Hi all. I am looking at the Pro-Pack II and am confused about the ceramic stones. I see it includes the Micro Fine Micro Ceramic Stones(1.4 micron/.6 micron) but not the Super Fine Ceramic Stones(1200/1600). I don’t understand the jump to the Micro Fine from the included 1000 Grit Diamond Stones without first using the Super Fine Ceramics. Would I need to also consider including these stones when I am able to purchase. My goal is a hair whittling mirrored finish in the end! Thanks.
Good question. I was wondering the same.
i know there was an issue with the formula or the manufacturing of the original superfine ceramic stones. It has been sorted out according to clay and mine should be here very soon. that might be the reason.
i know that for me, going 1000 to 5 micron is too big a jump so i’ve been using 1500 and 2000 wet/dry sand paper
For what it’s worth, I will offer my .02 worth. Which is really all it’s worth. I need to say that I am a new customer and new to sharpening and polishing, but having said that, I have got all the WEPS diamond stones from 50 to 1000 and the super and micro ceramics and strops 5>3.5>1>.5 and a kangaroo strop. I have been experimenting a bit but I have only had this total collection since yesterday when I got my super ceramic 1200-1600.
A couple of things I have learned are that it takes more strokes than I thought it would from one grit to the next to get to the mirror stage successfully. You can definitely get there with the PP2 as it is, but your right there is a big gap. Today I re-profiled a new Buck 110 Hunter. I started with a new 50 grit diamond stone which is about like using a rasp file, especially in it’s new state. I went to the 1000 then to the 1200, then the 5 m paste on leather then the 3.5 m paste then on to the 1600 ceramic. At this point I see the scratches left by the progressive diamonds begin to become finer and not as deep. When I did not have the 1200-1600 I was working with much more coarse deeper scratches and it took a lot longer to remove them. So predictably, the 1200-1600 is a good stone to prep for a finer stone like the micro ceramic which is a glassy ceramic and more like a polishing stone than a sharpening stone in my opinion. The 1200-1600 is not a polishing stone in the sense that you will not see a mirror begin to emerge and has minimal sharpening qualities but it is a good in between stone.
So it kind of comes down to how much time and energy and money you are you okay with spending to get to the mirror polishing stage. I have only sharpened four knives including an Elmax steel, ZT 560, ( a pretty hard steel). I have not actually achieved what I would call a perfect scratch free mirror shine yet but my blades are push sharp with the weight of the blade to cut copy paper and I can read reflected print when I put my blade on printed paper. Each successive knife however has been shinier and closer to the scratch free “perfect” mirror polish (to my eye). Like I said in the beginning, I am still learning how many strokes it takes to optimize each stones potential to prepare for the following stone.
Not sure if I actually answered your question, but I am still in learning mode myself and thought it might be helpful for you to hear some of my limited experience. I am sure there are others here who can answer your question much better.
Thought I read to go to the coarse side of the micro ceramics “before” the 1200/1600, then back to the fine side of the micro ceramics?
Thanks to everyone that has replied. I found a chart that might help . http://www.knifeforums.com/forums/fbbuploads/1316340409-Grit_Table.png If I am understanding this chart than 1000 grit stones = 7.0 microns, 1200 grit = 5.0 microns, 1600 grit = 2.8 microns (Super Fine Ceramics), and the Micro Fine Ceramics are 1.4 microns and .6 microns. If this is correct information than the Super Fine Ceramics might help to bridge the gap before the Micro Fine Ceramics.
One thing I’m not sure about, the ceramics are to be used dry correct? Not wet like an Arkansas stone?
My understanding is that they are meant to be used dry.
They can be used wet or dry and I alternate both methods a lot. If I’m looking for an extremely polished edge, I’ll use them wet. By wet I mean only slightly damp with soapy water.
Thanks Clay. I will remember that method and hopefully try it someday.
Is this the same information as found here?
http://www.wickededgeusa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74:grits-comparison-chart-for-the-wicked-edge-sharpener&catid=31:general&Itemid=46
On the WE web site? I know the WE has less stones listed.
Clay has the 1600 Superfine Ceramic listed as 2.85 micron as opposed to 2.8 micron on the other chart. Other than that they appear the same. The pictures are great on Clay’s chart.
The microfines seem to be a little too smooth for my kitchen knives, I won’t decide until I grab the 1200/1600.
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/856708-The-Grand-Unified-Grit-Chart/page3
Notice that for any given stone the actual grit size versus the grit size used varies widely. There is also the complication that there are multiple different ratings systems ANSI, JIS (old and new)and a couple of European ratings. If you want to see a wide divergence, just look at the 1000 Chosera versus the 1000 grit WEPS diamond plates. Even more interesting, look at the Edge Pro grits compared to the rest of the world..
I see what you are saying. If the micron rating listed for WE is accurate do you feel I would need to purchase the Super Fine Ceramics with the Pro-Pack II for an even transition before the stropping with the 1.0 micron and .5 micron stropps that are included?
Please correct me if I am wrong, I am definitely not an expert here.
Grit size is the size of crystals (or cutting media), which should indicate the depth of scratches it would leave. I don’t know how rigid the standards are for grit rating, much less the quality control of different stone makers. Highly controlled stones would have all grit exactly the same size, other ones may have a higher variation grit sizes where the average grit size is what is listed.
There is more to stone media and their performance that just grit size. There are other factors, which I am still trying to learn. Such as aggressiveness, etc. Given equal grit sizes different types of media will cut, polish, etc. differently.
[quote quote=“Geocyclist” post=6275]Please correct me if I am wrong, I am definitely not an expert here.
Grit size is the size of crystals (or cutting media), which should indicate the depth of scratches it would leave. I don’t know how rigid the standards are for grit rating, much less the quality control of different stone makers. Highly controlled stones would have all grit exactly the same size, other ones may have a higher variation grit sizes where the average grit size is what is listed.
There is more to stone media and their performance that just grit size. There are other factors, which I am still trying to learn. Such as aggressiveness, etc. Given equal grit sizes different types of media will cut, polish, etc. differently.[/quote]
Abrasives is a very big field of study. In addition to the size of the grit, there is hardness, friability, density, substrate or matrix and probably a few others that all affect sharpening.
Check that discussion out.
I found it while trying to find something that Scott posted that was more of an article on the physical properties of abrasives, the one qabove seems to be more results oriented.
Phil
Phil, That was very interesting reading. Thank you.
That was very entertaining reading and it brought up some good points, not the least of which is that getting the framing of a complex question right is crucial. In hindsight, it’s easy to see that they were almost always talking about different things. On one hand it was: Everything else being equal, do different stones confer a performance benefit to identical knives? On the other hand it was: Do those stones produce different results? Underlying all of the valuable discussion there was the very interesting question of if specific abrasives impact performance when all the other variables are the same. Another way of framing it could be “Would an equal density of equally sized but different abrasives applied at the same angle and pressure give two identical knives the same or different cutting performance?” I think the answer is a qualified ‘Different.’ Some abrasives are friable and will create smaller teeth than the original as they break down while others are not friable and don’t break down so they will cut teeth closer in size to the original grit. Some abrasives are harder and will cut deeper scratches and give a toothier edge. Some abrasives have different shapes and, while they may all fit through the same sieve, the will cut deeper or shallower scratches. The ‘Different’ is qualified because you could probably test for and observe performance differences that would correlate to the measurements of the micro-teeth if you had extremely sensitive and highly accurate testing apparatus and methods, but the huge majority of users would probably not notice much difference in actual cutting applications. In the end it’s mostly hypothetical because there aren’t really good examples of stones of different abrasives with otherwise identical formulations and characteristics. A lot of Ken’s arguments about the experience of different stones and their effects on the bevel were true too. In the Wicked Edge line-up, you can get to much the same place via the different accessories available though your experience can be very different. The Choseras area a good example of how using different stones are a truly different experience. Depending on how much importance you place on Process vs Results, you might select a specific lineup of accessories. There are good arguments to be made for selecting your stones and strops based on kind of edge you’re looking for given the intended use of the knife and your aesthetic preferences.