My crazy logic here, but I wonder if having two sets of micro-fines that are manipulated to replace/remove the 1200/1600 role in a progression is possible?
The first stone being “as it comes” on the coarse side and made coarser on the fine side. (not sure)
The second being “lapped finer” on the coarse side and standard on the fine. (possible)
Can we make the fine ceramic coarser with lapping?
[quote quote=“Billabong” post=7497]My crazy logic here, but I wonder if having two sets of micro-fines that are manipulated to replace/remove the 1200/1600 role in a progression is possible?
The first stone being “as it comes” on the coarse side and made coarser on the fine side. (not sure)
The second being “lapped finer” on the coarse side and standard on the fine. (possible)
Can we make the fine ceramic coarser with lapping?[/quote]
Good question. I’ll do some testing.
Do you lap only the coarse side or both?
People have done one (usually the coarse side) both, and neither.
I would try them stock for a bit. See your results. Then decide what, if anything you want to do
Ken
I only did the coarse side of the microfine set. Keep in mind these things are extremely hard. I marked them (bad idea) with a sharpie. After 45 minutes on a DMT coarse plate. I barely touched the marks. I think they, at least the ones that I got, are pretty darn flat out of the box. Mostly what you are trying to do is re-texture then a bit. Even that takes a bit of effort. I finished on the DMT fine stone. This seems to have slottted the coarse stone into the progression just as it is rated. I never had any reason to lap or retxture the fine side… so I haven’t touched them.
I thought that lapping/texturing the coarse stones worked by removing or altering the top layer left in the manufacturing process (something like the Kiln layer that Clay mentioned in relation to the other ceramics??). Possibly to get to the “true grit” below that.
If the stones are homogenous, it is hard to imagine that you can make them more coarse than they are.
Phil
I held off lapping mine when I first got them… I thought they were fine. When I did lap the MicroFine-Coarse (I never did the fine), I found it did have some type of noticeable layer on it, that when removed, the stone performed better. (I still think it falls above the 1200/1600 stone though). I did rub the Fine side together, but didn’t see much difference… they work well though.
Hey Curtis,
What do you mean by “falls above” the 1200/1600? As in, maybe, you think it has a finer grit than the 1600 (which is what I think that you meant)?
Or perhaps the opposite, I couldn’t exactly tell from your statement. Probably just me on a Monday morning
:).
Just curious, as I find it a close call. On some knives it seems like the coarse may be adding scratches after the 1600. In any case, I usually use the microfine course right after the 1600 though. Is that what you do as well?
I need to take some photos…
Phil
It seems more coarse than the 1200, to me. If I use all four I go coarse micro->1200->1600->fine micro, but I rarely ever do that. If I’m going to use the ceramics, I just use the micro alone, skipping the 1200/1600 altogether.
Ken
Yea, what Ken said… MicroFine Coarse –> 1200 –> 1600 –> MicroFine Fine. Even after lapping it still seems this way, although I’ll admit I haven’t spent a lot of time looking at it… just seem to get better results with this progression.
I used my micros one time and I thought they needed lapping right away. When I started lapping I did it the way clay discribed with my 100 grit first but I hadent cleaned the diamond stone and I am glad I didn’t because it showed the high and low spots on the ceramics.It took over an hour to flatten and I did most of the work with the 100 grit stones just to get the high spots out. Now my 100 grit stones are less agresive than my 200 grit stones. I would buy a cheap coars diamond stone to flatten them then work through the rest of your we stones. I would like to see if someone could mic there micro ceramics 
before they start so I know how much I sanded off.
Have you cleaned your 100# plate since lapping the ceramics? I get about 1.170" on an unlapped but slightly used pair.
I’ve lapped my coarse ceramics, but just on a DMT EEF… just enough to remove the top “covering” layer… they mic’d around.212 give or take (measuring the stone and plastic… see pic).
You might compare to your fine diamonds… the ceramics are still slightly thicker than the diamonds (not enough to make a diff.) so shouldn’t matter.
My micros are 1.163 that’s with lapping both sides very hard with all the grits but mainly with the 100 grit stones until I didn’t see any high spots If I had my 50/80 stones I would have used them that’s how hard I worked the 100 stones. I finished with a 14 micron aluminum oxide on glass and I am very happy, even the coarse side feels smother than the 1200/1600 like I think it should I know some people were using the coarse side in a different order but after lapping I like the coarse after the 1600 I did agree before lapping that the coarse felt to rough but it’s fine now. thank you for taking the time to measure your stones. you asked if I cleaned my 100# plate since lapping the ceramics? (I haven’t) I was going on how the stone felt when using it.
late to the topic but hey i thought i’d share what ive learned. My micro fines were not what i expected when i first got them. after reading clay’s post i lapped them in order from the 100’s up. i found that niether the coarse or fine sides were flat. after lapping them they were now flat and did improve to what they should have been, only there is now a degree change in the way they contact the edge. this slows down the whole process if you are sharpening someones knife. also id use something other than your wicked edge stones to lap with as this process takes a noticable bite of them!now to find the1200/1600board lol
