Bought some Shapton Pros

[Richard Hutchings]

I bought the 100 and 8000 from Marc Kerschner in the classifieds. After using oil stones all my life, I really enjoyed using these. Although these stones are wider than my HF diamond stones, I used the 260 to flatten them when I was done sharpening a couple of things. I think they worked perfect and I see no reason to purchase the big 10" diamond stone for flattening. So far at least. Now I'm on the lookout for a used 5000 to complete my set.

[Mike Henderson]

If you use one stone to flatten another, you will most likely not wind up with two flat stones. You either have to use three stones in a certain sequence, or have a reference flat, such as a diamond plate, to flatten a stone.

If you rub two stones together long enough, the most likely outcome is that one will become convex and the other concave.

Mike

[Richard Hutchings]

I don't think the diamond stone, albeit a cheap Harbor Freight tool, is going to dish. It's diamonds on a steel plate.

[Mike Henderson]

I don't think the diamond stone, albeit a cheap Harbor Freight tool, is going to dish. It's diamonds on a steel plate.

Okay, I thought you were referring to another stone, not a diamond plate. Note that I specified that a diamond plate would be a good flattening medium.

Mike

[Richard Hutchings]

I'm curious to see how long these $10 for a set of three diamond stones will work for this or if I'll actually find a need for better quality at some point. $163 for a flattening stone is way out of my budget. I'll probably have to go to wet dry sandpaper on glass if this doesn't continue to give me good results.

[bridger berdel]

If your set of ~$10~ HF diamond stones are the same as mine, here's my take:

they arent very flat.
they fell of of the plastic base.
they get light use, but in 5 or 6 years they dont show signs of wear.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Perhaps a 4000. I find things go well going from 1000 to 4000 to 8000.

[Richard Hutchings]

I don't think they make 4000. I see 2000 and 5000

[Richard Hutchings]

I see they make a 4000 with the glass backing. Maybe I'll get that.
Thanks for the input Malcom.

Does any one actually own that almost $400 dollar lapping stone. Seems like if my 3 dollar diamond stone can do the job, I don't see the point. Are there other options?

[Derek Cohen]

I see they make a 4000 with the glass backing. Maybe I'll get that.
Thanks for the input Malcom.

Does any one actually own that almost $400 dollar lapping stone. Seems like if my 3 dollar diamond stone can do the job, I don't see the point. Are there other options?

Hi Richard

Actually, I do have the Shapton diamond plate - only I paid about $75 for mine, which is why I jumped on it several years ago. It is only used for flattening waterstones, and it should last a long time still. Is it any better than the cheaper DMT Extra Coarse diamond stone it replaced? Probably not, but the Shapton is more pleasant to use and the is peace of mind that it is flat. Plus there is an incentive not to use it for anything else.

The issue really is that you need a dedicated diamond stone for flattening waterstones. It must not be used for metal, which will wear it out eventually, or cause it to become uneven sooner rather than later. There are a number of options for a dedicated diamond stone, but aim for 8" x 3" as a minimum size.

With regards an intermediary waterstone, the usual recommendation (which I had for several years) is 1000/5000/8000 in the Pro Shapton range. Look at this as a system - the jumps in grit size are calculated so that one takes fewer honing strokes on the next grit up to remove the scratches of the previous grit.

The 8000 is an excellent stone. I was made a gift of the 12/15000 otherwise would have stuck with it. With the 8000 as the finish stone, I would organise the selection of other stones around it. For example, if you want a two-stone team (which will make for a little extra work removing scratches) then perhaps the 2000/8000 may be an option. Otherwise I would be looking for a 1000/5000 to go with the 8000.

Another alternative is this: the 1000 Pro Shapton is a fantastic stone. It is possible to do better than the 5000 Pro Shapton, however. The Sigma 6000 is better, but now we are getting too close to the 8000 Shapton. I woulder if there is a report here on a Sigma or other stone from someone (Dave?) who has made the comparison with the Pro Shapton?

Stay away from the glass Shaptons.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Sorry, my bad. I thought for sure they had a 4000, but the 5000 would be fine. The Shaptons are excellent stones.

[Richard Hutchings]

Well, they do have 4000 but it's the one with the glass bottom. I think the only difference is that you get to use every last bit of the stone down to the glass. Great idea.

[Richard Hutchings]

Derik, if I find one in that price range, I'll start saving my pennies.

[Derek Cohen]

Well, they do have 4000 but it's the one with the glass bottom. I think the only difference is that you get to use every last bit of the stone down to the glass. Great idea.

My understanding is that the glass stones are a different composition to the Pro stones. David can probably tell you more. You essentially get half a stone for your money. They are not a good purchase.

I epoxied all my Shapton Pros to glass anyway. This not only makes them last longer, but helps keep their shape.



Regards from Perth

Derek

[ian maybury]

Based on recommendations at different times i've been using a 400 grit Atoma economy to flatten 120, 1000, 2000, 5000 and 12000 Shapton Pros.: http://www.fine-tools.com/diasharpener.html

Not sure what the availability in the US is (possibly cheaper), but they are the equivalent of about $100 in Europe. I've just bought a second one (they offer a replacement self adhesive diamond coated foil for application to the aluminium backing plate too which is a slightly cheaper resurfacing option - see link) - the first did a lot of heavy lifting during the set up of almost 20 chisels, and also a number of Veritas plane irons. Before that it did all sorts of metal finishing jobs - including several major stoning offs as i hand scraped my out of flat jointer tables. I finally killed it in a moment of desperation by trying to use it to dress a Tormek wheel - it pulled the diamonds out of a section. By then it wasn't cutting very well anyway. It'd probably last almost idefinitely if just used to flatten stones for resharpening.

Can't say how it compares to other plates, and can't say how good they normally are - but it was very flat. This i know because as soon as it started cutting a bit irregularly i started having problems in getting a uniform finish all over the single bevels on the Japanese chisels i was doing...

I'm using more stones than some (e.g. David has been using just the 1000 and 12000 i think), but the Shaptons certainly do a pretty amazing job. I've not done enough to reach any conclusion on that yet, but the 2000 and especially the 5000 while they work fine have quite a different feel in use on white steel/O1 and A2) to the 1000 and 12000. Almost as though the matrix is much harder and more slick. This is so obvious that it probably is not by accident. Perhaps they are intended not to cut as aggressively as the other two - to (one or the other) be used as an intermediate step to help keep the surface flat/allow the grits to wear so they cut more finely/work out scratches before final polishing?

The 2000 is by Shapton's recommendations not necessary on carbon steel, they suggest going straight from 1000 to 5000. What is apparently their recommendations table is here: http://www.fine-tools.com/shapton-instructions.html

My (only slight) disappointment was the 120 - i had hoped it would shift metal faster and have been a viable solution for heavy bevel reshaping by hand/with no heat. It actually worked just fine, but wears more quickly, needed some running in to get down to consistently performing material, and scratches more for the amount of metal it removes. Knowing the Japanese i doubt that this is by accident, and that it's made with specific uses in mind. Suspect it's intended for removing just micro chipping on knife and chisel edges subject to heavy use - that i was trying to use it for something it wasn't made for...