diamonds or ceramic next??
- This topic has 8 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 01/27/2020 at 11:24 am by
.
-
I’d recommend you stay with the diamonds. I’ve never been a big fan or proponent of using the ceramics. When they were first released they were pretty much the only option we had to use for refining further after the 1000 grit sharpened edge. They were all we had. Now with the production and release of the 1500, 2200 and 3000, we have this avenue. The diamonds provide thinner, sharpened, refined knife edges with successful finer grits while staying in the same sharpening medium that imparts a similar and progressively smaller, thinner and tighter scratch pattern. That’s the way I’d go.
I will add, if I was asked my preference, I do prefer the 0.4micron/1.6micron microfine ceramics over the 1200/1600 superfine ceramics you now own. But given my repeated experiences with all the ceramics, I’d prefer to use the very fine diamond stones, 1500/2200/3000 grits over any ceramics.
Marc
(MarcH's Rack-Its)Hi Eric, thats the fun of this hobby as we get to try out many of the WE accessories. Below is a quote from Clay the owner of the WE system on grit progression and all of us have different goals an objectives to how deep we seek to get into this great hobby.
I had the same question as you a month or two ago after they introduced some of their newer grits. I opted for purchasing the 2200/3000 new stones and also the 1.4/.6 micro fine ceramics set. I found the DLP’s (diamond lapping film) to be rather expensive at $30 for 10 strips plus shipping. And in 3 grits that is $90. I found for me they contaminate easily by putting very fine scratches back onto my mostly already clear mirrored surface (although a few swipes with alcohol on a paper towel helped remove much of the metal build up). Even so they need to be renewed too often for my pocketbook so I was happy to buy the ceramics at $120 which basically IMO pay for themselves not having to buy more DLP sheets.
I especially like Clay’s explanation below as he puts it first in terms of what is your particular sharpening goal is and then breaks it all out.
My favorite diamond is the 1,500 as once I get a few strokes the mirror starts to magically appear. Previously, the other side of the 1500 was the .6 DLP and thats the one that I used to see too many light scratches being put on again. So for me picking up the 2200/3000 was a no brainer. But I already own the 1500’s. I see their line up is now 1500/glass (for a DLP), 1500/2200 and 2200/3000.
This was Clay’s post below:
These new stones do introduce some complexity in figuring out a good grit progression and it’s impossible to create a one-size-fits-all answer because of the variety of different abrasives people already have in their collections. Another issue in recommending progressions is that the answer depends on your goals:
- Maximum polish
- Maximum sharpness
- Fastest/most efficient route in time and money with focus on sharpness
- Fastest/most efficient route in time and money with focus on polish
I’ve been enjoying the following progression for maximum sharpness:
1000#> 1500#> 2200#> 3000#> 0.6 Micro-Fine> 1.0 diamond emulsion on leather strop
For my EDC, I’ve been doing the following:
1000#> 1500#> 2200#> 3000#. I like this progression because the 3000# finish is plenty aggressive but still refined and seems to hold up well. I recently applied this finish to my EDC with the new DRO handles for convex edges that we introduced at Blade Show and I really liked the way that edge performed, all the way up until I used the knife the stab into and slash 6 bags of concrete. The aggregate in the bags really trashed my edge 🙂 Another reason I like the 3000# for my EDC is that it’s easy to touch it back up with just a few strokes on those stones.
I’ve been enjoying the following progression for maximum polish (to the naked eye):
1000#> 1500#> 2200#> 3000#> 3.0 micron diamond lapping film> 2.0 micron emulsion on leather strop
If you already have the Superfine 1200/1600 ceramics, you can fit those in between your 1000# diamond stones and the 2200# diamond stones.
At tcmeyer pointed out, you can definitely skip some steps because there is so much overlap. For example, going from the 1500# to the 3000# will work fine, as will going from the 1000# to the 2200#. You’ll spend more time with the higher grit to remove the scratches from the previous stones, but it doesn’t require an unreasonable effort. I see in his blurb below he likes to go 1500>2200>3000 but his offered combinations seem to be missing that progression to be purchased economically. I would definetly at least get the 1500/2200.
I do luv the 2200/3000 that I picked up. As to what the 1.4/.6 ceramics will do for my final grit I really can’t say yet with certainty because I don’t have enough edges done yet with them. They do have a longer break in period and they are slower than the DLP’s but with the DLP’s I had to progress thru 3 different grits before stropping. I’m hoping the ceramics will bring the last stage down to only two to save my time. Let me know if any of this was useful to you. Keep your eyes on the buy/sell forum here for used or like new stones to ad to your collection cheap. One last comment . . . Organic, one of the more experienced members here said his findings were not only do ceramics take longer to break in . . . they might leave the edge a little cloudier than the diamonds do. That echoes with Marc’s comments in the above post. I can’t personally say yet one way or the other until I get 30 edges or so under my belt.
-Clay
I would go with the 1500 / 2200. The 1500 is so efficient that it can take the 1000 grit edge to essentially the same level of refinement as the 1200 / 1600 combination does.
As to the comments about the 1.4 / 0.6 micron ceramics; I still like those and enjoy using them very much. Using them after the 3000 grit gives a pretty good mirrored finish.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I would go with the 1500 / 2200. The 1500 is so efficient that it can take the 1000 grit edge to essentially the same level of refinement as the 1200 / 1600 combination does. As to the comments about the 1.4 / 0.6 micron ceramics; I still like those and enjoy using them very much. Using them after the 3000 grit gives a pretty good mirrored finish.
I share this opinion. My personal preference too, between the ceramics is the microfine: 1.4 micron/ 0.6 microns, over the superfine: 1200/1600 grits.
I didn’t mention these in my post above since “Eric” only offered the 1200/1600 grit ceramics in his options.
You may want to read another recent forum thread: “2200/3000 Diamond Stones“. You may find some relative information there.
Marc
(MarcH's Rack-Its)1 user thanked author for this post.
If you already have the Superfine 1200/1600 ceramics, you can fit those in between your 1000# diamond stones and the 2200# diamond stones.
My sharpening progression is 100 – 800 (if needed), 1000, 1500, 2200, Superfine 1200/1600, Microfine 1.4/0.6. I end it with a plain Balsa Strop to remove any potential burr that might remain. I went that order based on the KB article Sharpening Grit Progression for all Wicked Edge Abrasives. I don’t plan on using any lapping films or stropping compounds
After reading the comment where Clay uses the Superfine between the 1000 and 2200 stones, is there a better grit progression I should be following?
Thanks in advance for any recommendations.
Expidia, I’ve been watching the forms for quite a while but never chimed in. Clays comment about the progressive caught my eye and wanted to ask about that.
My diamond stones are pretty well broke in but my ceramics still have a ways to go. I think I might just pick up a USB microscope and watch my scratch marks to determine my progression. It was interesting seeing where Clay said to use the ceramics,
If you already have the Superfine 1200/1600 ceramics, you can fit those in between your 1000# diamond stones and the 2200# diamond stones.
; in comparison to the Grit Progression article
1 user thanked author for this post.
As I’ve written, I’m not proponent of switching back and forth between stone mediums.
To go from a diamond stone that imparts a scratch pattern in the bevel we’re sharpening, with just the points of the diamond grit particlles, contacting the bevel steel, then to a ceramic medium that works by making a broader full surface contact that flattens, smoothes and obliterates the diamond imparted scratches, then return to the diamond stones just to add the scratches back, doesn’t seem to make practical sense to me.
I think it’s more practical to follow the diamond stone progression, down finer and finer in their scratch patterns, then stop. Then move onto the flattening, smoothing and polishing effect of the ceramic medium progression, and stop. Then to finish up finally, with the smoothing, burnishing and polishing effect of the strops. This to me, based on my user experience, gave me a progressively smoother bevel surface and apex, and a highly polished mirror appearing knife edge.
It’s not just about the grit numbers and the abrasive particle sizes these grit describes, but more about the effect of the mediums and the resulting appearance from their use. IMO, Stringing the grits all together by grit number isn’t always best. We’re looking at end results and the efficiency to reach that goal. Also, it may not always need to include using every stone we have in our collection.
Marc
(MarcH's Rack-Its)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.