Coticule with NO slurry!

What the .... ?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXHsETAasqc

Forgive me if this topic was all ready discussed, but I didn't find any threads with that general description.

Anyway... I've read instructions before that coticules "should only be used with water"—but this? Absolutely no slurry? No dilucot? Ellipticot? Unicot?

Does anyone have experience using a coticule with no slurry at all? The speaker in this video says slurries were introduced in the 60's for some unknown reason. He infers that everyone who used a coticule, well, just used it.

He sets a bevel on synth, moves up to a Shapton 5k, and then does circles on a coticule under running water. And the microscope images are very convincing of his case.

Opinions with no slurry? Experience? Dare I say preference?

There are barbers hones from the early 20th century that instruct the user to raise coticule slurry on the base stone to do lower grit work.

SliceOfLife said:

There are barbers hones from the early 20th century that instruct the user to raise coticule slurry on the base stone to do lower grit work.

Click to expand...

I totally believe that. Slurries don't strike me as some new-age technique. I'm wondering if this guy's conclusion is spot on but the premise he's using is totally misinformed.

In this case he's just using the coticule as a finisher that's why slurry isn't needed... Normally you would go straight from bevel set to coticule on slurry then coticule on water... Had they skipped the 5k you would have had to raise slurry

To add to that, some people use pressure as a substitute for slurry with their coticules. It works better on some stones than others (many autoslurrying stones will raise slurry due to pressure, so it's not really a distinction in those cases). Yes, honing on a coticule without slurry is perfectly viable; but it's not really anything new; nor is it historically accurate to say it was the only technique used in the past; though it seems likely that coticules were used far less for low grit work in the past than they are now (we do a lot more low grit work than most barbers who maintained their razors after buying them new and sharp from the manufacturer were likely to do). And as Hees pointed out, slurry is unnecessary when you're honing on synthetics to a high level of refinement before switching to the coticule.

OP give it a try and see what you think.

The video is new to me, perhaps the doctor will chime in, but I've used pretty much the same method a fair bit. Shapton Pro 1.5K>5K follwed by water only coticule. There's another Doc doing something similar in a few of his coticule youtube vids here https://www.youtube.com/user/Doc226Shaver/videos

I think it was Jarrod a while back who mentioned using a cotcule on water for a hundred or so strokes everyday before shaving until the edge is to your liking.

Long ago - a member we don't see any more called it the Pacocot. He might have done it dry though. I forget.
I'm sure that someone called it something else before that though.

Slurry can be used when you need to use it - if you don't need to use it, then, well - you don't need to use it.

Need is a funny word here... this all falls back on the 'horses for courses' thing...

The pacocot!

Cheers Gamma, I knew there was a snappy name floating around here somewhere and couldn't recall it, another mystery solved.

I,ve tried this method several times. While it does work , I still prefer the slurry method . I felt the edge just was,not quite as smooth as dilucot. I used the naniwa 5 k .

it is very easy and I urge any one to try it. Mastro livi goes from a 3 k Kai to water/coticule and Crox.

i easily achieved a nice hht with the 5 k water/coticule. The shave was something like across between synthetic edge and coticulish feel.

Its a a simple method that any one new could easily learn.

It's not really a Pacocot though. That style has been around for a looooong time.

Someone thought, mistakenly, that he invented the 'technique'.

He didn't.

I have a small coticule I keep in my shave den for touch ups. No slurry, a few strokes under running water is all it takes.

Gamma said:

It's not really a Pacocot though. That style has been around for a looooong time.

Someone thought, mistakenly, that he invented the 'technique'.

He didn't.

Click to expand...

Yeah, just with the OP mentioning various *cot type names I was briefly irked I couldn't recall that term. How a coticule performs with water and various degrees of pressure is a well worn path.

IMO, the use of slurry on a coticule would be predicated on what stone of progression the user is coming off of. After 1K, 3/4/5K slurry is required to push the edge along, depending on the coticule after 8K as well. After 10/12K, depending on the coticule, water only can work. The characteristics of the particular coticule will dictate where it can fit and whether or not slurry should be used.

I can get quite a nice edge without slurry coming off a lower grit hone but it takes a few different coti that link well into one another vs just one. I like touching up blades that way, going from a blushing coti with some cut and moving on to a finer one.

Ha i like the Shapton synthetic on the clip .
If the razor is well sharpened , and the coty is fast there is no problem . The thing is that everybody has theyre secret , magical trick .
Killing the edge doesnt count . with this small presure it is just so easy to repair it .
just a smell of the coticule is ennought .
The HHT doesnt mean that this razor wiill shave well . I can get super HHT from a kai 3 K and some of my super smooth shaving blades has poor HHT than a 3 K edge .
Ths a trick that does not mean a lot in the shaving , for me. Just a honing fetish .

For me,

I think what was really crazy in the video was his argument that slurries were not only helpful — but actually not helpful. For his point he used SEM pictures, which seemed to correlate with his conclusion. I just can't wrap my head around it. Slurries are joy.

"You make a slurry, work through the low grits and finish, this works — in theory"

It does work - and that's fact, not theory.

I can prove anything I want with 'photos'; slurries are good, bad, whatever.
Images are not science. They can be a part of science. They're data, and data is important, but compiling and interpreting data is a skill unto itself, and it's one that requires more than just looking at a photo or two and using them to substantiate a claim.
Not to mention the fact that different people want different things, like to work in different ways with different styles/tools/etc - and somehow or another everyone seems to get the the same place anyway.

Gamma said:

It does work - and that's fact, not theory.

I can prove anything I want with 'photos'; slurries are good, bad, whatever.
Images are not science. They can be a part of science. They're data, and data is important, but compiling and interpreting data is a skill unto itself, and it's one that requires more than just looking at a photo or two and using them to substantiate a claim.
Not to mention the fact that different people want different things, like to work in different ways with different styles/tools/etc - and somehow or another everyone seems to get the the same place anyway.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on that. The idea that dilucot doesn't work conveniently dismisses the fact that hundreds if not thousands have made it work for them easy.

The only take-away I'm left with after this good discussion is I may try, abet once, finishing under running water.

I finish on water somtimes... depends on my mood and what's going on. Routinely though, I find finishing on slurry to be more effective for me.