mark76, following from this perspective:
I think Wizard is right re: the hardness of the 1200/1600 vs the hardness of the micro-fine stones. The 1200/1600 stones behave more like (not entirely, just more so) waterstones than the micro-fines. It’s possible to texture the surface of the micro-fine stones and create different surface features to achieve a variety of results, depending on how you lap them. With the 1200/1600 stones, the surface features you create disintegrate quickly with the first use.
The 1200/1600 ceramics should have a native equivalent grit size independent from surface finish. Have you attempted to quantify it?[/quote]
Yes, sort of. They behave like finer stones than the 1K diamonds. 1200 / 1600 comes quite close to where I use them in a progression :cheer: . My quickest progression to a mirror edge is diamonds -> 1200 -> 1600 -> 5K Chosera’s -> 10K Chosera’s.
If I want to throw something extra in, it’s sometimes the micro-fine stones. Then my progression is diamonds -> micro fine coarse -> 1200 -> 1600 -> micro-fine fine -> Chosera’s. I also wrote about this on my blog.
I sometimes throw in the 2K / 3K Chosera’s as well, but to be honest, I think that’s overkill. I think these are similar to the 1200 / 1600 stones (as far as scratch removal goes; they work and feel quite differently, of course).
You should note I have the “original” 1200/1600 stones. I’m not sure, but I think Clay switched from manufacturer once for these stones. I don’t know whether the ” new” ones work exactly like the old ones.
Why do you feel the micro-fines are variable, Mr Wizard? You can texturize them differently, of course, but this is the case with any hard ceramic stone, like the Spyderco ones. And did you follow the discussions I had with Ken and Tom on the effect of flattening waterstones with diamond plates?
