Joe,
Thanks for that.
You must have a steadier hand than I do.. I have tried hand holding with mixed results.
Maybe 3 out of ten captures are OK, but it is not often that I can keep the angles the same even for the good ones. This makes it hard to compare between grits.
and yes, my software/camera requires me to click the mouse on a button onscreen to snap a photo.
I will keep trying to figure out a better way.
I got some extension tubes and a 10X front lense for my Canon T3i. I have gotten some decent shots with it, but I have no idea of the magnification.
Sorry about hijacking the thread with OT stuff !!
Back to the diamond hones. Did you give what Tom suggested a try? As I mentioned, my 1000 grit stones “feel” coarser moving over the blade, but I think I have proved to myself that the scratch pattern is finer than the ones labled 800. Now I have had mine for several months so they may be from a different batch than yours. Also, the labeling for the grits is consistent for both sides of both paddles on the set I have.
I first made a highly finished, mirror edge using 5 and 3.5 micron diamond paste and balsa strops. Sequence: 100, 200, 400, 600, 1000 (labeled), 800 (labeled), micro-fine ceramic 1.4 micron, micro-fine ceramic 0.6 micron, 5 micron diamond paste & balsa strops, 3.5 micron diamond paste & balsa strops.
I then went straight to 1000 grit diamond plates:
I then went to 800 grit diamond plates:
It still appears the 1000 grit plates are more coarse than the 800 grit plates. It can’t be the 1000 grit plates are uncovering prior scratches from previous coarser plates. I started with a highly finished bevel. Rather it appears the 1000 grit plates are simply more coarse than the 800 grit plates.
This is only logical: in every other grit sequence, the finer plate is smoother to touch and produces a smoother bevel than the coarser plate. But in this case the 1000 grit plate is coarser to touch than the 800 plate and produces a less finished bevel – even if starting from a mirror-finish bevel.
I guess it’s conceivable there’s some other explanation; if so I’d like to hear it.
Not only do I believe that the stones are mislabled, but if you look at this image (below), how COULD they be correct?
The same side of one of the plates on one end says 800 and the other says 1000.
I’m glad I wasn’t losing my mind, but sorry some of you guys have experienced the same issue. I have postponed calling the folks at the Wicked Edge office because I knew the diamond stones are on backorder anyway. After all, all I gotta do is flip the stones over and use the “wrong” side.
Clay,
Could you let us know when we may be able to send these in to have them verified and corrected? I don’t have the scopes like most of you have so I’m going by feel and looking through a loupe.
That is definitive. A side can only be one grit level. My 800/1000 stones are not split labeled like that, but the fact yours are indicates a possible wider problem. Maybe some are split labeled and some are just labeled wrong.
I’m OK with just using my 800/1000 stones in reverse order – provided it’s only a labeling issue. But if it’s a QC issue and the 1000-labeled stone is really not 800 grit but something else, then that requires different action.
[quote quote=“wickededge” post=4214]All the stones were correct as labeled though the 800# stones did in fact feel more coarse.
quote][/quote]
Just received my 800/1000 stones and the 1000 definately feels more coarse.
I only have a jeweler’s loupes to visually compare.
It seems to confirm it.
[quote quote=“joema4” post=4344]This is only logical: in every other grit sequence, the finer plate is smoother to touch and produces a smoother bevel than the coarser plate. But in this case the 1000 grit plate is coarser to touch than the 800 plate and produces a less finished bevel – even if starting from a mirror-finish bevel.
I guess it’s conceivable there’s some other explanation; if so I’d like to hear it.[/quote]
It has me confused also.
I now have six sets of stones and these are the only ones that “feel” the reverse of what they are labeled.
I might buy some more so I can sleep at night.
I spent some time yesterday conducting various tests, to see if I could find a good way to tell the difference between the two stones. I’ll spare the details, but while it’s possible that the stones may be switched in some cases, the short answer is, I think the stones are so close together that it’s hard to tell them apart. Add to that, if a new 1000 stone has a few errant diamonds that are larger, it could give the impression that it’s rougher than the 800. Broken in, they seem a bit different, but they’re still pretty close.
Obviously, if you’re getting finer results from the 800, then use them in reverse. I’d pay attention to the results, over time it may change as the stones wear in.
As a suggestion, I wonder if a bit finer stone, like a 1200, is available? This might show a better progression, especially if the 1200/1600 ceramics aren’t available. Maybe the 1000 is a little to close to the 800? Just a thought.
[quote quote=“cbwx34” post=5491]I spent some time yesterday conducting various tests, to see if I could find a good way to tell the difference between the two stones. I’ll spare the details, but while it’s possible that the stones may be switched in some cases, the short answer is, I think the stones are so close together that it’s hard to tell them apart. Add to that, if a new 1000 stone has a few errant diamonds that are larger, it could give the impression that it’s rougher than the 800. Broken in, they seem a bit different, but they’re still pretty close.
Obviously, if you’re getting finer results from the 800, then use them in reverse. I’d pay attention to the results, over time it may change as the stones wear in.
As a suggestion, I wonder if a bit finer stone, like a 1200, is available? This might show a better progression, especially if the 1200/1600 ceramics aren’t available. Maybe the 1000 is a little to close to the 800? Just a thought.[/quote]
Thanks Curtis.
Like I said, I’m confused.
But if everyones stones feel coarser on the 800 side, then I best go with it.
If I buy another set, then I will get that confirmation myself.
Currently my investment in the WEPS has cost AU$755 (incl freight) with the new arms and angle guage to come, possibly followed soon by some strops etc.
At least I can progress past the 800/1000’s to the 1200/1600’s and/or the MicroFine ceramics (I have them) and all is forgotten.
Thanks for your helpful reply.
Starting to feel like I’m whinging now. :huh:
Without the stones in hand to measure, it’s impossible to say. We have procedures in house to prevent the mixing up of stones, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen… I’ve been examining new stones under the microscope this afternoon and they all seem very consistent. The 800# plates all have stones averaging 12 microns and the 1000# plates have stones averaging 7 microns. There is some variation but a very consistent average so far. The pair I have right mirrors your experience in that the 1000# side does feel rougher right now, brand new but having just looked at them both under the scope, they’re definitely labeled correctly. I know that probably doesn’t help and unless you have access to some pretty high magnification, you may never know for sure on your set. If you do order a new set sometime, please let me know in advance and I can measure them for you and send you the micrographs
Billabong
It wasn’t till today that I realized your avatar was a bird / Emu face. It looked to me to be some sort of muppet rodent face with a bit of a smirk.
The Emus eyes looked like brown ears sticking out of an Afro, and its nostrils were the muppets eyes.
Yeah, I know. You want some of whatever I’ve been drinking.
I’m an Aussie and you are right, it’s an emu.
Nothing to do with knives or sharpening, but I believe you should look someone in the eye when you talk to them.
