Coticule Slurry Stones-Does it Matter?

I think we can all agree that coticules vary in speed, hardness, garnet size, etc. Some are great finishers, and some are better suited for bevel sets and midrange work. So thinking along the lines of Tomo Naguras, how important are the slurry stones we use? I know we'll get the answer "as long as the slurry stone is harder than the host stone...", and that makes sense-but then you're at the mercy of the host stone (which may or may not be a good thing). So can you alter the performance of a host stone by using slurry stones with different characteristics?
I asked this question when I first started out and was laughed at, but after playing around with these things for a couple years I think it's worth another look.
For what it's worth-in my opinion, the answer is YES.

Dcaddo111 said:

... So can you alter the performance of a host stone by using slurry stones with different characteristics? ....

Click to expand...

Isn't this what the whole JNat approach is based on?

Yes it is.

I believe that yes you can as well. I have certain pairings that I keep together based on the results I have gotten. I never just grab a random slurry stone. I have never changed from one slurry stone to another mid honing to try to achieve a different result, but it has merit as an idea. More so if the mother stone is a very hard one.

I have 2 slurry stones and the difference between the 2 is night and day. I also have used a couple smaller cotis as slurry stones as well. Think about it. It has to vary, different stones and abrasive particles in the slurry makes a big difference in what you can get.

When I first started I was told "for all intents and purposes, no it doesn't matter" .... Now that I've used a couple I know better so my answer is yes

With Jnats I like to match with tomo's that are relatively similar in hardness.

With coticules I like to match opposite. With my Hard stones I use an ultra-soft vintage slurry. With my soft stones I use the hybrid side of a les lat. There may be practical differences in the honing, but honestly, ease of raising a slurry seems to outweigh any of that effect for me in dilucot; so it can't be particularly significant.

The exception are my weird "swirl" coticules. I only slurry them on each other.

LL hybrid gets a LL hybrid slurry stone.
I might opt for a softer slurry stone sometimes.
I usually use the Nougat slurry stone though - it's always out so it's easy to just grab that one.

The conventional wisdom has been that the stone releases new slurry with use, replacing that created with the slurry stone.

HonerSimpson said:

The conventional wisdom has been that the stone releases new slurry with use, replacing that created with the slurry stone.

Click to expand...

That may be true with soft stones, but I don't think it would replace the slurry made from the slurry stone-mix in with it maybe. None of my cotis auto slurry.

Yes I would go along with that, BUT the mixture to start will have an effect on the finished edge as it progresses differently as one slurry may be different than the other. Larger particles, different sized garnets etc. At the end of the day IMO you can get the same edge though.

Part of the function of slurry with synths and other natural stones is to increase the rate at which the surface abrades to keep fresh particles exposed and cutting. I'd assume this happens at least to some extent with coticules, so even stones that don't autoslurry on water should do so to some extent on slurry.

Dcaddo111 said:

That may be true with soft stones, but I don't think it would replace the slurry made from the slurry stone-mix in with it maybe. None of my cotis auto slurry.

Click to expand...

I think auto-slurry generally refers to slurry formed during honing with only water.
I don't see how honing with slurry cannot abrade the stone and release new slurry, even the hardest coticule is soft compared to a razor and that is being abraded.

I think Sham had a video talking about using different slurry stones when honing with a Coticule as a one-hone solution. Some may disagree, but it'd be interesting to get more people experimenting with the idea. Check out YouTube.

HonerSimpson said:

I think auto-slurry generally refers to slurry formed during honing with only water.
I don't see how honing with slurry cannot abrade the stone and release new slurry, even the hardest coticule is soft compared to a razor and that is being abraded.

Click to expand...

I think this is true but not to a great extent... I think for all intents and purposes the amount of new slurry that is released is negligible... If this weren't the case any coticule honing on water only would release a noticeable amount of slurry and this is not the case

It makes a huge difference, imo. It's one of those things the coticule.be guys were way off about.

Try this simple experiment:

Take a combo stone and raise a yellow slurry and transfer it to the BBW side.
I did this by holding the stone BBW up and raising a slurry on the bottom side, transferring by scraping the slurry off the slurry stone onto the top edge of the BBW.

Start honing and see how long it takes for the slurry to turn purple.

I could not set a bevel in the time it took for my slurry to become fully BBW purple.

Using a stone to hone with is probably the best way to determine its ability to sharpen/hone a razor. Does anybody know what quarks from the coti are made of? And what those quarks are made of? And how long after the big bang did these quarks form atoms, that formed molecules that in turn formed particles that formed cotis? Because if I dont know the answer to these questions, I will never be able to hone a razor.

I just learned a new word. Thanks Bill!

The quarks actually formed baryons which eventually formed the lightest elements, which were later forged in supernovae into the heavier elements which comprise the base elements forming the molecules found in coticules. But then again, unless we really discuss what caused the initial baryogenesis, we won't understand why there are coticules in the first place.