Arkansas shaving.

Thanks for the suggestions - gonna stick to water/soap or water/glycerine.
It's easy peasy to work with, don't have to buy anything, and works as well as anything else for me.
My days of oil on Arks are over forever. I started with oil back when I got my first set of shapening stones.
I'm done with that. Of course - if I had softer Arks - then I'd have to use it. But - they're gone now.


I just got my new Translucent. Was dreading the lapping.
I've lapped way too many Arks to still be doing this kind of work.

But


Wait for it



Out of the box it's dead flat! And - it's also waaaaay smooooooooooth!

Haven't louped it yet - but I think this one is good to go.
It's a 1950s Norton 6x2.
If I don't have to rework the top I'll be as happy as a pig in........

oakeshott said:

Most of us have both. In my experience, there's no reliable difference between a yellow/white translucent and a black translucent commonly referred to as a Surgical Black.

Click to expand...

Surgical blacks aren't typically translucent.

SliceOfLife said:

Surgical blacks aren't typically translucent.

Click to expand...

Ian,
I should be clearer. Let me try and correct that.

I've done a bunch of reading on arkies over the last year and from what I can tell, geologists don't refer to "translucent" arkies as a separate category; rather, they refer to a class of novaculite that reaches a very high specific gravity and displays the property of translucence and comes in colors from white, pink and yellow to brown and black. They have no categories for either Surgical Black or Translucent Arkie. Those terms were developed by industry. The very hard black arkansas novaculite and the very hard "obviously" translucent Arkansas novaculite belong to the same class of stones. This is my point.

In the last year, I've owned 5 or 6 different black arkansas stones. Three of them came in boxes labeled Surgical Black and all were a dark gray and clearly display the property of allowing light to diffuse through them which is known as translucence. Two of the five were jet black. One of those was in a box and it is not called an SB and the other was without a box. I'm holding one in my hand and have to concede your point that it doesn't appear to be translucent in the way all of the others were. Scientists must have a way to test translucence vs opaqueness and the naked human eye isn't it, but still I'll have to agree with you that some arkies labeled SB appear translucent and some are not. I don't know, however, if that is meaningful information in assessing the value or effectiveness of the hone. When I say I don't know, it's not a rhetorical flourish. I really don't know.

Here's what we do know though. Arkansas stones that are this hard all consist of 99.5 % or more of silica. The next component is Alumina at approximately .20% and the remainder is made up of ferric oxide, magnesia, potash, lime, soda and American MOJO. What puzzles me is how there can be so little material difference between the jet black arkie and the translucent white arkie and yet they look so very different. Since this thread has been shamefully light on photos, here's one to consider. These three stones get the bulk of the arkie work in my house. I honestly can't tell the difference in the results and I use them based on my mood. They range in color from nearly white, to jet black. As I think of it, I could have inserted a dark gray SB in there as well to further show the color variation, but that's an NOS stone I just haven't gotten around to lapping and using yet.



Again, the point is that whether it's labeled translucent or SB, it's the same class of stone and the name on the box tells you nothing about how it will perform compared to other stones of the same class.

For me it's the versatility of the stones that I don't find appealing.

I would like to try one of the Translucent black stones - maybe I'll pick one up someday.

Forgive me - I just posted this photo in another thread recently - but here's a pic of my SB.
I love this stone.

Uh-oh. We're getting dangerously close to bringing up specific gravity here. I would like to know more about how viscosity of the honing liquid or medium being employed (oil, water, lather, etc.) affects the honing process with Arkansas stones. My sense from using Dan's Honing oil, mineral oil and kerosene 1:1, Norton's honing oil, jojoba oil, and apricot kernel oil is that the stone surface reacts differently in each case. One says that the coticule is a little bit finer in using oil at the end, rather than water. Wouldn't the same be the case here? And from this, would using, say, a series of mineral oil to kerosene blends make it be possible to vary the range of the stone's action? For example, wouldn't four parts kerosene to one part mineral oil lead to a more aggressive honing action than, say, one part kerosene to four parts mineral oil?

I've had some vintage translucent black stones, but according to Hall's, when asked, surgical blacks do not display any translucence. A translucent black stone would be considered by them a translucent, not a surgical black. I haven't heard of or seen any modern "surgical blacks" that were translucent either, though I believe there are some vintage "surgical blacks" that are in fact translucent out there... most likely because there were no "translucent" categories in the past... there were "surgical blacks" and even some "Hard Black Arkansas" which were, as I understand it, sold at a premium because of their use by jewelers, and hard arkansas, which were almost all translucent in the good old days.

And that black in your picture doesn't look translucent to me Mark. How deep does a flashlight penetrate it?

See now Gamma, I'd be surprised if that stone you posted wasn't at least somewhat translucent. It looks as though it has some cloudy translucent ark swirled in it in that picture. No translucence at all when ya hold a flashlight up to it?

Dangit, I was perfectly happy finishing on my white translucent, now you guys have me wanting a SB (or translucent black however you look at it...Thanks a lot lol.

SliceOfLife said:

I've had some vintage translucent black stones, but according to Hall's, when asked, surgical blacks do not display any translucence. A translucent black stone would be considered by them a translucent, not a surgical black. I haven't heard of or seen any modern "surgical blacks" that were translucent either, though I believe there are some vintage "surgical blacks" that are in fact translucent out there... most likely because there were no "translucent" categories in the past... there were "surgical blacks" and even some "Hard Black Arkansas" which were, as I understand it, sold at a premium because of their use by jewelers, and hard arkansas, which were almost all translucent in the good old days.

And that black in your picture doesn't look translucent to me Mark. How deep does a flashlight penetrate it?

See now Gamma, I'd be surprised if that stone you posted wasn't at least somewhat translucent. It looks as though it has some cloudy translucent ark swirled in it in that picture. No translucence at all when ya hold a flashlight up to it?

Click to expand...

Ian,
I'm going to try and document some of the confusion you refer to in your post.

For part of the 20th Century, it appears that companies selling these stones marketed translucent black stones and non-translucent ones as both hard Arkansas stones and as surgical blacks and did so interchangeably. Let me illustrate:

Here is the stone in my previous pic which I call and most people would refer to as a "Surgical Black" arkie next to a NOS stone from Woodcraft that is actually in a box labeled "Surgical Black".



As you can see, the top one from Halls clearly displays what we would refer to as "translucence", but the other one appears to be non-translucent. What does this mean for us as honers and consumers of hones? Does it mean that different companies simply have different grading methods? Allow me to confuse the matter even more.

Look at these two stones:



Both of these stones are from the exact same supplier. Both are labeled in the exact same way (Hard Arkansas Oilstone) and differ only in size. The packaging graphics and appearance of the cardboard strongly, strongly suggest that they were mined, graded and distributed in roughly the same time period. Probably no more than a decade apart. Yet one of them clearly appears to be translucent and one does not.

I take from this several lessons. Historically, the term Surgical Black for an arkie covers a wide swath of territory. So wide a swath in fact that it's largely meaningless. It helps in no way to differentiate a translucent black arkie from a non-translucent one. It may be that at one time it did mean something and then got confused by peripheral entrants into the market, but I don't have enough information to say that.

A helpful source on this is the is the Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Arkansas for 1890. In it, we learn several things. One of these is that the very early preference for fine work by dentists and surgeons were the white arkansas. Any color was seen a detriment and the clearer the stone, the more desirable as a tool for very fine edges. In other words, the exact opposite of what we have today. While I can't find anything that demonstrates the use of the word "translucent" in the selling of these stones, it's obvious that the concept was widely known and the physical trait expected in the product by the consumer. There was no need for a category of "translucent" because in the early days of selling arkies, translucence was synonymous with Hard Arkansas. They meant the same thing. The only other version was the Ouachita (now Washita) which would not have been used for fine work.

I haven't yet figured out when the shift started and the move from white arkies to black arkies for fine work began to occur. I'm suspecting sometime after the 50's based on the packaging I've seen, but I've made no real effort here. Of more importance is why did this shift occur? Did the veins of the highly desirable white arkies play out and so the mines repositioned the colored stones as being superior or was there a real awareness that theses stones were were as good, perhaps better than the old ones? I suspect a combination of both.

Here's where I need help in case we have any optics scientists around. I'm puzzled by the difference between the non-translucent and translucent black stones. Is the difference primarily A) a function of coloring agents in the stone or, as I read in one place B), a function of increased density changing the crystalline structure and therefore the light reflecting properties? The follow up question in case the answer is yes to B, how does that affect honing?

Soldierdan said:

Dangit, I was perfectly happy finishing on my white translucent, now you guys have me wanting a SB (or translucent black however you look at it...Thanks a lot lol.

Click to expand...

Dan, you may wonder why I included your post in the response to Ian. It's because your question illustrates my point. You already have what was once considered the most valuable of all arkies and yet we've got you pining after a different one because the modern preference seems to be for these stones. While the modern preference may be "correct", there is simply no objective evidence to support this. The SG is the same, the constituent elements are the same and, as far as I can tell in my own tests, the results barely distinguishable on a well worn stone. All have the same variation in grit size. So what should you do? Get both, of course. The mandatory B&B answer holds in this as in all things.

SliceOfLife said:

See now Gamma, I'd be surprised if that stone you posted wasn't at least somewhat translucent. It looks as though it has some cloudy translucent ark swirled in it in that picture. No translucence at all when ya hold a flashlight up to it?

Click to expand...

When I took that photo I give it the flashlight test - 100 lumen Surefire light right up against the stone - got nuttin. But I only checked in 1-2 places. Nect time it's out I'll do a better light-test.

The photo was lightened a bit to show off the pattern - in real life it's difficult to see the swirls.

The issue is trying to turn terms into numbers. All natural stones are prone to variations. That's a liability and an asset to the user.

The old Geological reports are helpful, but only to a point I think. A great reference for sure - but I feel that, for the most part, what was going on in 1890 has little to do with what is going on today.

True - Surgical Black was never an 'official, Gov't designated' grade of stone - until more recent times, neither was Translucent.
I'm not even sure Translucent is a standard term. Might be True Hard. More marketing I suppose.
Surgical Black, I believe, was supposed to indicate that the stone was hard enough for Doctors and Dentists to sharpen their tools on.
Why were they black? Dunno - some have said those stones had a polishing quality that the white stones didn't have.
Could it be marketing? Sure - even so, all of the people at the mines/quarries/etc that I've spoken with have explained that the SB stones were always from the same class (top hardness) as what we now call Translucents. I believe the SB name precedes the term 'Translucent', but I might be wrong. If I'm right then that would be one way for the stone sellers to let the doctors know they were getting the right stone.

Even so - if a supplier is trustworthy and they make a claim that one stone is this/that I'm inclinded to beleive them.
Originally - there was only Soft and Hard. There was also Washita but I'm not sure if that was a Gov't standard.
Eventually - the grades split out wider. Today - you can can buy a 'Hard Ark' that's just a bit harder than a 'Soft Ark'. You can also buy a Translucent that might be just a hair harder than a 'Hard" but you can also get a 'Trans' that's super uber hard. Some Soft Arks can be nearly as hard as a Hard Ark. This was true in days gone by too - but the terms were a little different. There was only one line to cloud, the one between soft and hard. Even so - there were harder Hard Arks and softer Soft Arks.

People didn't use these whetstones based on numbers or names. They based their use on application and technique.
Trying to assign numbers and classifications to them, past what the retailers have done, is almost ridiculous.


Uncle Bonzo on fleapay puts up a black Ark and calls it Surgical Black. Buying it is a gamble; how does he know what it is?
He doesn't - and neither will you. The stone might be wonderful, or not. Caveat emptor.

If you contact Halls or Dans or Natural Whetstones and say - I want a surgical black for honing razors, I'm convinced you'll get what you pay for. At least - that's how it has worked for me. Repeatedly so. Mind you - I don't go measureing SG after I get them. Well - I did send my black stone out for testing once but that was for fun, not because I thought it wasn't a good stone. I use the stone, and what it does is what it does. Better said - what I can do with it is what I get out of it.

I have two vintage Norton Arks - both marked 'Hard' - both are, most assuredly, 'Translucent' Arks.
Will either outperform anyone's Surgical Black?
Who knows, who cares? What I do know, and do care about - is that when I bought my black Ark the owner of the shop explained to me what it was, and what I could expect. He called is a Surgical Black stone. While that might mean nothing to anyone else, it doesn't have to. To me - it's like saying Nakayama Tomae or Ozuku Aisa. Seemingly pointless terms that can't be proven or qualified, yet they are integral to the art of conversation.

Translucent and surgical are cutesy tri-syllabic marketing terms in my book. Hold a flashlight up to a Dan's translucent and a Dan's true hard and you will have transmittance. Hold a flashlight up to what Dan's calls a geniune black hard Arkansas and you will get no transmittance. Hold a flashlight up to a Natural Whetstones black translucent and you will get just the tiniest hint of transmittance along the edge or on the surface. It's definitely a different type than Dan's black. Again, I recall the old-time method of determining a stone's density, gently tap it with a blunt metal object and listen to the ringing sound. As far as I can tell, Sharpening Supplies is selling remarked Dan's stones, and Woodcraft may be selling remarked Natural Whetstones.

I have a nice vintage ochre translucent that feels waxen, or stalagmite-like, when honing, just like the modern-production Dan's translucents and true hards. Dan's black stone feels "crisp" in comparison. My Pike's lily white Washita also feels waxen, whereas my Norton no. 1 Washita feels "crisp." Haven't used the Natural Whetstones black trans much, or in a while, my recollection being that the feel was on the "crisp" side (once I finish re-lapping it, I'll give it a go again). I would like to try one of their translucent stones to see how it feels. Once I heard words to the effect that the Natural Whetstones black trans might have some sandstone mixed in with it, and this might be contributing to its so-called translucency. From this, and being no geologist, I wonder if the other translucent stones might not have sandstone mixed in as well.

What was the rumor of sandstone being in the black translucents based on exactly?
Did someone see the sandstone or test the stone to come up with that?
Or is this just forum-based conjecture?

I know that Arks were, at one time - believed to be an altered sandstone (geo study from 1800s). I believe this idea was dismissed.
But as far as Arkansas stone having sandstone in them.... I'm not buying into that without a significant amount of supporting scientific data on the table.

This is based on a telephone conversation I had with a dealer of Arkansas stones. A supposition, as it were, that I can't help thinking about from time to time.

Can't help but think sandstone in an Ark would preclude it from being used as a finisher.
Anything is possible I suppose, but that just doesn't read as being 'correct' to me at all.

Gamma said:

Can't help but think sandstone in an Ark would preclude it from being used as a finisher.

Click to expand...

Agreed, that's why can't stop thinking about it. Maybe if it had become "fused" or "melted" in some geothermic way?

Alum of Potash said:

Agreed, that's why can't stop thinking about it. Maybe if it had become "fused" or "melted" in some geothermic way?

Click to expand...

If the crystalline structure of the sandstone was altered, it would cease to be sandstone. Since it's basically silica, that could happen I suppose, but saying the resulting stone had sandstone in it would be way less than accurate.

I think that the Chert beds in Arkansas lie on top of sandstone.
so maybe there is premise to there being a 'hybrid' layer in spots but I wouldn't bet on it.
I'll stick with the tanslucency being the result of silica concentration and the black translucent just being a variation on the theme.
I've seen banded stones that were partially translucent too. I'd guess they're thought to be not as 'pure' and less sought after and the all-white translucents are probably thought to be 'most pure'. I'm not sold on that being fact - just prosletyzing here.

Gamma said:

I've seen banded stones that were partially translucent too. I'd guess they're thought to be not as 'pure' and less sought after and the all-white translucents are probably thought to be 'most pure'. I'm not sold on that being fact - just prosletyzing here.

Click to expand...

I recently saw a vintage stone for sale that was translucent with a partial black section. Most interesting, but pretty small, as I recall. They sound reminiscent of the "true hard" stones that Dan's sells. I have four of these ranging from 1-5/8" x 4" to 6" x 2". Personally, I find Dan's "hard" too close to their "medium/soft" in a progression to "black," but the "true hard" fits in nicely. Also depends on the stone. Below, as shown, a "true hard" that works well between "soft/medium" and "black," but not so much as a finisher, and then a "true hard" that also works well as a finisher--the irony being that the latter appears less "translucent" overall. White and black areas are basically opaque. Please excuse the repeat posting of these:

See now, 'true hard' seems like a ridiculous name to me.

Can't use an Ark based on it's name - gotta see it, feel it, try it out and then figure out where it goes.
Names are, well - just names. The classification for these stones has always been very broad and without hands on use - there's no way to say what's what. All of which is fine by me actually.

True Hard just sounds stupid.
Should be Soft, Medium and Hard.

There is no 'False Hard'. Lol.