Mounting an irregular stone in plaster?

[JohnPW]

If I had an irregular stone I would cut the "hole" in the box to fit the stone.

Re checking the stone top and box bottom are parallel, improvise a height gauge with a bit of wood, a pencil and blutack!

 

[G S Haydon]

I had the same experience regarding how soft my Charnley stone was. I bedded it in a similar way to you and the plaster shrank and the stone fell out. I then scraped out the plaster of paris and bedded it in foam fix with the stone held with a clamp. Worked perfectly.

 

[Harbo]

Bill Carter uses putty - there’s a series of videos on YouTube showing him making boxes.

Rod

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Just found this in 'Sharpening: The Complete Guide' by Jim Kingshott. It's on page 36.

"Some stones are very fragile and are easily fractured. If these are mounted in a case properly, they will survive all the strains imposed by fair use. When making the case, the stone should be an easy fit in it. Once you are satisfied with the fit and are ready to install the stone, tip a small quantity of superfine plaster of paris into the bottom of the case. The mixture needs to be quite thin, about the consistency of fresh cream. Gently press the stone down into the mixture until it is forced up around the sides of the stone. Put the case and stone to one side while the plaster sets hard. Once this process has been carried out, the stone should not be removed from the case. In fact, it will probably be impossible to do so. The stone bedded down on the plaster is firm and solid. This supports the stone throughout its entire length and makes honing more positive."

This suggests an excavation in the case close to the stone's underside contours, and the resulting plaster bed being quite thin. This seems to contradict BB's other sources - so make of it what you will!

 

[bugbear]

Just found this in 'Sharpening: The Complete Guide' by Jim Kingshott. It's on page 36.
When making the case, the stone should be an easy fit in it.

This suggests an excavation in the case close to the stone's underside contours, and the resulting plaster bed being quite thin. This seems to contradict BB's other sources - so make of it what you will!

I think Kingshott's text is very unclear on that - given the unanimity of all other sources (and D_W reports "from the field") I would tend toward Kingshott agreeing with "normal practise".

If he was suggesting something unusual (and given his vast knowledge and experience, he would know what normal practice was) I think he'd have given it more emphasis.

BugBear

 

[Cheshirechappie]

It could well be that he meant stones of pretty much rectangular shape, rather than the older varieties with a flat top and 'beach-pebble' rounded undersides. Rectangular ones would hold themselves in their box much more readily than 'beach-pebble' ones, and the plaster would just caulk the small gaps. It would have to act as glue for a 'beach-pebble'.

 

[bugbear]

It could well be that he meant stones of pretty much rectangular shape, rather than the older varieties with a flat top and 'beach-pebble' rounded undersides. Rectangular ones would hold themselves in their box much more readily than 'beach-pebble' ones, and the plaster would just caulk the small gaps. It would have to act as glue for a 'beach-pebble'.

I think we can agree - it's all rather ambiguous.

BugBear

 

[ColeyS1]

https://www.toolstation.com/shop/p77137?table=no

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk