What's new

Pyramid honing merit

does pyramid honing have any merit?

  • No, It is complete and utter balderdash!

  • Yes, it is a great strategy for getting the best results!

  • Meh, it's ok.


Results are only viewable after voting.
From the perspective of a begginer/intermediate such as myself pyramid honing looks like a by gone honing trend with little meet it to me IMHO.
 
Me thinks it bought to you by a stone salesman. There may be a dash of merit in smoothing the ridges with a finer grit to make it SEEM like going back to the courser grit is working faster.
 
It's funny to me how people blindly believe what they read on the internet. Pyramid honing being a perfect example.
 
I'm sort of "meh" on the subject. A strict progression sort of implies factory-style synths from the same manufacturer, and from the same series, whereas a mix-and-match approach, especially involving both synths and naturals as arbitrarily graded, can lead to inadvertent "pyramids" depending on grit ratings that vary as a result. Or sticking with a commonly recommended synth progression, take Norton water-stone 4000/8000 to Naniwa 12k for instance, rather than JIS 4k/8k.

One case in favor of the so-called pyramid might be a black hard Arkansas. Used as part of a conventional oil-stone progression, it ends up in the early finishing range. But used to temper a harsh edge in the final finishing stage, it can improve this edge quite significantly, perhaps leading folks to the conclusion that the grit rating of the black hard Arkansas is far higher than is normally alleged.
 
Last edited:

Kentos

B&B's Dr. Doolittle.
Staff member
It is a set progression that gives some order to the chaos that is a beginner's foray into razor honing. It could also be an elaborate scheme to make it impossible for a beginner to get a decent edge thus keeping the need for "Honemeisters" afloat.
 
I'm sort of "meh" on the subject. A strict progression sort of implies factory-style synths from the same manufacturer, and from the same series, whereas a mix-and-match approach, especially involving both synths and naturals as arbitrarily graded, can lead to inadvertent "pyramids" depending on grit ratings that vary as a result. Or sticking with a commonly recommended synth progression, take Norton water-stone 4000/8000 to Naniwa 12k for instance, rather than JIS 4k/8k.

One case in favor of the so-called pyramid might be a black hard Arkansas. Used as part of a conventional oil-stone progression, it ends up in the early finishing range. But used to temper a harsh edge in the final finishing stage, it can improve this edge quite significantly, perhaps leading folks to the conclusion that the grit rating of the black hard Arkansas is far higher than is normally alleged.



Arks were historically considered capable of producing the finest edges possible from any natural stone. I wouldn't put it past them. The problem is they are so hard that they can easily damage an edge and also can't cover up whatsoever for the failings of the steel (softer stones and slurrying stones almost dull/round off the area around where steel fails, making "torn" cutting less noticeable from lower quality steel tools). This also means that at fine angles like we can have on razors, they may not be able to achieve the same level of distinction you'll see on sturdier edges, but with very careful technique and good quality steel, they can make some amazing edges, that I'd stack up against just about anything. Furthermore the standard recommended technique for razors is one that was developed around synthetic whetstones... and doesn't produce anywhere near the best results from Arks. Yes Arks excel at tweaking finished edges, but that's not because they are incapable of reaching those levels or even superior results on their own, only that it requires such high levels of skill, patience, and caution that it generally becomes more effort than it's worth. Whereas finishing on a Thuri or soft Jnat or Coti and then running over an ark afterwards leaves much less room for error and also allows interesting characteristics of the first stone to remain in the edge to some degree.
 
Last edited:
Arks were historically considered capable of producing the finest edges possible from any natural stone. I wouldn't put it past them. The problem is they are so hard that they can easily damage an edge and also can't cover up whatsoever for the failings of the steel (softer stones and slurrying stones almost dull/round off the area around where steel fails, making "torn" cutting less noticeable from lower quality steel tools). This also means that at fine angles like we can have on razors, they may not be able to achieve the same level of distinction you'll see on sturdier edges, but with very careful technique and good quality steel, they can make some amazing edges, that I'd stack up against just about anything. Furthermore the standard recommended technique for razors is one that was developed around synthetic whetstones... and doesn't produce anywhere near the best results from Arks. Yes Arks excel at tweaking finished edges, but that's not because they are incapable of reaching those levels or even superior results on their own, only that it requires such high levels of skill, patience, and caution that it generally becomes more effort than it's worth. Whereas finishing on a Thuri or soft Jnat or Coti and then running over an ark afterwards leaves much less room for error and also allows interesting characteristics of the first stone to remain in the edge to some degree.

Thanks for your assessment SoL. My comments were based on a recent India to Ark progression, leading to finition with a red ferric-oxide pasted strop, in comparison to some synth water-stones and natural slates leading up to a jacked-up edge, wherein the pasted strop was not needed, followed by subsequent calming with the black hard Arkansas. Given that most marketing of things these days tends towards exaggeration, I find it interesting that the marketing of black hard Arkansas stones is still in the 4k-6k JIS range. Much the same can be said for current coticules, which are marketed in the 6k-8k JIS range. So if we are to use these stones to improve the finished, or more advanced, edges as described, then this is effectively to move to a lesser stone as regarded. Elsewhere, I have likened this to a diagonal or tangential movement at best, and have caught some grief for it, but this again assumes that we are dealing with mix and match stones that don't really adhere to a progression in the industrially-controlled sense.

Personally, I feel that certain slates are capable of obtaining a very advanced edge. These are the ones about which we say, "Just a handful of strokes, lest you melt the edge." Subsequently, why not use them lower on the totem pole, if they are so aggressive? From this, it would appear that natural stones at least can have a two-fold aspect, one in a progressive sense and the other in a tempering sense, sort of like a steel or stropping. Perhaps this pertains to the concept of pyramid honing as discussed.
 
Last edited:
I think part of the limited ratings is that as I understand it, there is no Official rating for JIS over 8k. The manufacturers just determine for themselves at what range of grits 10k, 15k, 20k etc would be and label accordingly. I believe the same is true for most rating systems. They only go so high as the people creating them expected at the time would be necessary. Breaking past that is a matter of extrapolation, not any absolute rating.

As such the Arkansas rating is kind of determined by the biggest distributor of them... Norton. Who set it at 8k... mostly because they only make a synthetic up to 8k and they wanted to offer it as a successor/alternative to the hard arkansas that was much less profitable for them. We do tend to think too much in "grit", when traditionally the thinking followed more of a "progression" mentality; and hard Arkansas were the final stone in virtually every ultra-refinement progression imaginable. I don't believe they were EVER followed by another hone... logically because none could improve on their edge. As far as I know the only "improvement" beyond an arkansas was through stropping. The distinction is that Arkansas don't respond to minimal pressure the way traditional synthetics do... so most people practiced with razors and synthetics aren't prepared to properly use an Arkansas.

Coticules didn't enjoy the same level of respect that Arkansas did, that of being viewed as an absolute best in most things, I suppose. Though their history and use is probably even more established among shavers. Very likely because of their relative friability and the nature of the garnets allowing them to cut far deeper with only minor changes in technique, it's especially difficult to "rate" a coticule for grit... moreso than almost any other stone. So a Coticule could very well cut similarly to an 8k synthetic in one users hands, while leaving a sharper edge than a 15k synthetic in another users. Add to that the natural variation in the stones, with some having larger garnets, wearing faster, and having other properties that make it a more aggressive cutter, and rating them becomes very difficult; so rather than making claims like the 12k CNat, or 15K Slate or whatever, they just shot for a very easy, generic 8k. Where a honer using a decent amount of pressure and no special technique on any random coticule could be expected to feel he'd gotten what was advertised.

Where I have to disagree with you is your belief that stones have a progressive trait and a tempering trait. Stones do one thing. Remove steel. While a particular slate may improve the shave off another stone with five strokes, but harm the edge with ten, that's not a tempering property. Rather, the slate removes steel in a way that is damaging the edge while also refining it, and at some point the damage becomes sufficient to undo the refinement. If the ability to refine an edge were sufficient, almost any stone that was extremely fine would be an excellent hone; but because removing steel to refine an edge is always simultaneously damaging an edge, we have hones that are fine and excellent and hones that are fine and worthless and everything in between.

A good quality stone in skilled hands does not demonstrate this behavior, because it removes steel in such a way that the damage it does can not accumulate. Essentially it removes damage as fast or faster than it produces it.

You'll find several barber hones that use extremely coarse grit and instruct the user NOT to clean the hone. I remember one or two that actually admitted the hone being clogged was key to its function as a fine finisher. This is because by clogging the hone, the level of refinement it is capable of increases... just as if you completely clog a washita, it will begin to polish a bevel; but this also means the hone stops removing the damaged steel it is producing, leading to a busted edge as soon as you pile enough damage onto it. I consider this the "overhoning" everyone is terrified of... but I don't like that term. I consider it "A perfectly acceptable amount of honing on a crummy hone". Any time you're deliberately interfering with a tools function (in this case a hone's ability to remove steel) to make it work how you want it to, it's time to consider how suitable this tool is for the job. I'd liken it to insisting on using a pressure washer to wash your car, but wrapping the car in a bunch of blankets first to protect it... or cycling the washer on only in millisecond bursts. It's just silly.

And the thing is, these stones that "cook" an edge after X strokes are functionally the same as these clogged synthetics. They are poor at removing steel, and that's being attempted to be used as a merit... because it in some ways replicates the function of an extremely fine (but still good quality) hone. But it doesn't replicate the most important function... that of improving the state of the edge. So you're constantly trying to balance where you refine the edge as much as you can before you start to notice the damage the hone is doing.
 
Last edited:
Slice is right about the clogging. The fast cutting synthetics (which are my favorites hones) will load very quickly. I lap my hones at the start of every honing session. Lapping just takes a few seconds, but saves me lots of time on the stone and improves results. When I hear about people getting a comfortable shave straight off of a Shapton 4K or 8K, I assume that they are coming off of a loaded hone.
 
Where I have to disagree with you is your belief that stones have a progressive trait and a tempering trait.

This view has been challenged in the past, but it remains my view (or intuition) from experience. This specifically pertains to a black hard Arkansas.

As such the Arkansas rating is kind of determined by the biggest distributor of them... Norton. Who set it at 8k... mostly because they only make a synthetic up to 8k and they wanted to offer it as a successor/alternative to the hard arkansas that was much less profitable for them. We do tend to think too much in "grit", when traditionally the thinking followed more of a "progression" mentality; and hard Arkansas were the final stone in virtually every ultra-refinement progression imaginable. I don't believe they were EVER followed by another hone... logically because none could improve on their edge. As far as I know the only improvement beyond an arkansas was through stropping. The distinction is that Arkansas don't respond to minimal pressure the way traditional synthetics do... so most people practiced with razors and synthetics aren't prepared to properly use an Arkansas.

Actually, Norton (Saint Gobain Abrasives) rates a translucent Arkansas at 4k JIS. I am not advocating that a black hard Arkansas should be followed by anything (other than stropping, pasted or not as the case may be), just saying that its perceived quality can change depending on what has gone on before. When you write that "The distinction is that Arkansas don't respond to minimal pressure the way traditional synthetics do... so most people practiced with razors and synthetics aren't prepared to properly use an Arkansas," that seems to imply that there are two possible results in using an Arkansas, which is sort of what I was after, although I would not necessarily style them right or wrong.

Slice is right about the clogging. The fast cutting synthetics (which are my favorites hones) will load very quickly. I lap my hones at the start of every honing session. Lapping just takes a few seconds, but saves me lots of time on the stone and improves results. When I hear about people getting a comfortable shave straight off of a Shapton 4K or 8K, I assume that they are coming off of a loaded hone.

I didn't mention a stone's clogging, or for that matter a stone's auto-slurrying or a stone's smoothing, as part of its perceived improving. But now I wonder if these might not be part of the development of the so-called pyramid honing scheme, as the stone's perceived character would be changed from what it was starting out. So a smoothed or clogged 4k might appear as a higher grit rating than a freshly lapped 8k in this instance.

Like I said, I'm sort of "meh" on the subject, not advocating it. Just trying to understand where it comes from, or play devil's advocate a little, before dismissing it.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to ask this here as I think it fits:

I have seen where people will use a coti with a heavy slurry and progress to water. They will then restart with a slightly less heavy slurry and progress to water again. They will do this again and again starting with a thinner slurry until they are using strictly water. Is this similar to the pyramid method? If this is fine with Coti then why not other stones? Am I way off base?
 
My begginer/intermediate opinion is that yes starting over with a progressively thinner slurry is somewhat regressive. I think this is why some have developed tricky honing strokes in an attempt to keep the original slurry in play.
 

Kentos

B&B's Dr. Doolittle.
Staff member
I'm going to ask this here as I think it fits:

I have seen where people will use a coti with a heavy slurry and progress to water. They will then restart with a slightly less heavy slurry and progress to water again. They will do this again and again starting with a thinner slurry until they are using strictly water. Is this similar to the pyramid method? If this is fine with Coti then why not other stones? Am I way off base?


It's a little different IMO as starting with a thinner slurry would be like going to a higher grit stone. What would seem repetitive would be going to water each time. When you go back to a lower grit stone on the pyramid scheme you are scratching the bevel with that lower grit. Same as sanding a piece of wood with 350 grit and then going back to 80 grit.
 
Last edited:
Oh there are a lot more than two possible results with any hone. However, someone who tries to use an arkansas the same way they use a Cnat, welsh slate, Naniwa 12k, etc... is likely not going to be impressed with their results. Arkansas are a stone you really have to develop a feel for. If you can't sense the bite of an arkansas stone is use, what you can do with that stone is going to be severely limited. And yes, it's easy enough to use an arkansas, much like the "dangerous" slates, to do minimal work on a finished edge; but that's not even scratching the surface of what the stones are capable of. They are perfectly competent, even excellent finishers on their own, provided the user is willing to learn them, or rather to unlearn synthetic whetstone honing.
 
Top Bottom