date of 1931 carved in it which I was unaware of during purchase. It appears to be added much later and "crudely" done.View attachment 175566
> View attachment 175567


Oh wow! That's a whole bunch of awesome.


----------



## blokey

Recently taking up some interesting in different stones, this thread is definitely a great read. I kind want to buy some finger stones or mini stones to touch up edges with out wiping out the big guys, saw some Akansas finger stones on Sharpeningsupplies , have anyone tried those out? Would love to hear some experience or advices.
Also interested how Washita compares to Jnat in terms of polishing.

Said stone Hard Translucent Arkansas Pocket Stone With Leather Pouch

Also Dan’s stone looks very interesting: https://danswhetstone.com/product/pocket-stones/


----------



## stringer

blokey said:


> Recently taking up some interesting in different stones, this thread is definitely a great read. I kind want to buy some finger stones or mini stones to touch up edges with out wiping out the big guys, saw some Akansas finger stones on Sharpeningsupplies , have anyone tried those out? Would love to hear some experience or advices.
> Also interested how Washita compares to Jnat in terms of polishing.
> 
> Said stone Hard Translucent Arkansas Pocket Stone With Leather Pouch
> 
> Also Dan’s stone looks very interesting: https://danswhetstone.com/product/pocket-stones/



I have several little surgical black and translucent pocket stones. I have them stuffed in silverware drawers and knife rolls and toolboxes. If you don't mind the super small format then they can be quite useful for deburring, quick touchups, etc.


----------



## BoSharpens

The Buck Knife kit with sharpening oil, stranslucent & a coarser Arkansas is something I've used for over 50 years. It has touched up and finished off edges so they were razor sharp from pocket knives the chef cleavers. I've never felt the need to have really large stones as I use the quicker low speed diamond hone for the larger metal removal jobs.


----------



## blokey

stringer said:


> I have several little surgical black and translucent pocket stones. I have them stuffed in silverware drawers and knife rolls and toolboxes. If you don't mind the super small format then they can be quite useful for deburring, quick touchups, etc.


Thank you! Just ordered a translucent Arkansas to try.

Edit: Decide to get a soft and hard Arkansas to try instead.


----------



## blokey

Probably should asked more… I’m still kind confused which stone should I get, I am primarily looking for a pocket stone to hone and quickly bring back the edge to my knives. My normal routine is SP1k then Ouka 3k. Just bought the medium and hard pocket stone, should go to extra fine or black stone instead?


----------



## stringer

blokey said:


> Probably should asked more… I’m still kind confused which stone should I get, I am primarily looking for a pocket stone to hone and quickly bring back the edge to my knives. My normal routine is SP1k then Ouka 3k. Just bought the medium and hard pocket stone, should go to extra fine or black stone instead?



Medium and hard is good for knives. Translucent/surgical black/extra fine is more for razors


----------



## blokey

stringer said:


> Medium and hard is good for knives. Translucent/surgical black/extra fine is more for razors


Thank you! Seems like I made the right choice then.


----------



## stringer

Picked up a couple new ones. 





The coarse is synthetic




The medium is a very pretty soft ark I guess. It's broken but big enough for me.




The "fine" is a mediumish ark/washita. 





And I picked up another ancient thick hard washita.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

@stringer that Washita is a beauty. Congrats!


----------



## cotedupy

Nice pickups @stringer ! The arks look pretty lovely, but that old Washita is sweet af!

(p.s. I owe you money! Ping me payment deets...)


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> Nice pickups @stringer ! The arks look pretty lovely, but that old Washita is sweet af!
> 
> (p.s. I owe you money! Ping me payment deets...)



No worries. I haven't been moving around much the last month. I'll get it to you soon. I knew what this one was as soon as I saw it but I cleaned it up a bit before I posted just to be sure. They can look so similar to Indias in the wild. Here's what the eBay ad looked like.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> No worries. I haven't been moving around much the last month. I'll get it to you soon. I knew what this one was as soon as I saw it but I cleaned it up a bit before I posted just to be sure. They can look so similar to Indias in the wild. Here's what the eBay ad looked like.
> 
> 
> View attachment 176489




That's a good spot! I'm not sure I would have been confident enough to go for it just on the initial pic, as you say - an India stone can do a very good impression of this kind of thing.


----------



## cotedupy

I get asked about Washitas a little bit (quel surprise!), especially when I'm letting any of the collection go on BST, and one aspect I always try to explain or point out is how they differ in use from synthetic waterstones that people might be more familiar with.

So today I made a little intro video, which hopefully explains a little about them for anyone unfamiliar, and shows how you can take a knife from badly blunted and beaten up, to clean drop-cutting kitchen towel in under 2 mins. I'm pretty rubbish at talking on camera, but I think it covers the basics.


----------



## captaincaed

A promising thrift find this weekend....


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> A promising thrift find this weekend....View attachment 176589



Very smart find!

By about a mm you have enough of that label left to be able to tell it’s a Lily White .


----------



## cotedupy

Everybody up for some fun learning time with regards @captaincaed ’s stone above? Very well then, here we go...

That's the remnants of a blue 30s/40s era mounted Norton Washita label. At the time, after the takeover of Pike, they immediately cut the range of Washitas to just LW and No.1, but apart from that wording the labels are identical. And we can't see any of the words there, so how do we know it's a Lily White...?

The labels read either 'Lily White Washita' or 'No.1 Washita', with 'Oilstone' underneath. And the former is longer than the latter, so the lettering extended past the Norton Abrasives graphic above it. On CC's stone this bit I've circled is the final part of the 'A' at the end of 'Washita':







As in this label:







If it were a No.1 Washita the 'A' would not have extended past the end of the logo above:







Fun eh!


----------



## captaincaed

Dude, no way! You are a Frickin Machine with the knowledge game.
It's pretty dished and gouged, and I took that as a good sign of being softer. We shall see.


----------



## Logan09

Not having much luck getting this 100% cleaned. 3 soaks and this is the outcome of the Rosy Red Washita.


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> Dude, no way! You are a Frickin Machine with the knowledge game.
> It's pretty dished and gouged, and I took that as a good sign of being softer. We shall see.



Haha. It was quite cool the way it had just enough of a sliver of lettering left to be able to ID it if you knew what to look for. Like it had been specially designed to show off my Washita geekiness!

Certainly sounds like it could be at the softer end, especially if it's got gouges in it - that takes some doing on them.


----------



## cotedupy

Logan09 said:


> Not having much luck getting this 100% cleaned. 3 soaks and this is the outcome of the Rosy Red Washita. View attachment 176652
> View attachment 176653
> View attachment 176654
> View attachment 176655
> View attachment 176656
> View attachment 176657




This is very interesting...

RRs are so rare that I've only seen pics of a handful of them before, and they've been a fairly uniform rusty colour. But a lot of the old Pike literature describes them as having having that colour in stripes or patches, like your one does. It's beautiful.

And yeah - often the oil on older stones can take months of repeated soaking to come out properly, if you can be bothered. Though if I had a RR then I definitely would, as it'd be very cool to see it exactly how it would have been originally... so keep going!

(Though of course you know where I am if you lose patience ).


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> No worries. I haven't been moving around much the last month. I'll get it to you soon.



Nay worries man, just don't forget yeah! Hope the recovery is going alright.


----------



## cotedupy

Here's an observation regarding colour in old Washitas...

The stones that Mr. S kindly sent on to me recently, the two that I was (and am) most excited about were the two India x Washita combis. The 7 x 2 bench size was broken, so I got reasonably cheaply knowing I could probably fix to make it unnoticeable in use. Which I have, though the stone itself isn't going to win any beauty awards, and could still do with a bit more degreasing.







And the little 3 x 1 3/8 Sportsman stone. Which is pretty pristine, and has rather a smart Norton branded leather pochette.







And both of these stones have some pink colour in them, in a way that I've never seen before on a P-N Washita. This may just be completely coincidental; the stones don't seem any faster or coarser than my others, and the pink bits no different to the rest of the stone. My suspicion is that they were using rock with some visual inconsistencies for these combis, that they didn't want in the normal benchstones, and perhaps using up pieces of rock that weren't big or thick enough for the normal sizes. I reckon these are basically offcuts.

What does your new WIB7 combi look like @captaincaed? Any colours?


----------



## captaincaed

Here are the two newcomers. The Lily White (feels good to type that) is getting a light simple green bath. 

The combo does indeed have some magenta flecking (white also). This one is not unused, but lightly used, not dished. The surface of the India is clearly a bit burnished, but not bad. And it's had oil added for certain.


----------



## Desert Rat

Logan09 said:


> Not having much luck getting this 100% cleaned. 3 soaks and this is the outcome of the Rosy Red Washita. View attachment 176652
> View attachment 176653
> View attachment 176654
> View attachment 176655
> View attachment 176656
> View attachment 176657


A plastic container with an airtight lid works pretty good for long soaks.


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> I get asked about Washitas a little bit (quel surprise!), especially when I'm letting any of the collection go on BST, and one aspect I always try to explain or point out is how they differ in use from synthetic waterstones that people might be more familiar with.
> 
> So today I made a little intro video, which hopefully explains a little about them for anyone unfamiliar, and shows how you can take a knife from badly blunted and beaten up, to clean drop-cutting kitchen towel in under 2 mins. I'm pretty rubbish at talking on camera, but I think it covers the basics.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 176567



Don't know what you are talking about with the rubbish talking thing. You enunciate quite clearly even with the funny accent. 
An old guy like me with less than perfect hearing can clearly understand you.

There isn't much of that type of content on youtube. Are you going to do more vids with the Washita's?


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> Here's an observation regarding colour in old Washitas...
> 
> The stones that Mr. S kindly sent on to me recently, the two that I was (and am) most excited about were the two India x Washita combis. The 7 x 2 bench size was broken, so I got reasonably cheaply knowing I could probably fix to make it unnoticeable in use. Which I have, though the stone itself isn't going to win any beauty awards, and could still do with a bit more degreasing.
> 
> View attachment 176679
> 
> 
> 
> And the little 3 x 1 3/8 Sportsman stone. Which is pretty pristine, and has rather a smart Norton branded leather pochette.
> 
> View attachment 176678
> 
> 
> 
> And both of these stones have some pink colour in them, in a way that I've never seen before on a P-N Washita. This may just be completely coincidental; the stones don't seem any faster or coarser than my others, and the pink bits no different to the rest of the stone. My suspicion is that they were using rock with some visual inconsistencies for these combis, that they didn't want in the normal benchstones, and perhaps using up pieces of rock that weren't big or thick enough for the normal sizes. I reckon these are basically offcuts.
> 
> What does your new WIB7 combi look like @captaincaed? Any colours?
> 
> View attachment 176680
> 
> 
> View attachment 176681


India to a Washita is such a natural progression. Like the India was made for just that in mind.
I have never came across one of those combo's in the wild.


----------



## Logan09

Desert Rat said:


> A plastic container with an airtight lid works pretty good for long soaks.


Using a Rubbermaid container with sodium hydroxide. Strips all my other stones with ease, but this is another story.


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> Here are the two newcomers. The Lily White (feels good to type that) is getting a light simple green bath.
> 
> The combo does indeed have some magenta flecking (white also).



Ah yeah - your combi stone does have exactly the same magenta bits as my one, interesting. Maybe I'll get out the USB scope later and have a little look at it properly.

That LW looks lovely! I've had Washitas with considerably worse dishing than that, though they were probably quite old ones, lots of life left in yours . It's also a big un, is that 8" or 9"? The latter are pretty rare tbh, though they did make some - a 9" stone I picked up recently also came with the remnants of an old Norton side label on it from the same era.

I didn't spot it inside the old box until a few weeks later, and unlike yours there wasn't quite enough of it to see whether it was LW or No.1, but I already had the stone down in my mind as a LW because of the consistency, so I'll stick with that. And actually... the 9 and 10 inch stones don't appear in any old catalogues afaics, though they were clearly cut for certain customers. And I think I've only ever seen them as LWs, perhaps they didn't offer the No.1 in those XL sizes at all (?). Might ask about this over on B&B...





Desert Rat said:


> Don't know what you are talking about with the rubbish talking thing. You enunciate quite clearly even with the funny accent.
> An old guy like me with less than perfect hearing can clearly understand you.
> 
> There isn't much of that type of content on youtube. Are you going to do more vids with the Washita's?



Ah cheers - I was actually a bit worried that I mumbled in a bit in that vid, so that's good to hear. As long as I don't sound too much like Boris Johnson I'll be happy . I could do another vid or two I suppose, maybe looking at a few different ones more closely, talking about SGs and Calicos &c. Though it might just end up repeating a lot of stuff from the rather good video you sent me a while back. Any other ideas...?

I'm sure one of us has linked to this before somewhere on this thread, but always worth doing so again for anyone who hasn't seen:







Desert Rat said:


> India to a Washita is such a natural progression. Like the India was made for just that in mind.
> I have never came across one of those combo's in the wild.



Yeah agreed. As soon as I learnt of the existence of these combis I knew it was basically going to be my perfect whetstone, and that I had to have one!


----------



## captaincaed

Two labeled Washitas, all cleaned up, dead flat.

The cleaning process was interesting. The first stone I got was left splotchy after a long simple green soak and flattening. Wondering if the stone is heterogeneous, if the first owner used it more heavily, with different oil, or what. The newer stone that @cotedupy IDed as a lily white has a more even distribution of leopard spots. It was definitely used heavily, due to the dishing and gouging at the edges.

The first Pike is noticeably harder, and took about twice as long to lap. The sharpening leaves little tactile feedback, and even when sharpening a Forgecraft, you need to lean into it to make much progress. But, I think it’ll burnish and hone to a finer edge.

Visually, the harder Pike stone is just totally opaque, no hint of translucence. The softer Norton has a hint of depth/translucence, and a sort of butterscotch color lurking under the surface. Not a ton, but it’s there.

The second Norton lapped flat pretty quickly, in about 30” with SiC powder. It feels grippier on the fingertips after lapping.

The sharpening feedback is similar as well. With both lapped coarse, the harder Pike causes the knife to “skate” across the bumps a bit, where the softer Norton is a bit grippier, gives a mores stable feeling.

Surprising, when I stacked them up to some unknown stones … I like the unlabelled stones better.

The third bench stone was an ebay find, and has definite translucent qualities, and some fissures on one end that are really pronounced viewed head-on. The chipped corner shows a layered, fracturing structure instead of a more granitic, crumbly structure like the hardest Pike stone. The Norton isn’t really chipped enough to tell, but it seems in between. The unlabelled Washita is lapped smoother than the first two, and has a nice, even feedback.






The travel stone I inherited from my grandpa also has a translucent quality and sort of a flakey texture rather than bumpy, when lapped coarse. It has a strong butterscotch color that I think is just part of the stone, not an artifact of oil (no change in color during lapping). Excellent tactile feedback.

Last but not least is the combo stone. The surface is lapped smoothest of all, but also provides a really nice, smooth, tactile feedback. It probably has the most pronounced translucence of all the stones. Leaves a clean, bitey edge, but not the first choice for hogging material off (that’s what the India side is for!)

I’m still not sure how/if all these correlate with sharpening, but in general it seems like the features that make me like the stone best are some translucence and a flakey substructure.

If I had my way about it, I would chip the corner off any stone I wanted to buy, and see if it crumbled like cement or knapped more like arrowhead novaculite, favoring the latter.

Just my rambling thoughts after a long week of work.


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> Two labeled Washitas, all cleaned up, dead flat.
> 
> The cleaning process was interesting. The first stone I got was left splotchy after a long simple green soak and flattening. Wondering if the stone is heterogeneous, if the first owner used it more heavily, with different oil, or what. The newer stone that @cotedupy IDed as a lily white has a more even distribution of leopard spots. It was definitely used heavily, due to the dishing and gouging at the edges.
> 
> The first Pike is noticeably harder, and took about twice as long to lap. The sharpening leaves little tactile feedback, and even when sharpening a Forgecraft, you need to lean into it to make much progress. But, I think it’ll burnish and hone to a finer edge.
> 
> Visually, the harder Pike stone is just totally opaque, no hint of translucence. The softer Norton has a hint of depth/translucence, and a sort of butterscotch color lurking under the surface. Not a ton, but it’s there.
> 
> The second Norton lapped flat pretty quickly, in about 30” with SiC powder. It feels grippier on the fingertips after lapping.
> 
> The sharpening feedback is similar as well. With both lapped coarse, the harder Pike causes the knife to “skate” across the bumps a bit, where the softer Norton is a bit grippier, gives a mores stable feeling.
> 
> Surprising, when I stacked them up to some unknown stones … I like the unlabelled stones better.
> 
> The third bench stone was an ebay find, and has definite translucent qualities, and some fissures on one end that are really pronounced viewed head-on. The chipped corner shows a layered, fracturing structure instead of a more granitic, crumbly structure like the hardest Pike stone. The Norton isn’t really chipped enough to tell, but it seems in between. The unlabelled Washita is lapped smoother than the first two, and has a nice, even feedback.
> 
> View attachment 177268
> 
> 
> The travel stone I inherited from my grandpa also has a translucent quality and sort of a flakey texture rather than bumpy, when lapped coarse. It has a strong butterscotch color that I think is just part of the stone, not an artifact of oil (no change in color during lapping). Excellent tactile feedback.
> 
> Last but not least is the combo stone. The surface is lapped smoothest of all, but also provides a really nice, smooth, tactile feedback. It probably has the most pronounced translucence of all the stones. Leaves a clean, bitey edge, but not the first choice for hogging material off (that’s what the India side is for!)
> 
> I’m still not sure how/if all these correlate with sharpening, but in general it seems like the features that make me like the stone best are some translucence and a flakey substructure.
> 
> If I had my way about it, I would chip the corner off any stone I wanted to buy, and see if it crumbled like cement or knapped more like arrowhead novaculite, favoring the latter.
> 
> Just my rambling thoughts after a long week of work.
> 
> View attachment 177261
> View attachment 177262
> View attachment 177263
> View attachment 177264
> View attachment 177265
> View attachment 177266
> 
> View attachment 177267




Excellent stuff! This is _precisely _the kind of content we're here for.

---

The Pike one with the dark splotch in the middle is interesting eh. I've not seen that kind of thing after full degreasing. It may be an extreme example of the type of stone Griswold calls 'black mottled Ouachitas', though given it's a labelled Pike stone I'd probably guess not. Maybe different densities in the stone + something like wood dye has one on it? Really dunno about that one, I'm clutching at straws there! Completely totally opaque is very peculiar too.

Keep trying with the soft Norton LW. The softer, lower SG stones are what people go most crazy for. Though obviously it's really a matter of personal preference, and of the other characters in a particular stone.

Your grandfather's samller stone looks f-ing awesome. If I had to pick just one of those stones that I wanted to try / thought would be particularly excellent - it'd be that one. Dunno why, just speaks to me!

FWIW - the best Washitas I've had are also unlabelled, though that's not necessarily surprising. Once you can tell something is (this kind of) Washita then you're basically almost certain it's a P-N stone, and at the very least it will have come from the same quarries. And TBH I've never had one I didn't think was pretty good, it's more just small variations making me like one thing more than another for what I use for.

---

I might do some comparisons later of a few stones that are are a bit different from each other...

---

p.s. - Did you measure the SGs of your ones...?


----------



## cotedupy

Playing around with a few things yesterday evening:






L to R: Pike LW, Washita, Norton Washita x India, Norton Soft Ark, Norton Sportsman.

---

I'm not going to bore people with microscope pictures, but take it from me that with a 600x USB scope soft arks and Washitas are pretty much indistinguishable. Here are some surface pics though.

Pike Lily White. This stone has a high SG - over 2.4, is a very fine stone, and not necessarily my favourite for knives. I have degreased this stone at considerable length, and it basically just stays like this:







Washita. This is my absolute favourite I've ever had, it's fast af and finishes fine. SG is surprisingly high at a little over 2.3, though that may be because it still has some oil in it.







Washita x India. Only used this a bit, it seemed toward the finer end, but will be interesting to see how it stacks up against the others.







Sportsman and Soft Ark. Now this is the main reason I wanted to try some things out, I think you can guess why. I have never seen the Sportsman described as an India x Soft - in the old catalogues it's a India x Washita. And yet...






---

Surfaces were all roughed on a very worn atoma 400.

The Pike LW is faster than I remember when the surface is rough like this, in fact it's very quick. I imagine the hardness of this stone will lead it to burnish more quickly than others, which is why I had it in mind as a fine and slow stone. With a fresh surface it's fine and fast.

My favourite Washita is still amazing. Leibniz was correct: the universe in which such a stone exists must surely be the best of all possible worlds.

The Washita x India is indeed a finer slower stone. It's still pretty quick being a Washita, but it's not a complete standout.

The Soft Ark is clearly not as good as the Washitas. It's a fair bit slower with pressure, and doesn't seem to finish any finer. The SG of this stone is over 2.5.

The Sportsman... is like the Soft Ark, almost identical tbh. These aren't bad stones, but if we're drawing distinctions then I like the soft, friable lower SG softs (or 'Modern Washitas') more.

Sportsman stones nowadays are Coarse and Fine India combis, the old ones were Coarse India x Washita. But perhaps at some point after Norton stopped quarrying Wahsita stones there was a transition period where the Sportman was a Coarse India x Soft Arkansas? Cos that's what I'd call this. @stringer also has an old Sportsman stone, and to my eye his one looks a lot more Washita-y than mine does.

---

And lastly, here's a closeup pic, under light, of the second stone. We talk a bit about porosity in Washitas, but it can be a little difficult to see until you start using them. This stone has a very extensive and large pore structure even for a Washita. And it makes it feckin awesome!


----------



## blokey

My pocket stones just got here, do you guys use them with oil or water?


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

blokey said:


> My pocket stones just got here, do you guys use them with oil or water?View attachment 177646



I use mine with honing oil.

I personally think you can use them with water here and there but I prefer getting an oil base down first.


----------



## captaincaed

Windex is a good compromise if you're not sure


----------



## captaincaed

All the newer stones south of hard black are porous enough to retain oil, so if you're undecided, a surfactant mixed with water will give you some ability to suspend swarf without dedicating you to oil.

I hear spit is the tits also.


----------



## blokey

Thanks guys, I used some of my mineral oils for now, very fun little thing, couple strokes bring my knife back to paper towel slicing sharp.


----------



## cotedupy

Neither my Kippington, nor Maz Petty really _needs _a 9” Lily White to put a killer edge on. But I’d spent a bit of time tarting them up so why the f not eh? Yolo.

Hell it even got my old fat-behind-the-edge Sab push cutting kitchen towel after.






















And an obligatory pore shot; notably smaller, but perhaps more, here than in the previous stone above.


----------



## deltaplex

I'm excited to get this Marketplace find cleaned up...


----------



## deltaplex

Oh! If anyone has tips on how to safely extract this (apparently glued in) stone from the base with both mostly intact, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## stringer

deltaplex said:


> Oh! If anyone has tips on how to safely extract this (apparently glued in) stone from the base with both mostly intact, I'd love to hear it.



It's probably just pressure fit. At least I haven't seen many that were glued out of the many mystery oil stones I've purchased. But unfortunately I don't have any good advice if it is glued or a really good pressure fit either way. I've tried several things and some didn't work and some damaged the box or the stone or worst case both. So now I don't risk a stone to save a box if it is at all giving me trouble. I take a sharp thin chisel and try to split the wood on grain near one corner with one stiff mallet blow. Usually the box breaks in a way that I can repair it after I've cleaned the stone. And if it doesn't then I throw the box in the scrap pile. If it really is glued then you have might still have to boil it to get the stone and box fully separated.


----------



## bsfsu

deltaplex said:


> Oh! If anyone has tips on how to safely extract this (apparently glued in) stone from the base with both mostly intact, I'd love to hear it.


The best way I have found is to clamp the stone in a vice then pull the box off. If you can't do this, go for the chisel


----------



## cotedupy

deltaplex said:


> I'm excited to get this Marketplace find cleaned up...
> 
> View attachment 178171




Lovely, lovely, very consistent looking stone. Nice score .

---

Washitas can be glued into stones in a couple of ways. Either with glue, or an old technique using an adhesive putty made from whiting. If it's actually glued in then it's a little tricky to loosen tbh, the older style is easier. But for both you basically want to heat them, and whiting you'd want wet too. Which means... pour very hot but not quite boiling water over it and then start pulling, a thin blade to run between stone and box is useful too. Like all novaculites Washitas are a bit chippy and fragile, so be careful!

Sometimes though you just won't really get anywhere. I have lots of stones that I've done exactly this for, and the boxes are easily repaired after:



stringer said:


> I take a sharp thin chisel and try to split the wood on grain near one corner with one stiff mallet blow. Usually the box breaks in a way that I can repair it after I've cleaned the stone.


----------



## BoSharpens

blokey said:


> Thanks guys, I used some of my mineral oils for now, very fun little thing, couple strokes bring my knife back to paper towel slicing sharp.



Only problem with paper towels in the era of "inflation" is they are getting noticably thinner, almost like toilet paper!!!

I gave up and use Post-It Note paper because it is consistent!

A blade which is "Sharp" without nicks will go thru with some force & noticeable sound.

Sharper blades yet will go through with less & less effort & less & less noise.

Yup it means using judgement, but much of sharpening is judgement & we want to not waste time when we can do so.


----------



## Logan09

Here's that rosey red a little better cleaned up. I took the advice of Desert Rat and threw it back in. Let it dry, back in etc.. looks a lot better. It reminds me of a soft Arkansas in appearance, not like the other Washita I have.


----------



## captaincaed

Looks really cool!


----------



## cotedupy

Logan09 said:


> Here's that rosey red a little better cleaned up. I took the advice of Desert Rat and threw it back in. Let it dry, back in etc.. looks a lot better. It reminds me of a soft Arkansas in appearance, not like the other Washita I have. View attachment 178278
> View attachment 178279
> View attachment 178280




Excellent, thank you for posting these, very interesting!

To my eye it looks kinda how I expected from the way old the old Pike literature described them, i.e. like quite a pure Washita but with bits of orange-y, pink-y colour coming into parts of it.


----------



## Desert Rat

Logan09 said:


> Here's that rosey red a little better cleaned up. I took the advice of Desert Rat and threw it back in. Let it dry, back in etc.. looks a lot better. It reminds me of a soft Arkansas in appearance, not like the other Washita I have. View attachment 178278
> View attachment 178279
> View attachment 178280


Thank you for posting that. I don't get to see many of them cleaned up. It provides a reference point.


----------



## cotedupy

Back by... err... 'popular demand' - here's a video about the other best whetstone in the world. Specially for OP @Desert Rat who I believe has one on its way, and anybody else who's bought, or thinking about a Cretan Oilstone. Hope I didn't go on too long!


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> Back by... err... 'popular demand' - here's a video about the other best whetstone in the world. Specially for OP @Desert Rat who I believe has one on its way, and anybody else who's bought, or thinking about a Cretan Oilstone. Hope I didn't go on too long!



Nice rocks.


----------



## cotedupy

A couple of super cheap n grimy finds today in town...

This is a coti that’s been pretty much totally worn through to what looks like RdS backing:






And a 9” stone that I *think* is a Washita. Could be an India or something else entirely, we’ll see what comes out in the wash...


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> Nice rocks.



Cheers hombre!

I know you’ve not been so much of a fan, but that one we swapped is a little unusual. It’s very fine and comparatively slow in comparison to the others there - I imagine I could shave off it quite happily. Which is very cool to have, though not quite as good for knives.

It actually looks a lot like the old TH&Co. Turkey stones, which are about the only labelled ones you ever see nowadays. I’ll see if I can dig up a pic...


----------



## cotedupy

cotedupy said:


> A couple of super cheap n grimy finds today in town...
> 
> This is a coti that’s been pretty much totally worn through to what looks like RdS backing:
> 
> View attachment 179188
> 
> 
> And a 9” stone that I *think* is a Washita. Could be an India or something else entirely, we’ll see what comes out in the wash...
> 
> View attachment 179187




And after a little scrub down we do indeed have a 9x2" mottled looking old Washita. Very little use on this which is a relief, both sides are almost flat.

Has an SG reading of 2.30 atm, so will be interesting to see if, and by how much this changes after some proper degreasing (@VICTOR J CREAZZI ). I've never really properly looked at this before, just noticed that the SGs usually seem to go down a little as you get oil out.







190 x 40 piece of BBW (not RdS), which unfortunately shows something I see quite a lot here in Aus... Cotis seem to have been used predominantly as tool stones, and I've found a number, like this one, that have very weird and uneven wear. This is a kinda wedge shape, with one length (pictured here) having a minimum height of 1cm while the other is half that. It's a thin stone whatever way you spin it, so I'll probably either stick it on a bit of wood, or have a look if I've got anything to make a combi with. Can't complain at $10 Aus though I don't think, and it's got rather a nice hinged box too.


----------



## cotedupy

This stone is fast af.












Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## cotedupy




----------



## cotedupy

Well, you think you've seen it all... and then something like this comes along.

















I've not had an old Washita like this before, and I _love _it. In an already competitive field, this stone is smoking quick. It's easily the fastest natural stone I have, and even when I throw synths in, it's probably only bested by Crystolons and Indias. Though it still finishes about what I'd consider average for a Washita, maybe on the slightly lower side - 3k ish? I've had coarser, but far slower stones anyway.

And I think that's down to a couple of factors: You can see in the video above that the stone has a very dense concentration of evenly distributed, fine porosity, which is always a nice sign. But also - this notably softer and more friable than any other I've had. And because of that it seems to be acting as much like a Turkey or Calico stone as it does a more typical Washita.

It's been soaking for about 12 hours now, and I'm not seeing the change I'd normally expect in that time. I suspect even after a long time this stone is going to stay with some brown colour in it...


----------



## cotedupy

The penultimate piece of the jigsaw arrived today, which I swapped for with someone on B&B:












This is a very lightly used 6x2 30s/40s era No.1, with an SG of 2.19. I actually have a labelled, wooden box, 8 inch version of this stone already, but it doesn't fit with my w*nky aesthetic requirements of having them in the old cardboard, so I'll probably put on BST now I have this stone.

You'll notice that in the pics below the style of box for the No.1 and Queer Creek is different from the others. This is how they came in 1935, immediately after Norton bought Pike. Some later versions of these two stones do have the posher cardboard boxes with triangles, but I'm quite happy with the slightly flimsier older ones.

The outlier here is the hard black arkansas. That style of label is slightly later I believe: from 1948 into the '50s (?). It appears that all of these 'Green Label' Hard Arks produced briefly were black, whereas slightly earlier, and later, stones were translucents. These old Norton blacks are pretty rare and expensive nowadays, I was more than a little lucky to find that one on the cheap last year.


----------



## captaincaed

What’s the ultimate piece?


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> What’s the ultimate piece?



Ha... err... the Norton 'Fastcut'. The original idea was to collect all of the regular range of Norton stones from the 1935 Catalogue here. I was gonna leave out the 'Quickcut' because it's basically a Crystolon I think, but then noticed the FC was described in one part of the catalogue as a type of Hindostan. So obviously I needed that too! 

The slight problem being I've never even seen a picture of one outside of this:







Pike FCs exist, and I'm going to be getting one soon from @Skylar303, but that Norton version seems very hard to come by. I assume they discontinued it quite shortly after. But do give a shout if ever you come across one!


----------



## captaincaed

If I ever find one it's got your name on it


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> Ha... err... the Norton 'Fastcut'. The original idea was to collect all of the regular range of Norton stones from the 1935 Catalogue here. I was gonna leave out the 'Quickcut' because it's basically a Crystolon I think, but then noticed the FC was described in one part of the catalogue as a type of Hindostan. So obviously I needed that too!
> 
> The slight problem being I've never even seen a picture of one outside of this:
> 
> View attachment 179526
> 
> 
> 
> Pike FCs exist, and I'm going to be getting one soon from @Skylar303, but that Norton version seems very hard to come by. I assume they discontinued it quite shortly after. But do give a shout if ever you come across one!


Strange that catalog is no longer available. Is it just me?

I do find the Hindostan's interesting. I bought one on accident and have enjoyed the stone. It's no Washita though.


----------



## Skylar303

Desert Rat said:


> Strange that catalog is no longer available. Is it just me?
> 
> I do find the Hindostan's interesting. I bought one on accident and have enjoyed the stone. It's no Washita though.


Same, content issues...


----------



## captaincaed

In the tradition of tagging along behind @cotedupy and @stringer …


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> Strange that catalog is no longer available. Is it just me?





Skylar303 said:


> Same, content issues...




Hmm... yeah no longer available. It was when I posted that a couple of days ago.

If anybody wants - I think I have it saved as a pdf somewhere, and if you ping me your email address I can send over, the file itself is too large to put as an attachment here. It's an interesting one because it's the first catalogue after the Norton rebranding and has an accompanying cover letter explaining about it.


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> In the tradition of tagging along behind @cotedupy and @stringer …
> View attachment 179866


 

Kewl! Your one looks like mine, kinda halfway between an old 'Soft' and a Washita. @stringer 's looks a bit more Washita-like to my eye, though may just have more oil in it.

Did you get the little leather case too...?


----------



## captaincaed

I feel the same, feels a bit in between. 
Leather case amends badly of tobacco. Toss.


----------



## cotedupy

captaincaed said:


> I feel the same, feels a bit in between.
> Leather case amends badly of tobacco. Toss.




They do describe it as 'a fine washita' in the catalogues, so perhaps it's intentional (?)


----------



## stringer

I picked this one up recently. Dan's Soft Ark. 8X2ish (I haven't actually measured it). Glued to a piece of wood. I will probably leave it on there for now. Pretty clean. Uniform and porous. Just needs to be lapped a little. Haven't used it yet.


----------



## cotedupy

Saw this earlier on ebay.









_WAIT FOR IT......._
















AAAAAAARRRGH!!!!








Whatever is going on here people...?!


----------



## stringer

Maybe for sharpening your brass knuckles.


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> Saw this earlier on ebay.
> 
> View attachment 181253
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _WAIT FOR IT......._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 181254
> 
> 
> View attachment 181255
> 
> 
> 
> AAAAAAARRRGH!!!!
> 
> 
> View attachment 181256
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever is going on here people...?!


My guess would be a wood carver sharpening gauges, scorp knifes ect. 
Probably had it about dialed in at that point.


----------



## captaincaed

Ooooooof


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> My guess would be a wood carver sharpening gauges, scorp knifes ect.
> Probably had it about dialed in at that point.




This is the kinda thing I assumed, though I do quite like S's knuckle duster idea too.

Certainly taken a lot of effort and dedication as you say!


----------



## M222

Hi folks!
New here and hope yall don't mind me jumpin in. I picked this stone up a couple years ago. It's broken but there's a good 5.5" that I use. I need to take some pics of it lapped and cleaned. I have quite a few washitas, both 'real' and the other one's, and love them. I see if I can't get some pics of them up.
BTW this RRW has an SG of 2.04 for the 6" piece and 1.95 for the 2.5 piece.


----------



## M222

So , here's a few more.
I almost always remove the label to clean and lap. Messed up the label on a few including the RRW, lost the end 'diamond' label on that one...so sad.
I buy them to use them just to say I did I guess.
Have a good one !!


----------



## M222

First one is a Norton Washita. You can see blue spots and some pinkish in it. Good stone.


----------



## stringer

M222 said:


> First one is a Norton Washita. You can see blue spots and some pinkish in it. Good stone.




Really wonderful collection. Thanks for sharing


----------



## cotedupy

And we have a second Rosy Red on the thread! Lovely collection @M222 , didn't fancy glue-ing that one back together...? The Pike with the end label is very smart too.

I do the same with all my labels, and have them in little baggies so I can use the stone without f-ing them up.


----------



## cotedupy

And remember people: if anyone fancies selling me a RR at any point then I'm all ears... .


----------



## Logan09

Washitas I'm assuming? One on right is somewhat translucent on one side and not the other(also different coarse)


----------



## captaincaed

Looks like it. The one one the left is pretty hard, fine, slow?


----------



## cotedupy

Logan09 said:


> Washitas I'm assuming? One on right is somewhat translucent on one side and not the other(also different coarse)



Certainly are .

And yeah - you can get a kinda combi effect on Washitas that have been cut parallel to layers in the rock, which is quite cool. Or if they were idiots and cut across the layers then you can get this kind of thing. It's still actually a very good stone, but noticeably finer and more translucent in the middle section:


----------



## cotedupy

Latest little Ausbay pickup was this rather a nice 6x2 which arrived today. Stone is around average in terms of coarseness/fineness, and on the faster side of medium. It's kinda bang in the middle of what I'd consider great about old Washitas .

Also - whisper it quietly - 6x2 (and 5x2) are the coolest sizes.


----------



## cotedupy

.


----------



## rocketman

So I got to thinking about washita , and realized it is mostly silica. Also, arkansas stone of various grades was historically, and still is knapped to make arrowheads etc. So how about other forms of flint used for the same purpose?? Would that make sharpening stones... So having a very large supply of what is called Georgetown blue, from the Austin/Georgetown , Texas area, I took a piece cut a flat, then smoothed the surface off, and tried... If you wanted to spend a life using this flint to sharpen, it would work, but the grain is so fine, it mostly works for a final , final polish.. Anyone have any experience with these types of materials??


----------



## cotedupy

rocketman said:


> So I got to thinking about washita , and realized it is mostly silica. Also, arkansas stone of various grades was historically, and still is knapped to make arrowheads etc. So how about other forms of flint used for the same purpose?? Would that make sharpening stones... So having a very large supply of what is called Georgetown blue, from the Austin/Georgetown , Texas area, I took a piece cut a flat, then smoothed the surface off, and tried... If you wanted to spend a life using this flint to sharpen, it would work, but the grain is so fine, it mostly works for a final , final polish.. Anyone have any experience with these types of materials??



Interesting!

Yeah this has always been my impression of how things like flint might behave. In essence both flint and novaculite are types of chert, and they'd cut depending on how close or compact the crystalline structure is. Which in the cases of flints would be very small and compact indeed, meaning the abrasion you're going to get is minimal, but they are essentially a similar kind of thing, so I'd assumed that as you say - it could be done if one was super patient with it.

Something else I've been talking about with someone here, and on B&B, is quartzite. Have you ever tried that? On paper the right kind of quartzite could be a fantastic whetstone I think...(?)


----------



## rocketman

My wife and I have been to the Tucson gem and mineral show in Jan, Feb, and if there is a place in the world to get any kind and particle size of quartzite in the planet, that is it... Would be very fun to hunt, as the mineral show name does not do justice to the amazing variety of "stuff" available.. 
Coincidentally, there is a wholesale version of the show in of all places Quartzite, Az. a little earlier,,,January.


----------



## Desert Rat

My experience with jasper is it will bump an already sharp edge provided there is no flaw in the stone that may wreck it. 

They are so hard that in comparison hard arks are easy to lap. That is the biggest challenge with experimenting with them stones and I have not seen any difference between the variety's I have tried, and I can add petrified wood in there also. So far, they all act pretty much the same to me.

Like you Rocketman I have plenty of sources locally to experiment with. I have been buying thin slabs that are not good enough for cabochons. I can get that stuff dirt cheap. I want to try some of the less glass like stone and that will probably satisfy my curiosity with them.

I have noticed that the Russians have used a stone they call Jasper, but I don't know that it is actually Jasper. Perhaps someone with more knowledge will weigh in.....
Яшма Техническая


----------



## M222

@cotedupy - this rock is similar to the one above. I'm not really sure what it is. Years of oil but I wonder what kinda oil?? It's fairly fine if you want it to be and med course is a good description...acts like a washita iow so maybe. It is a cheap old stone from ebay. I really can't help myself sometimes....I have a bunch more but I'm new here and don't want to take up alota space with pics. Maybe stack them all up one day and if I can get a pic of that.
New to Japanese knives also, only have one, so that video you posted was really helpful for me @cotedupy ...THX

The stone has oil on it for the pics...


----------



## stringer

Desert Rat said:


> My experience with jasper is it will bump an already sharp edge provided there is no flaw in the stone that may wreck it.
> 
> They are so hard that in comparison hard arks are easy to lap. That is the biggest challenge with experimenting with them stones and I have not seen any difference between the variety's I have tried, and I can add petrified wood in there also. So far, they all act pretty much the same to me.
> 
> Like you Rocketman I have plenty of sources locally to experiment with. I have been buying thin slabs that are not good enough for cabochons. I can get that stuff dirt cheap. I want to try some of the less glass like stone and that will probably satisfy my curiosity with them.
> 
> I have noticed that the Russians have used a stone they call Jasper, but I don't know that it is actually Jasper. Perhaps someone with more knowledge will weigh in.....
> Яшма Техническая


It looks more like a Thuringian style slate to me. They do say it is mostly silica quartz. So is novaculite. So is Jasper. Conchoidal fracture pattern. Could be. I would love to try it and see if it's as hard and fine as a good piece of Jasper or hard Arkansas. Maybe it's like a translucent black. But by eye it looks more sedimentary and less metamorphosized. 

Did you see right beneath that they talk about how much they love their "vashita." Love for washitas knows no cultural boundaries. 








M222 said:


> @cotedupy - this rock is similar to the one above. I'm not really sure what it is. Years of oil but I wonder what kinda oil?? It's fairly fine if you want it to be and med course is a good description...acts like a washita iow so maybe. It is a cheap old stone from ebay. I really can't help myself sometimes....I have a bunch more but I'm new here and don't want to take up alota space with pics. Maybe stack them all up one day and if I can get a pic of that.
> New to Japanese knives also, only have one, so that video you posted was really helpful for me @cotedupy ...THX
> 
> The stone has oil on it for the pics...



Washita. With some years on it. Mined 100+ years ago most likely. Very nice.


----------



## Desert Rat

stringer said:


> It looks more like a Thuringian style slate to me. They do say it is mostly silica quartz. So is novaculite. So is Jasper. Conchoidal fracture pattern. Could be. I would love to try it and see if it's as hard and fine as a good piece of Jasper or hard Arkansas. Maybe it's like a translucent black. But by eye it looks more sedimentary and less metamorphosized.
> 
> Did you see right beneath that they talk about how much they love their "vashita." Love for washitas knows no cultural boundaries.
> 
> View attachment 183313
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Washita. With some years on it. Mined 100+ years ago most likely. Very nice.


My response doesn't belong here. It's what happens when old people get distracted while multitasking. I did that completely sober, unfortunately...


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> It looks more like a Thuringian style slate to me. They do say it is mostly silica quartz. So is novaculite. So is Jasper. Conchoidal fracture pattern. Could be. I would love to try it and see if it's as hard and fine as a good piece of Jasper or hard Arkansas. Maybe it's like a translucent black. But by eye it looks more sedimentary and less metamorphosized.
> 
> Did you see right beneath that they talk about how much they love their "vashita." Love for washitas knows no cultural boundaries.
> 
> View attachment 183313
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Washita. With some years on it. Mined 100+ years ago most likely. Very nice.




Their Jasper thing certainly is doing a remarkable impersonation of a Thuri isn't it!

The Russians are absolutely crazy for their Vashitas! The price increases are largely down to the Russian market buying everything. Normally I probably wouldn't advise spending too much time hanging around on Russian gun forums, but they certainly know a good whetstone when they see one:






Вашита (washita)







guns.allzip.org










Вашита (washita) - Популярное оружие







popgun.ru






Even the Charnley Forest thread runs to 11 pages on this site, also a thread on 'Jasper', and some other things that don't really get talked about or mentioned on English Language forums, such as the 'Cambrian Green', which we tend to probably lump in with Idwals more generally. Though I think @Desert Rat mentioned them on B&B recently. I'm going on a deep dive into the Russian forums (I actually think I have one of these Cambrian stones, which I initially thought was an Idwal, and then changed my mind to CF).






Заточка режущего инструмента


Приглашаю к свободному общению об Опасной Бритве, Флудилка заточного, тема для всех новичков начинающих осваивать заточку




forum.guns.ru


----------



## cotedupy

Oh dear... now I really want to get: 'Вашита' on a t-shirt. Perhaps with a CNT style clasping a Vashita - the honest working man's stone of choice!


----------



## deltaplex

Got this one as part of a Marketplace lot (pre/post Simple Green soak)














:


----------



## cotedupy

deltaplex said:


> Got this one as part of a Marketplace lot (pre/post Simple Green soak)View attachment 184522
> View attachment 184523
> View attachment 184524
> View attachment 184525
> View attachment 184526
> :




Sweet! You've got the ghost of an early Norton-era side label there.

What size is it? Looks like a big un, 9 or 10"...?


----------



## deltaplex

cotedupy said:


> Sweet! You've got the ghost of an early Norton-era side label there.
> 
> What size is it? Looks like a big un, 9 or 10"...?


~8" x 2" x 1" certainly the longest one I've picked up and I did notice the imprint of the Norton label on the side.


----------



## M222

More Washitas.








Mostly unlabeled stones but there are some LW, No 1s and one plain Norton Washita I have two of (a 6" and an 8") that are labeled. There all good stones no matter...


----------



## stringer

M222 said:


> More Washitas.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 184953
> 
> 
> Mostly unlabeled stones but here are some LW, No 1s and one plain Norton Washita I have two of (a 6" and an 8") that are labeled. There all good stones no matter...


You are now my example for my wife why my collection isn't sufficiently ample yet.


----------



## stringer

You also just reminded me. I got a mystery stone from the bay today on the porch


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> You also just reminded me. I got a mystery stone from the bay today on the porch



and...?


----------



## cotedupy

Some people here may remember my trials and tribulations in trying to make myself a Washita x India combi:







Which was nice enough, but it wasn't quite perfect. Because that's a Fine India and they overlap; the low end of a Washita will work at a quite similar level tbh, and it also grated with my aesthetic sensibilities because the India side was so much thicker than the Washita.

So I took them apart again (pro tip - 10 mins in almost boiling water and that epoxy bond was done for), and went off to have a look if there was anything else a little coarser that might be suitable in my pile of old synths. And whaddya know... this is the coarse half of a 6x2 SiC combi:







This one's really gonna screw with people looking for coticules on ebay in 100 years time :







After a little bit of cleaning the SiC half has actually gone quite a pretty light blue colour. But most importantly; it's the right thickness, the perfect complement to my Norton Washita x Coarse India combi, and either (or both) are basically my ideal travel / take-to-other-people's-houses stones:


----------



## stringer

That india-washita with the cracks cleaned up nice.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> That india-washita with the cracks cleaned up nice.




Came out alright didn't it! I spent a fair while re-doing some of the old repair job and then lapping back down, but it's now completely smooth/unnoticeable to the touch and in use .


----------



## stringer

stringer said:


> You also just reminded me. I got a mystery stone from the bay today on the porch





cotedupy said:


> and...?



It turned out to be synthetic. I should have got a before pic. It was one of the dirtiest crustiest stones I have seen. Just caked in grease and grime. Not perfectly flat, but good enough. I think that it is aluminum oxide. It feels more like an India-type than a Crystolon-type of stone to me. I'm not really sure how you would tell definitively. Here is after a few days each alternating between degreaser and water. And a bit of lapping (the coarse side still isn't perfect, but that will mainly be used for heavy work so I didn't put too much effort into it).












The coarse side is nice and quick. Releases a little abrasive as you use it. The fine side feels like a medium to fine India to me. The thing that I find interesting and that I have only seen a few other times on a bench sized stone like this. Is the uneven boundary between the two different layers. Usually with these size of stones the break is completely straight. This looks more like how a lot of barber hones look. Where the line between is more wavy. This one came in a rather plain, but nicely constructed wood box. It has no marks or labels that I can find anywhere. So I don't have any idea of the brand. I do not believe that it was made by Norton. All of my labelled combi Nortons have perfectly flat lines. 















I have one other stone that is very similar. I am quite fond of it. The edge off of the fine side is pretty decent for kitchen work. Although I usually do a few strokes after on one of my naturals to really make the edges sing.


----------



## M222

Those triangle boxes















I love my Washita's but there's alot to be said of Soft Arks too.


----------



## cotedupy

M222 said:


> Those triangle boxes
> View attachment 187903
> 
> View attachment 187904
> 
> 
> View attachment 187909
> 
> 
> 
> I love my Washita's but there's alot to be said of Soft Arks too.




Cool!

That Washita is extremely unusual - I didn't actually know it existed. After Norton bought Pike in the early 30s they cut the range of Washita offerings to just LW and No.1 and introduced the new branding. At some point later they seem to have cut those two and started offering just a single Washita Oilstone. But I'd only ever seen them with the later blue and yellow boxes. Your stone shows that there was some crossover when the 'Washita Oilstone' was available in the triangle boxes.

Which makes me incredibly sad, because now I feel like I need one for the collection... 






The Washita Thread


Oh! If anyone has tips on how to safely extract this (apparently glued in) stone from the base with both mostly intact, I'd love to hear it. The best way I have found is to clamp the stone in a vice then pull the box off. If you can't do this, go for the chisel




www.kitchenknifeforums.com






It's also interesting because it appears to be the same type of stone - with pink splotches in it - that I'd only seen before on the India x Washita combis.


----------



## M222

Here's some more pics of the 'plain' Washita along with a later 'plain' Washita

6" before cleaning and lapping






After....












Interesting, I think, looking the stones together. If I didn't know better I'd say they were cut the same day. The 6" is a shade greyer than the 8" tho....


----------



## Desert Rat

I came across this doing some genealogical research and thought I would drop it in here.
Now we just need some young buck to grab a pick and shovel and find the next Washita mine.

Geological map of the novaculite region of Arkansas : Hot Springs sheet








Geological map of the novaculite region of Arkansas : Hot Springs sheet


"To accompany volume III of the annual report of the Geological Survey of Arkansas, for the year 1890." Available also through the Library of Congress Web site as a raster image.



www.loc.gov


----------



## ethompson

Desert Rat said:


> Now we just need some young buck to grab a pick and shovel and find the next Washita mine.
> 
> Geological map of the novaculite region of Arkansas : Hot Springs sheet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geological map of the novaculite region of Arkansas : Hot Springs sheet
> 
> 
> "To accompany volume III of the annual report of the Geological Survey of Arkansas, for the year 1890." Available also through the Library of Congress Web site as a raster image.
> 
> 
> 
> www.loc.gov


Thank you for this! Been looking for something similar for awhile. I actually grew up in a town featured on this map and know the area well, but needed something like this for some extra guidance. I don't live there now, but every time I'm visiting my parents I try and get out for an hour or so to find some decent ore. My grandmother actually has novaculite in her backyard, but its fully of nasty inclusions and not worth harvesting. I've got leads on two places that are publicly accessible that have some. Also talked to someone who primarily does quartz mining but encounters novaculite as well.

I promise, as soon as I can get enough on hand I'm getting access to a stone saw and doing a KKF Ark-drop. Might be years, but it'll happen someday.


----------



## M222

I live above Hot Springs a little ways. I'm in no shape to look at a pick and shovel much less go digging, wish I could. Grew up around the Bismarck area. Alot cool info on that map - thanks for posting it


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> I came across this doing some genealogical research and thought I would drop it in here.
> Now we just need some young buck to grab a pick and shovel and find the next Washita mine.
> 
> Geological map of the novaculite region of Arkansas : Hot Springs sheet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geological map of the novaculite region of Arkansas : Hot Springs sheet
> 
> 
> "To accompany volume III of the annual report of the Geological Survey of Arkansas, for the year 1890." Available also through the Library of Congress Web site as a raster image.
> 
> 
> 
> www.loc.gov




I'd come across this map before in relation to the 1890 survey. Though from reading the text I got the impression that this wasn't the only map that accompanied it, and that (an)other(s) might actually have quarry locations marked on. Maybe I misunderstood though, as I've not been able to find anything else.

But I shouldn't have thought it'd impossible to find out where the old Sutton Ouachita quarries were, and given we know for certain Pike bought Sutton #7, surely an enterprising soul could go and find it without much trouble...


----------



## cotedupy

Again I could be wrong about this, but I seem to remember getting the impression that most of the old Ouachita quarries were in this area:


----------



## Legion74

I seem to recall reading that a lot of the old mine sites were flooded and put under water when they built a new dam, or changed the course of a river, or something of that nature.


----------



## cotedupy

Legion74 said:


> I seem to recall reading that a lot of the old mine sites were flooded and put under water when they built a new dam, or changed the course of a river, or something of that nature.




Yeah I think Tim on B&B got told this by someone who apparently worked for Norton, though he wasn't sure how reliable that info was.

Certainly the recent production runs of Norton Washitas 10 or 15 years ago didn't look like the same material as old ones, and people who have both have said they were very different. So it may well be that the old quarries are indeed just inaccessible now.

Still, I'm nominating @ethompson for a recce mission... .


----------



## deltaplex

cotedupy said:


> Yeah I think Tim on B&B got told this by someone who apparently worked for Norton, though he wasn't sure how reliable that info was.
> 
> Certainly the recent production runs of Norton Washitas 10 or 15 years ago didn't look like the same material as old ones, and people who have both have said they were very different. So it may well be that the old quarries are indeed just inaccessible now.
> 
> Still, I'm nominating @ethompson for a recce mission... .


Hopefully he's got his open water scuba certification....


----------



## rocketman

Cotedupy, from my memory of the stones I got at quarries in the 60's, the area you outlined is the area I remember.
I was driving a "go anywhere there was a trail " VW at the time, and all of the trails I took were dirt... "old men " mining
with black powder and drills, wedges to split the stones. Sure would love to hit it again, but I am getting to the age 
where my mind will do it but the body won't.


----------



## Desert Rat

For some reason I thought at least one of the Washita mines were in the Magnet Cove area? I could be mistaken on that because that location is so famous.








Maps of Hot Spring County


Old maps of Hot Spring County on Old Maps Online. Discover the past of Hot Spring County on historical maps.



www.oldmapsonline.org


----------



## ethompson

If those mines got submerged it might’ve been the Remmel Dam in the 1920s. Anyone know if the legendary Washitas pre-date that general timeline? Or Blakely for Lake Ouchita which I think was in the 40s. Might be the better culprit as it’s north rather than southwest of Hot Springs proper


----------



## Desert Rat

A description of mining locations starts at page 82, part two . But this was writen in 1892. Mining claims are a matter of public record, I just don't know if these older claims can be found online.








Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Arkansas






www.google.com


----------



## ethompson

Desert Rat said:


> A description of mining locations starts at page 82, part two . But this was writen in 1892. Mining claims are a matter of public record, I just don't know if these older claims can be found online.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Arkansas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com


This is definitely enough for me to get going on. Now I just need to find the time…


----------



## Desert Rat

Some more......





Arkansas Mineral Commodity Web Map


Searchable mineral commodity web map for Arkansas.




www.geology.arkansas.gov


----------



## stringer

ethompson said:


> If those mines got submerged it might’ve been the Remmel Dam in the 1920s. Anyone know if the legendary Washitas pre-date that general timeline?


Depends on what you mean by legendary. Lily whites are after that. The old brown speckled ones are probably mostly before.


----------



## ethompson

stringer said:


> Depends on what you mean by legendary. Lily whites are after that. The old brown speckled ones are probably mostly before.


I guess just in contrast to the stuff they can buy new today which I think are just soft Arks. I tones it know very little about these…


----------



## Legion74

stringer said:


> Depends on what you mean by legendary. Lily whites are after that. The old brown speckled ones are probably mostly before.


Yeah, this kind of thing. A lot harder, with a height SG than anything called Washita in modern times.


----------



## cotedupy

rocketman said:


> Cotedupy, from my memory of the stones I got at quarries in the 60's, the area you outlined is the area I remember.
> I was driving a "go anywhere there was a trail " VW at the time, and all of the trails I took were dirt... "old men " mining
> with black powder and drills, wedges to split the stones. Sure would love to hit it again, but I am getting to the age
> where my mind will do it but the body won't.



Ah interesting. Certainly 'Quarry Mountain' would seem a good place to start!

Funnily enough I used your stone only yesterday, it really is very good. Thank you again for that one.




ethompson said:


> If those mines got submerged it might’ve been the Remmel Dam in the 1920s. Anyone know if the legendary Washitas pre-date that general timeline? Or Blakely for Lake Ouchita which I think was in the 40s. Might be the better culprit as it’s north rather than southwest of Hot Springs proper



Also interesting...

There certainly were Norton Washitas produced after those dates, though whether they may have been different rock than earlier ones is not really known for certain. My suspicion is that the number of quarries deemed financially viable was probably streamlined by Norton, which would explain what seems to be greater variation among older stones.

Also - the stone that rocketman sent me shows quite well the distinctly blurry lines between 'Washitas' and 'Soft Arkansas', this stone could happily be described as either. In particular you can see the distinct surface 'pore' structure, which is something strongly associated with Washita stones and their ability to cut fast at pressure. Appearing in the 2nd picture as the little black dots evident after use.











---

I also suspect that it is likely that the quarries are under water now tbh, though probably not as the result of one specific event, like building a dam. I'm not a mining expert, but it's my understanding that if you quarry something by digging a big hole down into the ground you’ll probably need to pump water out on a continuous basis, because of precipitation and the water table n stuff. If you stop doing that then your quarry will flood, ergo a large number of disused quarries anywhere are underwater / have become lakes. So it may be simply because they stopped being used.


----------



## Desert Rat

In that web map the Norton quarry's are well represented north of E Grand Ave. That is also where some Smith quarry's are. The last run of Norton's seem to have been colored Washita's but the one before that were white. Smith is still listed as the operator of some quarry's but I don't think that is the case any longer. Did Norton buy the old Smith mines? The last run sure looks like the Smith's Washita's.

We know that some of the Washita mines were trench pits. There are two abandoned ones north of Shorthorn Ln. Franklin Rd passes directly through one of them.
Those are all in garland Co. 

There are only five listed in Hot Spring Co. I thought the test pit directly north of Magnet Cove sounded interesting. It's very close to an abandoned mine and the notes say white whetstone.


----------



## ethompson

In case anyone is feeling adventurous. Overlayed the older map with a modern google iteration.


----------



## Desert Rat

I do feel adventurous, but it might be a few years before I make that trip. I have some things I need to do and see in NW Ark, so a trip there has been in my bucket list for awhile now.


----------



## stringer

Desert Rat said:


> I do feel adventurous, but it might be a few years before I make that trip. I have some things I need to do and see in NW Ark, so a trip there has been in my bucket list for awhile now.


Let me know when you're ready. I have a lot of friends and family in the area.


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> The last run of Norton's seem to have been colored Washita's but the one before that were white. Smith is still listed as the operator of some quarry's but I don't think that is the case any longer. Did Norton buy the old Smith mines? The last run sure looks like the Smith's Washita's.



I don't have one but you're right - they did look like Smith's, didn't they. One would have to assume that wherever they got their old Washitas from is now inaccessible or unviable in some way.




Desert Rat said:


> We know that some of the Washita mines were trench pits. There are two abandoned ones north of Shorthorn Ln. Franklin Rd passes directly through one of them.
> Those are all in garland Co.
> 
> There are only five listed in Hot Spring Co. I thought the test pit directly north of Magnet Cove sounded interesting. It's very close to an abandoned mine and the notes say white whetstone.



Interesting stuff. Sounds like a good amount of info for ET to go and find us all some 'real' Washitas!


----------



## cotedupy

deltaplex said:


> Hopefully he's got his open water scuba certification....




This is an interesting idea, and I'm slightly tempted to try myself at some point in the UK. This is the Glanrafon quarry:







And Dorothea, which is the most likely source of the Nantlle stone:







Quarries are dived quite a lot in the UK, and have incredibly good visibility because they're very still in comparison to the sea. Shallower ones often get used for certification training because of that.

They're also interesting because they can combine elements of cave diving too, these are (now underwater) mining tunnels in the Dorothea quarry:












The slight problem here is that diving that kind of depth is a pretty bloody technical, difficult and dangerous thing to do. It's far deeper than you'd do on any kind of recreational dive, and you can't do it on normal air - you'd need nitrox or trimix. There's no way in hell I'd be comfortable with it, though there would be shallower sections to dive instead, and my sister is a Padi instructor, which helps.

Still though... between 1994 and 2004 - 21 people died diving the Dorothea quarry alone, so perhaps not.


----------



## Desert Rat

LOL! 
deltaplex mentions scuba gear in jest and now it's a real possibility. 

cotedupy, do you know the source of the Fiddich River stones?


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> I don't have one but you're right - they did look like Smith's, didn't they. One would have to assume that wherever they got their old Washitas from is now inaccessible or unviable in some way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting stuff. Sounds like a good amount of info for ET to go and find us all some 'real' Washitas!


The rumor was that the Norton mine was not played out but Norton decided it was no longer profitable. Still they made some limited runs and the last run I don't believe is from the same source as the earlier ones.

Looking at the known mines and their location I have to question the rumor of a Washita mine being flooded by a reservoir. 

All the above is based on hearsay and speculation. I don't know anything as fact.  

I did ask Smith's if they still mined their own stone and owned their own mines. I probably won't get a response but we shall see.


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> LOL!
> deltaplex mentions scuba gear in jest and now it's a real possibility.
> 
> cotedupy, do you know the source of the Fiddich River stones?




Haha... tbh I doubt I ever will, I'm more of a fair-weather diver, rather than a feckin-around-in-freezing-cold-and-dark-Welsh-lakes kinda diver. I will go to those quarries at some point later this year though I think.

I don't know about the FR unfortunately. Though given its visual similarity to some 'Glanrafon' stones I'd guess it's more likely Welsh than Scottish. There's a very old post on SRP, by someone who knows an awful lot about this kind of thing, saying that they were/are simply cut and sold by a guy at a Welsh market, who has the stone on his property.


----------



## cotedupy

rocketman said:


> I was in dental school 64-68, US Army 68-70, and in both spots I sharpened instruments..
> Looking through my old stuff, I found these three stones, and some accompanying paper.
> Black hard Arkansas, army issue.
> White hard Arkansas on the edge says "Arkansas oil stone co. Hot Springs, Arkansas
> I think Washita,  from Smith's in Hot Springs, and although can't see in the picture,View attachment 163352
> View attachment 163352
> 
> a triangle shape slip..I think I bought this around 67 when I was in Hot Springs to
> visit the mines...





Here's an interesting thing for you B... apparently your little Norton Hark dental instrument stone is a little bit rare and sought after by collectors:


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> Here's an interesting thing for you B... apparently your little Norton Hark dental instrument stone is a little bit rare and sought after by collectors:
> 
> 
> View attachment 189056


I've seen complete kits go for $300+


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> I've seen complete kits go for $300+




Jaysus, that's quite something! What does the rest of the kit involve?

I was round at a friend's recently and he'd bought a cheap old chest of drawers at an auction, to put in his shed. Turned out the entire thing was full of old dentistry stuff. I did look for stones, but didn't seem to be any...


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> Here's an interesting thing for you B... apparently your little Norton Hark dental instrument stone is a little bit rare and sought after by collectors:
> 
> 
> View attachment 189056


Good for small gouges and fishhooks as well. Most fisherman just think their hooks are sharp.


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> Jaysus, that's quite something! What does the rest of the kit involve?
> 
> I was round at a friend's recently and he'd bought a cheap old chest of drawers at an auction, to put in his shed. Turned out the entire thing was full of old dentistry stuff. I did look for stones, but didn't seem to be any...
> 
> 
> View attachment 189160
> 
> 
> View attachment 189161
> 
> 
> View attachment 189158
> 
> 
> View attachment 189159


It was awhile back. Couple years. There was a NOS one on eBay with original box, instructions, etc. Details are sketchy. I just remember I bid on it and didn't come anywhere close.

That's quite a cabinet of goodies there.


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> Haha... tbh I doubt I ever will, I'm more of a fair-weather diver, rather than a feckin-around-in-freezing-cold-and-dark-Welsh-lakes kinda diver. I will go to those quarries at some point later this year though I think.
> 
> I don't know about the FR unfortunately. Though given its visual similarity to some 'Glanrafon' stones I'd guess it's more likely Welsh than Scottish. There's a very old post on SRP, by someone who knows an awful lot about this kind of thing, saying that they were/are simply cut and sold by a guy at a Welsh market, who has the stone on his property.


Ya, I don't know about the source. Just second hand information. I do wonder if the Fiddich stone is a slate?






Unknown stone and a interesting possibility


Ok so I bought a stone on a interesting hunch. It is a red and black stone from a seller who has sold most of the Glanrafon and Fiddich River stones



sharprazorpalace.com





" Neil Miller said in an old 2012 post about the Fiddich River Stone. He said The stuff found in the bed of the Fiddich River is describes as being a laminated marble. Further up is found a black/red layered type of marble which perhaps is of the same sort as that found in the river bed."


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> Ya, I don't know about the source. Just second hand information. I do wonder if the Fiddich stone is a slate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unknown stone and a interesting possibility
> 
> 
> Ok so I bought a stone on a interesting hunch. It is a red and black stone from a seller who has sold most of the Glanrafon and Fiddich River stones
> 
> 
> 
> sharprazorpalace.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " Neil Miller said in an old 2012 post about the Fiddich River Stone. He said The stuff found in the bed of the Fiddich River is describes as being a laminated marble. Further up is found a black/red layered type of marble which perhaps is of the same sort as that found in the river bed."



I would call it some kind of argillite or slate yep. It certainly isn’t marble.

My one btw came from a swap with Tom (Rideon66), as he had two, plus the red and black stone.


----------



## M1k3

After reading a little on how to clean up up old kerosene (applies to old oil also), after it hardens, or polymerizes? , to put oil on it.

I have what is believed to be a Dalmore stone which has old kerosene in it. I put the stone in a plastic bag and doused it in mineral oil. It's been 2 days now and I'm starting to see something happening.




The mineral oil is starting to change color. I'm going to leave it for a week and see what happens.

Thought it may be if use for some of these old Washita's and other old oil stones.


----------



## BoSharpens

Anyone use WD-40 to loosen up stone/oil residue in the pores?


----------



## deltaplex

I do, but usually only on indias and crystolons.


----------



## M222

Almost always on Washita , Arks of all kinds really and India stones. Love that stuff...


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

WD40 is predominantly mineral oil.


----------



## M1k3

BoSharpens said:


> Anyone use WD-40 to loosen up stone/oil residue in the pores?


Great for cleaning swarf off the surface when using the straw attachment.


----------



## BoSharpens

HumbleHomeCook said:


> WD40 is predominantly mineral oil.


VERY low viscosity hydrocarbons according to Wikipedia's sources.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

BoSharpens said:


> VERY low viscosity hydrocarbons according to Wikipedia's sources.



Right. Highly refined mineral oil.


----------



## M222

Anyone use/tried Kroil ? It's expensive but for hard Arks a little dab'll do ya ...


----------



## bsfsu

BoSharpens said:


> Anyone use WD-40 to loosen up stone/oil residue in the pores?


On all of my oil stones


----------



## M222

Rosy Red ?? I've cleaned and lapped this stone...the orange lines/veins make me think it might be a RR ? I'm no expert tho.
Any opinions ? Guess's ? 
The other labeled RR in the pic for reference...


----------



## deltaplex

It should be real fast with that low of a SG...


----------



## cotedupy

Time for another fun porosity vid!

When I first tried out the second of the three Washitas I sold recently I was expecting it to be on the finer, slower end of the spectrum - it seemed hard, and had a high SG. But it wasn't... in use the low end of the stone is fast af, with the hardness meaning that it still finishes very high with lighter pressure. I was so impressed I took a little vid, just look at those twinkles!





Your browser is not able to display this video.






The stone will wending its way home back over the Atlantic to see @SolidSnake03, who I was surprised to hear has never had a Washita before. He's starting with one of the very best I think, but on the off chance he decides they're not for him and wants to move it on at some point - I would strongly advise jumping on this one.


----------



## Skylar303

lol...


----------



## Legion74

Group shot.


----------



## stringer

Legion74 said:


> Group shot.
> 
> View attachment 196382


Very nice collection. What would you say is the effective synthetic equivalent grit range is from coarsest to finest?


----------



## Legion74

stringer said:


> Very nice collection. What would you say is the effective synthetic equivalent grit range is from coarsest to finest?


Hard to be too sure, because I only really use natural stones.

The thing with Washita, the speed and cutting power very much depends on how much pressure you apply, and you can get quite a broad range out of one stone.

I guess a faster stone with pressure would cut something like a 500 or a bit lower, and a fine one with a light touch could be about 4k ish.


----------



## cotedupy

I had a few hours to kill on Monday in Bristol, and remembered a friend had recommended a small, second hand tool shop there (she's a jeweller so knows about this kind of thing). Place was a treasure trove! I had to leave all sorts of things but came away with as much as I could carry, here they are after a bit of a cleanup...

Fast, coarse and soft 8x2 Washita:







Big 9.25 x 2 block of Idwal:







Amazingly cute Idwal-Washita twin set, stuck firmly in their rather nice box:












And a couple of seriously cool finds; an immaculate, completely chip-free, 8x2 Norton green label Translucent:







And a gorgeous 7.25 x 2 coti. This is a very high quality coticule, though better for razors than knives. Someone on B&B who knows about this kind of thing said this was likely to be from the Old Rock mine, which is cool. I don't know a huge amount about the various coti mines, but people seem to talk about and covet Old Rock stones, so was very happy to hear that:


----------



## rocketman

WOW! Boy that I would love... The only thing is, almost nothing here in Texas is older than 1830, so stuff like that just is almost unavailable.


----------



## aecadiz

And once again Mister @cotedupy gets a bunch of cool stones I want for myself....

Kudos on the findings there!


----------



## cotedupy

Obligatory pore shot of the Washita above. This isn’t as fine as some, but it’s smoking fast...


----------



## Cbr1706

Lots of good info in this thread. It’s one of the reasons I joined. Here’s my small collection of washita stones. I’m still searching for the prized corse type with lots of range. My favorite is the small broken chunk. The second is way too fine for my purposes. The others are newer editions and are good stones but I’d really like something a little faster.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

Cbr1706 said:


> Lots of good info in this thread. It’s one of the reasons I joined. Here’s my small collection of washita stones. I’m still searching for the prized corse type with lots of range. My favorite is the small broken chunk. The second is way too fine for my purposes. The others are newer editions and are good stones but I’d really like something a little faster.



Welcome and thanks for sharing.

Also, you may as well just accept right now that if you hang out here for any length of time, you're going to buy a Belgian Blue. Just ask all of us who have bought Belgian Blues.


----------



## bsfsu

I got this the other day. I think it's a Washita?



















I have a sore elbow from flattening so it didn't get taken down much further than this. 

I had a little sharpen on it and it seemed to be fairly hard. I'll flatten it fully and then have a proper go on it.

I'd bee keen to hear people's opinions on the stone type though.


----------



## Legion74

bsfsu said:


> I got this the other day. I think it's a Washita?
> View attachment 198566
> View attachment 198567
> View attachment 198568
> View attachment 198569
> View attachment 198570
> View attachment 198571
> 
> I have a sore elbow from flattening so it didn't get taken down much further than this.
> 
> I had a little sharpen on it and it seemed to be fairly hard. I'll flatten it fully and then have a proper go on it.
> 
> I'd bee keen to hear people's opinions on the stone type though.


Yeah, Washita for sure. They can be a real pain to lap.

They are pretty hard though, so once you get it flat you shouldn't have to work too hard or often to keep it that way.


----------



## Legion74

I should say, that one is super dished, so it would probably be quicker and easier to use SIC powder to get it mostly lapped, then use other methods for the last little bit and to dress the surface. You will mess up a lot of wet and dry paper or diamond plates taking big dents out of novaculite.


----------



## deltaplex

bsfsu said:


> I got this the other day. I think it's a Washita?
> View attachment 198566
> View attachment 198567
> View attachment 198568
> View attachment 198569
> View attachment 198570
> View attachment 198571
> 
> I have a sore elbow from flattening so it didn't get taken down much further than this.
> 
> I had a little sharpen on it and it seemed to be fairly hard. I'll flatten it fully and then have a proper go on it.
> 
> I'd bee keen to hear people's opinions on the stone type though.


Looks like a washita to me; not matter what it's going to take forever to lap even one side of that flat. I echo the SiC powder advice, as low a grit as you can locate.


----------



## bsfsu

Came up nice and flat with my stone polisher. I think it took an hour all up. Cuts fast and sharpens nicely.







I gave the bottom a little flatten and made some stable feet for it.




Fairly happy with the find!


----------



## cotedupy

bsfsu said:


> Came up nice and flat with my stone polisher. I think it took an hour all up. Cuts fast and sharpens nicely.View attachment 198698
> View attachment 198699
> 
> 
> I gave the bottom a little flatten and made some stable feet for it.
> View attachment 198700
> 
> Fairly happy with the find!




Nice!

Interesting one... the majority of the stone itself looks quite hard and fine, with some areas of softer, coarser stuff. This can be quite nice as overall it'll act to speed the stone up. I've had some slightly inconsistent stones like that which are/were excellent performers .


----------



## deltaplex

bsfsu said:


> Came up nice and flat with my stone polisher. I think it took an hour all up. Cuts fast and sharpens nicely.View attachment 198698
> View attachment 198699
> 
> 
> I gave the bottom a little flatten and made some stable feet for it.
> View attachment 198700
> 
> Fairly happy with the find!


What is this stone polisher of which you speak?


----------



## bsfsu

deltaplex said:


> What is this stone polisher of which you speak?


It's a stone polisher made from small ceramic squares glued onto a glass plate. It stays flat and cuts through any kind of stone fairly well. I picked it up for about $10, I think it's straight out of China.


----------



## cotedupy

Few new ones in yesterday, all nice, but all quite different I think after giving them a spin last night. These three run pretty much the whole Washita spectrum.


----------



## rocketman

Pretty amazing the variability of the stone over the range of it's deposit..
I wonder how novaculite in other areas would stack up... Of course we know of 
Crete, but there is a deposit in west Texas that to my knowledge has never 
been commercially exploited.


----------



## Legion74

rocketman said:


> Pretty amazing the variability of the stone over the range of it's deposit..
> I wonder how novaculite in other areas would stack up... Of course we know of
> Crete, but there is a deposit in west Texas that to my knowledge has never
> been commercially exploited.


UK novaculite has been used forever.


----------



## cotedupy

Legion74 said:


> UK novaculite has been used forever.




Well at least since the invention of novaculite in 1784 .


----------



## cotedupy

rocketman said:


> Pretty amazing the variability of the stone over the range of it's deposit..
> I wonder how novaculite in other areas would stack up... Of course we know of
> Crete, but there is a deposit in west Texas that to my knowledge has never
> been commercially exploited.




There’s certainly a good amount of novaculite in the US and Canada. Canadian stones are cut and sold on a small scale today, ditto Japan.

And as David said - the original novaculites for which the term was coined were the Llyn Idwal and Charnley Forest stones. Both similar to hard or translucent Arkansas, which is typical of novaculites from elsewhere too.

IME - Washitas and the type of soft arkansas stone you sent me are more unique. No others I know are quite like them, though Turkish / Cretan might be the most comparable.


----------



## cotedupy

Here's an Idwal I found recently that's a properly good and fast knife stone. The pore structure is pretty much indistinguishable from that of a Washita.


----------



## cotedupy

And after cleaning up - a pretty cool box that a recent Washita came in. This is the first time I've seen the top of a box made from thick, hard leather stitched together so it can be used for stropping.


----------



## Rangen

If you get one of those Washitas that is glued hard into a box, and you want to free it from the box, how do you do that?


----------



## stringer

Rangen said:


> If you get one of those Washitas that is glued hard into a box, and you want to free it from the box, how do you do that?


Try to wiggle out if you can but don't force it. A blow with a sharp thin chisel along the grain of the wood is your best bet. Then glue the box back together after you clean the stone if the box is worth keeping. It feels a lot worse to break a stone than break a box.


----------



## cotedupy

Rangen said:


> If you get one of those Washitas that is glued hard into a box, and you want to free it from the box, how do you do that?




I too am very much of the same school as @stringer above...

If you can't get it out reasonably easily with heating / boiling water &c. then just break down one side of the box and you can glue it back together after. Works very nicely .


----------



## cotedupy

I was standing around in the garden of my folks' new house earlier today, catching some rays with my coticule, and noticed something interesting looking in the corner of my eye. Are you seeing what I'm seeing...?







This right here is pretty unmistakeably a large piece of green novaculite:







And unless there's some very local deposit that hasn't been documented, I'd be reasonably sure it's Welsh, i.e. something that we might now call 'Llyn Idwal' or 'Cambrian Green'. Unfortunately that rock is pretty set in the wall (atm ), so just a couple of tiny chunks for now to flatten and have a look.











I'm actually pretty tempted to try to get that stone out of the wall somehow as these little pieces are exceptionally consistent and fine-grained. Probably in fact too fine for anyone to want as a whetstone back in the day, but it'd be utterly superb for razor honing.


----------



## demirtasem

cotedupy said:


> I was standing around in the garden of my folks' new house earlier today, catching some rays with my coticule, and noticed something interesting looking in the corner of my eye. Are you seeing what I'm seeing...?
> 
> View attachment 203082
> 
> 
> 
> This right here is pretty unmistakeably a large piece of green novaculite:
> 
> View attachment 203086
> 
> 
> 
> And unless there's some very local deposit that hasn't been documented, I'd be reasonably sure it's Welsh, i.e. something that we might now call 'Llyn Idwal' or 'Cambrian Green'. Unfortunately that rock is pretty set in the wall (atm ), so just a couple of tiny chunks for now to flatten and have a look.
> 
> View attachment 203085
> 
> 
> View attachment 203084
> 
> 
> I'm actually pretty tempted to try to get that stone out of the wall somehow as these little pieces are exceptionally consistent and fine-grained. Probably in fact too fine for anyone to want as a whetstone back in the day, but it'd be utterly superb for razor honing.
> 
> View attachment 203083


Now I know where your luck is coming from!


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> I was standing around in the garden of my folks' new house earlier today, catching some rays with my coticule, and noticed something interesting looking in the corner of my eye. Are you seeing what I'm seeing...?
> 
> View attachment 203082
> 
> 
> 
> This right here is pretty unmistakeably a large piece of green novaculite:
> 
> View attachment 203086
> 
> 
> 
> And unless there's some very local deposit that hasn't been documented, I'd be reasonably sure it's Welsh, i.e. something that we might now call 'Llyn Idwal' or 'Cambrian Green'. Unfortunately that rock is pretty set in the wall (atm ), so just a couple of tiny chunks for now to flatten and have a look.
> 
> View attachment 203085
> 
> 
> View attachment 203084
> 
> 
> I'm actually pretty tempted to try to get that stone out of the wall somehow as these little pieces are exceptionally consistent and fine-grained. Probably in fact too fine for anyone to want as a whetstone back in the day, but it'd be utterly superb for razor honing.
> 
> View attachment 203083


There is another green stone at about a 45deg angle above that one. Is it more of the same?

A rotary hammer with a masonry bit should loosen it right up depending on it's shape and the amount of mortar used, even a hammer and cold chisel.


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> There is another green stone at about a 45deg angle above that one. Is it more of the same?
> 
> A rotary hammer with a masonry bit should loosen it right up depending on it's shape and the amount of mortar used, even a hammer and cold chisel.




Ha... I knew that one wouldn't pass you by! Yep that's another smaller piece, and there a couple of others I could see in that wall but out of shot.

The mortar is quite crumbly so I think I should be able to get it out with a hammer and chisel I think. Might have to find another bit of rock to fill the hole though, that piece is at least 8x5x5, possibly larger...


----------



## cotedupy

I've probably had getting on for 50 old Washitas and a couple of cheap and colourful Soft Arks that might perhaps have been called 'Calico Ouachitas' back in the day. But this is my very first, boxed and labelled, 'It's-not-a-_real-_Washita' Washita. And even though I know they're not meant to be particularly special, and Dan's are quite clear that it's not the same rock as the old P-N stones, I'm nevertheless quite excited to try it out. Because frankly; even if it's 'just' a low SG Soft Ark - that's still a pretty excellent stone in the grand scheme of things.

They actually very rarely cuts these Washitas; they're not part of the core range, and when a handful came on their website a few months ago they didn't stay around for long. So massive thanks to @Skylar303 who was super quick off the mark when I flagged them to him, and managed to grab one for each of us, to include with some stuff we were swapping.

The second pic shows the surface next to a NOS Lily White on the left, and even though both have that kind of chalky/pumice new stone finish to them you can quite clearly see the Dan's stone has a notably coarser, looser structure to it than the Norton. Will report back later how it compares...


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> I've probably had getting on for 50 old Washitas and a couple of cheap and colourful Soft Arks that might perhaps have been called 'Calico Ouachitas' back in the day. But this is my very first, boxed and labelled, 'It's-not-a-_real-_Washita' Washita. And even though I know they're not meant to be particularly special, and Dan's are quite clear that it's not the same rock as old Washitas, I'm nevertheless pretty excited to try it out. Because frankly; even if it's 'just' a low SG Soft Ark - that's still a pretty excellent stone in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> They actually very rarely cuts these Washitas; they're not part of the core range, and when a handful came on their website a few months ago they didn't stay around for long. So massive thanks to @Skylar303 who was super quick off the mark when I flagged them to him, and managed to grab one for each of us, to include with some stuff we were swapping.
> 
> The second pic shows the surface next to a NOS Lily White on the left, and even though both have that kind of chalky/pumice new stone finish to them you can quite clearly see the Dan's stone has a notably coarser, looser structure to it than the Norton. Will report back later how it compares...
> 
> 
> View attachment 203927
> 
> 
> View attachment 203928


I got one pretty similar to that too. It is very nice.


----------



## KingShapton

cotedupy said:


> Will report back later how it compares...


I'm really looking forward to your impressions and your comparison!


----------



## Desert Rat

cotedupy said:


> I've probably had getting on for 50 old Washitas and a couple of cheap and colourful Soft Arks that might perhaps have been called 'Calico Ouachitas' back in the day. But this is my very first, boxed and labelled, 'It's-not-a-_real-_Washita' Washita. And even though I know they're not meant to be particularly special, and Dan's are quite clear that it's not the same rock as the old P-N stones, I'm nevertheless quite excited to try it out. Because frankly; even if it's 'just' a low SG Soft Ark - that's still a pretty excellent stone in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> They actually very rarely cuts these Washitas; they're not part of the core range, and when a handful came on their website a few months ago they didn't stay around for long. So massive thanks to @Skylar303 who was super quick off the mark when I flagged them to him, and managed to grab one for each of us, to include with some stuff we were swapping.
> 
> The second pic shows the surface next to a NOS Lily White on the left, and even though both have that kind of chalky/pumice new stone finish to them you can quite clearly see the Dan's stone has a notably coarser, looser structure to it than the Norton. Will report back later how it compares...
> 
> 
> View attachment 203927
> 
> 
> View attachment 203928


Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on that Dan's. Really curious to know how friable and fast it might be.

I think really nice softs are pretty rare and probably the softer the stone the better.

My biggest issue with the softs is that too many of them become glazed and all but stop cutting quite quickly. Exactly why this is I have never been able to get my head around. My translucent hards seem to never really stop, same with the semi translucent. My blacks will all but come to a stop. For the most part the Washita's just keep on going. The surface of these other stones will of course become polished with enough time and slow down, just not to the same degree.
That's just been my experience and maybe others see it different?


----------



## Legion74

cotedupy said:


> I've probably had getting on for 50 old Washitas and a couple of cheap and colourful Soft Arks that might perhaps have been called 'Calico Ouachitas' back in the day. But this is my very first, boxed and labelled, 'It's-not-a-_real-_Washita' Washita. And even though I know they're not meant to be particularly special, and Dan's are quite clear that it's not the same rock as the old P-N stones, I'm nevertheless quite excited to try it out. Because frankly; even if it's 'just' a low SG Soft Ark - that's still a pretty excellent stone in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> They actually very rarely cuts these Washitas; they're not part of the core range, and when a handful came on their website a few months ago they didn't stay around for long. So massive thanks to @Skylar303 who was super quick off the mark when I flagged them to him, and managed to grab one for each of us, to include with some stuff we were swapping.
> 
> The second pic shows the surface next to a NOS Lily White on the left, and even though both have that kind of chalky/pumice new stone finish to them you can quite clearly see the Dan's stone has a notably coarser, looser structure to it than the Norton. Will report back later how it compares...
> 
> 
> View attachment 203927
> 
> 
> View attachment 203928


Did you measure the SG before you oiled it up? Looks similar to one of those Smith's ones I bought.


----------



## cotedupy

Legion74 said:


> Did you measure the SG before you oiled it up? Looks similar to one of those Smith's ones I bought.




2.02. It feels exceptionally light.


----------



## Legion74

cotedupy said:


> 2.02. It feels exceptionally light.


Wow. Super low. I have another one that might be similar, but it is glued to a base so I can’t measure.


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> I've probably had getting on for 50 old Washitas and a couple of cheap and colourful Soft Arks that might perhaps have been called 'Calico Ouachitas' back in the day. But this is my very first, boxed and labelled, 'It's-not-a-_real-_Washita' Washita. And even though I know they're not meant to be particularly special, and Dan's are quite clear that it's not the same rock as the old P-N stones, I'm nevertheless quite excited to try it out. Because frankly; even if it's 'just' a low SG Soft Ark - that's still a pretty excellent stone in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> They actually very rarely cuts these Washitas; they're not part of the core range, and when a handful came on their website a few months ago they didn't stay around for long. So massive thanks to @Skylar303 who was super quick off the mark when I flagged them to him, and managed to grab one for each of us, to include with some stuff we were swapping.
> 
> The second pic shows the surface next to a NOS Lily White on the left, and even though both have that kind of chalky/pumice new stone finish to them you can quite clearly see the Dan's stone has a notably coarser, looser structure to it than the Norton. Will report back later how it compares...
> 
> 
> View attachment 203927
> 
> 
> View attachment 203928


Here are some pics of my Dan's soft Arkansas. I don't know if it's the same batch but looks very similar. I am a little ashamed to say I have I hardly used it. Got it for a song on eBay a few months ago but have been swamped with work.


----------



## Legion74

stringer said:


> Here are some pics of my Dan's soft Arkansas. I don't know if it's the same batch but looks very similar. I am a little ashamed to say I have I hardly used it. Got it for a song on eBay a few months ago but have been swamped with work.
> 
> View attachment 204070
> View attachment 204071
> View attachment 204072
> 
> View attachment 204073


The base on that is fairly identical to the one I was thinking of. I didn’t get mine from Dans though.


----------



## Desert Rat

A Dan's soft. I don't think I have checked the SPG but it for sure runs towards the fine and hard side. It is part of a set of replacement stones arks for the Norton tri hones, so 2 1/2" x 11 1/2" x 1/2". Probably why I haven't checked the SPG, I might not have a container big enough.

I was using it here on a garage sale special that looked like it hadn't ever been sharpened as the coarse stone because I do stupid stuff in the name of practice.


----------



## stringer

Someone should jump on this. The Soft Ark / India combo are pretty rare. This is a great price. I already have one or else I would have already pulled the trigger.









New Norton # S1B 6 Soft Arkansas Inda Bench Stone - Size 6" x 2" x 1" | eBay


Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for New Norton # S1B 6 Soft Arkansas Inda Bench Stone - Size 6" x 2" x 1" at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!



www.ebay.com


----------



## BillHanna

stringer said:


> Someone should jump on this. The Soft Ark / India combo are pretty rare. This is a great price. I already have one or else I would have already pulled the trigger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Norton # S1B 6 Soft Arkansas Inda Bench Stone - Size 6" x 2" x 1" | eBay
> 
> 
> Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for New Norton # S1B 6 Soft Arkansas Inda Bench Stone - Size 6" x 2" x 1" at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!
> 
> 
> 
> www.ebay.com


They owe you commission. Sold out.


----------



## KingShapton

stringer said:


> Someone should jump on this. The Soft Ark / India combo are pretty rare. This is a great price. I already have one or else I would have already pulled the trigger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Norton # S1B 6 Soft Arkansas Inda Bench Stone - Size 6" x 2" x 1" | eBay
> 
> 
> Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for New Norton # S1B 6 Soft Arkansas Inda Bench Stone - Size 6" x 2" x 1" at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!
> 
> 
> 
> www.ebay.com


A great price if you live in the right country! The shipping to Germany would have been a bit more expensive than the stone itself, plus customs and import duties.

Unfortunately, this makes many very interesting stones on ebay from the USA just too expensive for my taste!


----------



## stringer

KingShapton said:


> A great price if you live in the right country! The shipping to Germany would have been a bit more expensive than the stone itself, plus customs and import duties.
> 
> Unfortunately, this makes many very interesting stones on ebay from the USA just too expensive for my taste!


I feel the same way about UK eBay from stateside.


----------



## captaincaed

Although the import duty on top of cross-ocean shipping seems like extra lemon in an already-salted-wound


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

Well depending on who you buy from, state-to-state can be insane. I recently saw MTC had the King NEO on clearance for $26 but they want $18 for shipping!



Sorry, I know that's not Washita related but I'm still not over it.


----------



## KingShapton

HumbleHomeCook said:


> Well depending on who you buy from, state-to-state can be insane. I recently saw MTC had the King NEO on clearance for $26 but they want $18 for shipping!
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I know that's not Washita related but I'm still not over it.


Oh man, please don't talk about MTC and the clearence offers, MTC isn't shipping internationally at the moment, there's talk of a pause....but I don't even want to know what shipping costs MTC charges for shipping to Germany ...for 1 stone....


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

KingShapton said:


> Oh man, please don't talk about MTC and the clearence offers, MTC isn't shipping internationally at the moment, there's talk of a pause....but I don't even want to know what shipping costs MTC charges for shipping to Germany ...for 1 stone....



I've never bought from them. Is that a common tactic for them?


----------



## KingShapton

HumbleHomeCook said:


> I've never bought from them. Is that a common tactic for them?


Pausing international shipping?

I rather suspect a connection with the fact that the whole world is crazy right now - war is always ****!

And now back to washitas.....


----------



## cotedupy

BillHanna said:


> They owe you commission. Sold out.




Nice score B!

---

I wonder if anyone knows whether these are still in production?

Some Norton price lists suggests they are, but no one seems to ever have them in stock. Perhaps a casualty of the gradually dwindling of their Ark range...


----------



## cotedupy

So then... Dan's Washita vs Old Washitas.







Note first that this is the Dan's _Washita, _not the Soft Arkansas. It's not part of their core range and is only offered occasionally. The SGs of the stones above is: Dan's - 2.02, Middle Washita - 2.12, bottom Washita - 2.38. I've intentionally selected Washitas with SGs at the low and high end of the range to compare.

Rather predictably the Dan's stone isn’t actually that bright white colour, though I wasn't expecting this tbh; the picture below shows it with a smear of oil, but before being used, there's no swarf here just that the stone is grey and mottled.







The OTB surface finish of the Dan's stone is incredibly rough, the stone is quick though it finishes very low indeed - 600 ish at a guess. Despite that it's still no faster than the two Washitas, perhaps even a little slower, though both of those stones are at the very quick end of the spectrum. They obviously finish much higher as well.







I then lapped the surface of the Dan's a bit with a 400 Atoma, which completely changed it. Now the stone is fairly slow, much finer finishing, and the surface burnishes quite easily. Because despite the low SG it's not as friable as some some of the colourful Calico type Arks.

The Dan's Washita is most certainly an interesting thing to have, and I'll definitely use it - indeed it set the bevel on a razor very well a couple of days ago. But I can see why it's perhaps not a stone that they stake their reputation on. The Soft Arkansas stone that @rocketman cut himself and sent me for instance is objectively quite a lot better material.


----------



## Cbr1706

Man I’m envious of you guys finding the soft washitas. I picked these two up for pretty cheap hoping at least one would be the soft type. I still need to finish lapping but I’d say the are more in the middle range. The lighter one has some noticeable orange streaks which I thought was characteristic of the soft stones


----------



## cotedupy

Cbr1706 said:


> Man I’m envious of you guys finding the soft washitas. I picked these two up for pretty cheap hoping at least one would be the soft type. I still need to finish lapping but I’d say the are more in the middle range. The lighter one has some noticeable orange streaks which I thought was characteristic of the soft stones




So my take is this...

Washitas (the old P-N type, which both of yours are by the look of it) aren't ever particularly soft, and that's _precisely _what gives them the big range. Washitas cut quickly not because of how soft or friable they are, but because of the surface 'pore' structure which makes them very aggressive when used with pressure. But because they're also quite hard - when used with very light pressure they can act much more like a hard Ark.

A soft Washita is basically like a soft 'Soft Arkansas' stone. A hard but highly porous Washita is something very special.


----------



## cotedupy

Cbr1706 said:


> Man I’m envious of you guys finding the soft washitas. I picked these two up for pretty cheap hoping at least one would be the soft type. I still need to finish lapping but I’d say the are more in the middle range. The lighter one has some noticeable orange streaks which I thought was characteristic of the soft stones




(Those both look like absolutely lovely stones btw. Nice score!)


----------



## stringer

@cotedupy

What do you think this thing is? It is hard and fine but the color is like nothing I have seen.


----------



## Cbr1706

cotedupy said:


> So my take is this...
> 
> Washitas (the old P-N type, which both of yours are by the look of it) aren't ever particularly soft, and that's _precisely _what gives them the big range. Washitas cut quickly not because of how soft or friable they are, but because of the surface 'pore' structure which makes them very aggressive when used with pressure. But because they're also quite hard - when used with very light pressure they can act much more like a hard Ark.
> 
> A soft Washita is basically like a soft 'Soft Arkansas' stone. A hard but highly porous Washita is something very special.



Thanks for sharing this info. I guess because I have never had a labeled soft stone I just didn’t understand. Here’s one I picked up that is hard but still cuts. I’ve been using it at my bench for the last few weeks and I’m liking it the more I use it. It was glazed when I got it but after a quick refresh seems to cut somewhat nicely. It has some translucency yet shows pores.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> @cotedupy
> 
> What do you think this thing is? It is hard and fine but the color is like nothing I have seen.





Visually I'd have guessed an Fine India tbh. But you reckon something else...?


----------



## cotedupy

Cbr1706 said:


> Thanks for sharing this info. I guess because I have never had a labeled soft stone I just didn’t understand. Here’s one I picked up that is hard but still cuts. I’ve been using it at my bench for the last few weeks and I’m liking it the more I use it. It was glazed when I got it but after a quick refresh seems to cut somewhat nicely. It has some translucency yet shows pores.




Yeah it can be a little confusing when people talk about softer and harder Washitas, and there is certainly some variation but it's quite small. In the grand scheme of things compared to a lot of other natural stones - they're all quite hard. In general the lighter / less dense stones will be faster cutting, though there are exceptions, and also tbh: _all _old Washitas are pretty good. I've maybe had nearing 50 now, and they only vary between very good to excellent.

Your one in the wood box there looks toward the finer end of the spectrum, is it...? (Nice collection!)


----------



## Cbr1706

KingShapton said:


> Yeah it can be a little confusing when people talk about softer and harder Washitas, and there is certainly some variation but it's quite small. In the grand scheme of things compared to a lot of other natural stones - they're all quite hard. In general the lighter / less dense stones will be faster cutting, though there are exceptions, and also tbh: _all _old Washitas are pretty good. I've maybe had nearing 50 now, and they only vary between very good to excellent.
> 
> 
> cotedupy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your one in the wood box there looks toward the finer end of the spectrum, is it...? (Nice collection!
Click to expand...

Thanks! It’s interesting trying to figure out these stones. 

The boxed stone is on the finer end it seems. Although It will produce a burr on a plane iron or chisel pretty quickly. This maybe be due to the recent coarse lap or maybe it just has some range. I guess I’ll find out more when it settles into in a bit. I measured the SG at 2.37.

The one with the orange streaks is 2.23. Maybe this one will turn out faster than I initially thought. 

The older looking sandy mottled stone was 2.37. Even though the SG matches with the boxed stone, it’s been quite a bit harder to lap flat. There’s also a bit of variation between the large faces of this one.


----------



## stringer

New eBay find. Broken one that I am going to try and mend.


----------



## cotedupy




----------



## Desert Rat

Wow! Thats my holy grail stone. I wonder how much of that color is old oil, are you going to clean it?

I'm guessing like the Lilly White the Rosy Red was perfect on both sides and those with slight flaws got downgraded with the number ones or twos?

I have been going to flea markets and antique shows for years and have found one badly worn washita and a broken half in the wild.


----------



## stringer

Desert Rat said:


> Wow! Thats my holy grail stone. I wonder how much of that color is old oil, are you going to clean it?
> 
> I'm guessing like the Lilly White the Rosy Red was perfect on both sides and those with slight flaws got downgraded with the number ones or twos?
> 
> I have been going to flea markets and antique shows for years and have found one badly worn washita and a broken half in the wild.


I have only found one washita in the wild. At a flea market in Las Vegas of all places several years ago before I knew what a washita was. That's the one I have kept too actually. I have gifted, sold, or traded most of the others I have come across.


----------



## captaincaed

Now you’re just gloating.


----------



## Legion74

cotedupy said:


> View attachment 214564


You finally found one. In the wild or online?


----------



## cotedupy

Desert Rat said:


> Wow! Thats my holy grail stone. I wonder how much of that color is old oil, are you going to clean it?



Yeah mine too!

I don't actually have the stone yet, that pic was from @ables who kindly took delivery for me and sent on with some other stuff. He did do a degreasing soak on it and had a play around, so I think most of that colour is just the rosy red.




Desert Rat said:


> I have been going to flea markets and antique shows for years and have found one badly worn washita and a broken half in the wild.





Legion74 said:


> You finally found one. In the wild or online?



Alas not in the wild. Whilst the UK is very good for finding Washitas in the wild (probably even better than Aus) labelled LWs are very uncommon, and I've certainly never seen a RR.

Mine came from US ebay so it wasn't cheap, though a fair whack less than they sometimes go for. I think some of the very high prices paid for rare and collectable Washitas is driven by the Russian market, so now is possibly a good time to buy. That's what I'm telling myself anyway.




captaincaed said:


> Now you’re just gloating.



Yes, yes I am. And I'm only just getting started...

Subscribe to this thread for a near-constant stream of arty pictures and wild, gushing hyperbole when it actually arrives.


----------



## cotedupy

For anybody in the UK... I 100% guarantee this is a broken 8x2 Washita. You'll be able to glue it back together with superglue just fine, and have one of the world's great sharpening stones for a tenner inc post.

If it's still there in a few days - I'll buy it.










Vintage Sharpening Stone In Wooden Case / Box | eBay


Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Vintage Sharpening Stone In Wooden Case / Box at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products.



www.ebay.co.uk


----------



## cotedupy

So this arrived a couple of days ago, big thanks to @ables for shipping over to me.













It won't surprise anyone to learn that it's fast as hell. Really, _really _quick. But what did surprise me was just how different it felt in comparison to other low SG Washitas. Lots of large surface pores, coupled with the stone being a little softer than normal give it a slightly coarse, almost sandy feel in use.

Even with light to moderate pressure the stone is nakedly aggressive which gives the edges a huge amount of bite, nevertheless it is still a Washita and so the level of the finish is actually deceptively high. Lives up to the hype I think; as a whetstone it's basically pitch-perfect and unimprovable for kitchen knife sharpening imo.











Your browser is not able to display this video.










Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## stringer

stringer said:


> New eBay find. Broken one that I am going to try and mend.
> 
> View attachment 214314


Here is this guy all fixed up.
This one is very very hard and fine and slow. If it didn't have that big crack in it it would probably be great for razors. Finer than some of my translucent arks kind of fine. I don't notice the crack much in use for knives. I used it to sharpen all my house knives at work today. Included a video of one of them below.

Super glued with a black tinted epoxy base












And here it is in action


----------



## stringer

New broken washita (fingers crossed).

Very dirty. But the stone is broken and the inside looks like washita. If nothing else, one of the coolest boxes I have seen. Made from an old citrus crate. I put it in the green elixir just now. We will see how it cleans up. Whatever it is the glue-up should be easy. Very clean break right in two.














I looked it up. I think the box is from Seaside brand lemons.


----------



## Legion74

Those old posters are cool.


----------



## stringer

Legion74 said:


> Those old posters are cool.


They are crate labels. They just put a little more into it back in the day.


----------



## HumbleHomeCook

stringer said:


> They are crate labels. They just put a little more into it back in the day.



My mother was a master seamstress back before the age of computer sewing machines. Apples are a huge crop in Washington and her father was a broker. She made huge quilt out of antique crate labels that she painstakingly sewed. I can remember spending hours at the dining room table being put to work to patch label remnants together.

Anyway, last I knew, the quilt was in a museum.

Crate labels were indeed cool back in the day.


----------



## cotedupy

stringer said:


> New broken washita (fingers crossed).
> 
> Very dirty. But the stone is broken and the inside looks like washita. If nothing else, one of the coolest boxes I have seen. Made from an old citrus crate. I put it in the green elixir just now. We will see how it cleans up. Whatever it is the glue-up should be easy. Very clean break right in two.
> 
> View attachment 218085
> 
> 
> View attachment 218086
> 
> View attachment 218087
> 
> I looked it up. I think the box is from Seaside brand lemons.
> 
> View attachment 218092




Looks a pretty surefire bet for a Washita to my eye, box is cool too. 

I got one recently that was in a very interesting box. This label is that of John and Edward Troughton; among London's foremost makers of mathematical instruments, and is from 1796.


----------



## stringer

cotedupy said:


> Looks a pretty surefire bet for a Washita to my eye, box is cool too.
> 
> I got one recently that was in a very interesting box. This label is that of John and Edward Troughton; among London's foremost makers of mathematical instruments, and is from 1796.
> 
> View attachment 218120
> 
> 
> View attachment 218119
> 
> 
> View attachment 218118
> 
> 
> View attachment 218117


You are ridiculous.


----------



## stringer

Very promising


----------



## deltaplex

Looks like it's had a rough go of it before it landed with you.


----------



## Cbr1706

Picked this one up recently with a couple other stones. I didn’t know what it was at first. It was pretty dished and didn’t really look promising. I removed it from The soak the other day and got it closer to flat. It stayed fairly dark brown and has streaks of red. Hopefully it will turn out to be a fast cutter.


----------



## Cbr1706

Those are some neat boxes you guys have. Most of mine have been in poor shape. One of the stones I posted about a page or two ago came with an interesting box. It’s actually 6 layers of wood laminated together to make a box. I had to fix one layer on the bottom to fit the stone back in. One day I might true the rest of it up. It’s also the tallest oil stone box I’ve ever seen.


----------



## stringer

Cbr1706 said:


> Picked this one up recently with a couple other stones. I didn’t know what it was at first. It was pretty dished and didn’t really look promising. I removed it from The soak the other day and got it closer to flat. It stayed fairly dark brown and has streaks of red. Hopefully it will turn out to be a fast cutter.


that looks quick. nice find


----------



## bsfsu

My latest. 






It still needs a bit more cleaning


----------



## Cbr1706

stringer said:


> that looks quick. nice find


Thanks!

What type of super glue do you use for your repairs? Just regular CA glue? A small corner piece of the stone broke off when I freed it from its box. it’s pretty small but I think it would be a good first try at gluing stone.


----------



## stringer

Cbr1706 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> What type of super glue do you use for your repairs? Just regular CA glue? A small corner piece of the stone broke off when I freed it from its box. it’s pretty small but I think it would be a good first try at gluing stone.


Yes super glue works pretty well. Especially if there aren't any big gaps. Just degrease it well before you glue.


----------

