Advanced Search

2200/3000 Diamond stones

Recent Forums Main Forum Techniques and Sharpening Strategies Abrasives 2200/3000 Diamond stones

This topic contains 25 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  tcmeyer 11/14/2019 at 1:17 am.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #51685

    Justin
    Participant
    • Topics: 2
    • Replies: 7

    Hello fellas. I was pondering the idea of purchasing the new 2200/3000 diamond stones. I have 100-1000 diamond stones, 1200/1600 ceramics, 2000/3000 sandpaper taped on glass platens, 3M lapping film 5, 3, 1, .3 micron laid on glass platens and to finish I have 5, 3.5, 1, .5 micron leather strops. Ive searched the forum and couldn’t find a definitive answer. My question is where does the 2200/3000 fit in? After the ceramics? After 1000 diamond then drop back to the 1200/1600 ceramics because of the abrasive/ substrate level? Thanks guys!

    • This topic was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Justin.
    #51687

    MarcH
    Moderator
    • Topics: 58
    • Replies: 1895

    Justin, the tendency I see is that sharpeners try to do is lump all the different mediums together in one lone progression.  They want to use everyone of their stones to sharpen and then polish the knife.  The problem is that the different medium’s grits are often classified and rated by different scales so they don’t necessarily compare and fit together in a nice neat easy package.   This is illustrated in this “Grand Unified Grit Comparison Chart“.  It tries to give us a way to approximate or extrapolate the different mediums to place them in that more logical order that we seek.  Here is “Wicked Edge’s Grit Comparison Chart“.  It has not been updated, yet, to include the new 2200 and 3000 grit diamond stones.

    Recently Clay attempted to address this issue in the Wicked Edges “Knowledge Base” with the article “Sharpening Grit Progression for all Wicked Edge Abrasives”.  Maybe between the three links you’ll have the tools to make the decision you’re looking to make.

    I think you need to decide what edge you are seeking and use this to limit which mediums and which progression you choose.  For instance a mirrored polished edge, a durable edge, and a very sharp edge may all be achieved with a different stone progression.  Clay’s article suggests some different progressions to follow to give you those specific results you seek.

    Marc
    (MarcH's Rack-It)

    6 users thanked author for this post.
    #51695

    tcmeyer
    Participant
    • Topics: 34
    • Replies: 1856

    I haven’t yet broken-in my 2200/3000-grit stones, so I can’t testify that my progression is correct, but if it works out, here’s my plan:

    I have my stones rearranged to make things a little more regular.  I have put my 100-grit stones on the practice squad, so my first pair are 200/400.  Next is 600/800, then 1000/1500.  I have replaced my 6-micron film with the 2200/3000-grit stones.  I’m expecting (hoping) that the 3000-grit scratch pattern will more or less match the 6-micron film when it’s fully broken-in.  If I wish to go higher in the degree of polish, I’ll resume with the 3/1.5 micron films.  Next would be the 1.0/0.5 micron film or the same grits in strop compounds.

    Matching the scratch patterns between the 3000-grit diamond and the 6-micron diamond film is more expected than hoped-for.  The width of the scratches seems to be about the same under the microscope, but the overall appearance is much rougher – largely because it’s not yet broken-in.  At these grits, the differences between broken-in and not broken-in are huge.  I get a decent polish with my 1500-grit stones, but the 3000s are nowhere near that level of polish.

    At some point not too long after WE started selling glass stones and diamond film, Clay observed that he could jump from 1000 directly to the 6 micron film.  Or was it from the 1500s?  I have always held that a step up in grit should be 1.5 to 2.0 times the previous grit.  Such transitions would require only a nominal amount of effort for each step. If the 6-micron film is in fact the equivalent of 3000 grit stones, then Clay’s jump from 1500 to 6-micron was a 2.0-to-one transition, and by my standards, apparently reasonable.  A higher jump (from 1000 to 6-micron) would just require a bit more effort.  The 2200/3000-grit stones fill in perfectly for users who have a new set going up to 1000-grit.  No ceramics, no film/glass to deal with.  An all-diamond team on steel plates also benefit in the use of magnetic angle cubes.

    What’s really nice about film is that there is absolutely no break-in period.  What’s not so nice is that they are far more susceptible to contamination.

    Unfortunately, I’m not doing much work at the knife sharpener this year.  I’m bogged down in several other household, shop and cabinetmaking projects I have promised for a long time.  Alas, this means I won’t get my new stones completely broken-in for several months.

    5 users thanked author for this post.
    #51697

    Justin
    Participant
    • Topics: 2
    • Replies: 7

    I haven’t yet broken-in my 2200/3000-grit stones, so I can’t testify that my progression is correct, but if it works out, here’s my plan: I have my stones rearranged to make things a little more regular. I have put my 100-grit stones on the practice squad, so my first pair are 200/400. Next is 600/800, then 1000/1500. I have replaced my 6-micron film with the 2200/3000-grit stones. I’m expecting (hoping) that the 3000-grit scratch pattern will more or less match the 6-micron film when it’s fully broken-in. If I wish to go higher in the degree of polish, I’ll resume with the 3/1.5 micron films. Next would be the 1.0/0.5 micron film or the same grits in strop compounds. Matching the scratch patterns between the 3000-grit diamond and the 6-micron diamond film is more expected than hoped-for. The width of the scratches seems to be about the same under the microscope, but the overall appearance is much rougher – largely because it’s not yet broken-in. At these grits, the differences between broken-in and not broken-in are huge. I get a decent polish with my 1500-grit stones, but the 3000s are nowhere near that level of polish. At some point not too long after WE started selling glass stones and diamond film, Clay observed that he could jump from 1000 directly to the 6 micron film. Or was it from the 1500s? I have always held that a step up in grit should be 1.5 to 2.0 times the previous grit. Such transitions would require only a nominal amount of effort for each step. If the 6-micron film is in fact the equivalent of 3000 grit stones, then Clay’s jump from 1500 to 6-micron was a 2.0-to-one transition, and by my standards, apparently reasonable. A higher jump (from 1000 to 6-micron) would just require a bit more effort. The 2200/3000-grit stones fill in perfectly for users who have a new set going up to 1000-grit. No ceramics, no film/glass to deal with. An all-diamond team on steel plates also benefit in the use of magnetic angle cubes. What’s really nice about film is that there is absolutely no break-in period. What’s not so nice is that they are far more susceptible to contamination. Unfortunately, I’m not doing much work at the knife sharpener this year. I’m bogged down in several other household, shop and cabinetmaking projects I have promised for a long time. Alas, this means I won’t get my new stones completely broken-in for several months.

    What do you mean by 1.5- 2.0 times the previous grit? The reason I want to get the 2200/3000 diamonds is to replace the 2000 and 3000 sandpaper Im using since it doesnt last long and takes time swap out and replace. I would like to just grab stones and go. I also like the fact I would be able to continue with the diamond family before I hit the softer mediums. When I hit the 1200/1600 ceramics is when I start to see the effect of polishing and then work with lapping films and strops. I would say half the time Im after a mirror polish and the other half I stop at 1000 diamonds for a toothy working edge. Is it even worth it to add the 2200/3000 diamonds into my progression or should I stick to the progression I have?

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #51698

    MarcH
    Moderator
    • Topics: 58
    • Replies: 1895

    I haven’t yet broken-in my 2200/3000-grit stones

    Like Tom’s, my 2200/3000 grits aren’t broken in yet.  If they come around, when they are finally broken in, and behave as well as the original 1500 grit diamond stones do, then I look forward to what they’ll bring to an all diamond stone progression.

    Nobody can tell you whether the investment is worth it to you, Justin.  Only you know exactly what you’re looking for.

     

    Marc
    (MarcH's Rack-It)

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #51701

    tcmeyer
    Participant
    • Topics: 34
    • Replies: 1856

    What do you mean by 1.5- 2.0 times the previous grit? The reason I want to get the 2200/3000 diamonds is to replace the 2000 and 3000 sandpaper Im using since it doesnt last long and takes time swap out and replace. I would like to just grab stones and go. I also like the fact I would be able to continue with the diamond family before I hit the softer mediums. When I hit the 1200/1600 ceramics is when I start to see the effect of polishing and then work with lapping films and strops. I would say half the time Im after a mirror polish and the other half I stop at 1000 diamonds for a toothy working edge. Is it even worth it to add the 2200/3000 diamonds into my progression or should I stick to the progression I have?

    The 1.5 to 2 times the previous grit refers to the grit numbers themselves.  If you’ve just finished with the 1000-grit stones, the next in progression would be somewhere between 1500 and 2000-grit, although, it’s not a hard and fast rule.  If going from 100-grit t0 3000-grit seems to work for you, that’s just fine.  The reason is solely to make the most progress with the least amount of wear on any one set of stones.

    Your desire to “grab the stones and go” is exactly why I (as well as Marc, it seems) would like to get to an all-diamond progression.  If the 2200/3000-grit stones turn out anywhere near as nicely as the 1500-s did, I’ll be there.

    4 users thanked author for this post.
    #52348

    Mark
    Participant
    • Topics: 2
    • Replies: 3

    Given you have now had a good 6 weeks since the last post and hopefully some knife progressions performed.

    How are these stones performing?

    How have you adjusted your progression post 3000 grit?

    i am in the process of breaking mine in, but am starting to see results for which I bought them.

    i have yet to amend my progression cycle post these stones and wondered about yours

    #52354

    Bandaid
    Participant
    • Topics: 1
    • Replies: 10

    What is the micron size for the 2200 and 3000 diamond stones?

    #52355

    tcmeyer
    Participant
    • Topics: 34
    • Replies: 1856

    That’s a really good question, and I’ll be eager to hear a response from WE.  I use a “mesh”/”micron” chart, which is somewhat different from grit ratings.  Mesh refers to the opening size of a screen through which the particles would be sifted and sorted.  It is very nearly the inverse of the micron size.  Theoretically, a 1 micron particle would pass through a 25,400 mesh screen, as there are 25,400 microns in an inch.  Advanced Abrasives’ chart shows 2200 and 3000 mesh as being approximately 8 and 6 microns respectively.  Based on my personal experience, that’s pretty close to grit ratings

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #52358

    MarcH
    Moderator
    • Topics: 58
    • Replies: 1895

    Welcome to the W.E. Forum Patrick Hunziker!

    I my guessing your curious of the grit particle size on the new 2200/3000 grit diamond stones to help you to figure how to use and incorporate your other Wicked Edge stones and sharpening mediums together in your sharpening progression…from coarsest to finest.

    Here is the link to an article from the Wicked Edge Knowledge base addressing this sharpening progression issue with suggested progressions.

     

    Marc
    (MarcH's Rack-It)

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #52364

    Bandaid
    Participant
    • Topics: 1
    • Replies: 10

    Thank You…

    This link https://support.wickededgeusa.com/portal/kb/articles/grit-comparison-table  is what I was thinking about.  If the 1000 stones are a 7 micron and the 1500 are 5 micron, I was wondering what the 2200/3000 stones are on this same scale.  It sounds like this information has not yet been released, is this correct?

    I have the 1500 stones and 6, 3, and 1µ lapping films as well as 1 and 0.5 Ken Schwartz CBN impregnated leather strops.  I still have four (two sets) strips of lapping film for each grit, but when those are gone the replacements would cost about the same as these new diamond stones.  So, if they perform the same function as the lapping films, they might be worth it.

     

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Bandaid.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Bandaid.
    #52371

    MarcH
    Moderator
    • Topics: 58
    • Replies: 1895

    Patrick, the grit size and size comparisons described for W.E. stones were originally made by visually observing the scratch depth, width and space between those scratches with a high powered microscope with distance measuring capabilities.  The sizes as described are comparitive measurements done from grit to grit. How they relate to the visual size of scratches from other known size particles scratches.

    Clay and W.E. have not done these visually observed comparative studies yet to determine these observed particle sizes.  The only way we have to determine the physical grit size is by interpolation,  like you did, to place them how you believe they’d logically fit into the existing grit comparison charts using grit numbers to rank or position them.

    So yes, the information has not been released yet.

    Marc
    (MarcH's Rack-It)

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #52501

    Pat
    Participant
    • Topics: 14
    • Replies: 106

    I had the 2200/3000 stones and sold them in favor of keeping my 1500/2200 stones and using DLFs 6 and 3 micron instead.  I am happy with the decision.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #52534

    wickededge
    Keymaster
    • Topics: 121
    • Replies: 2902

    We’re waiting to finish our study with Los Alamos National Labs before publishing any grit sizes since we’re probably moving to a new classification system.

    -Clay

    4 users thanked author for this post.
    #52535

    Bandaid
    Participant
    • Topics: 1
    • Replies: 10

    Clay, thank you for updating this thread.  However, a nagging question persists.  As a business owner, why would you invest in a product to sell without actually knowing what you are selling?

    If you can’t inform your customers of the micron size, why should we ignorantly  buy it?

    There is also way too much redundancy in the diamond paddles while leaving some rather large gaps elsewhere.  I can’t help but wonder if these new 2200/3000 stones are also redundant.  For example the 200 diamonds are rated at 69 micron, but then the 400’s jump all the way to 22 microns.  Where is the 45 micron gap?

    Then, from 22 micron, it goes down to 16, 12, 7, and 5 micron.

    So are the 2200/3000 stones finer than 5µ?  If yes, what are they?

    If you are moving towards a new system, what is it and why move away from an industry standard, and will all your diamond stones be rated on the new system so we can compare in an apples to apples manner?

     

    Thank You

     

    1 user thanked author for this post.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.