Thoughts on the Cretan

[D_W]

Not that it matters that much. I don't probably have a reputation on this board as trying everything sharpening stone, but that's pretty much what I've done. Except I've never bought a turkish novaculite stone, a water of ayr or a fine graded tam o shanter.

Though I've had small tam slips and a small razor sized WOA stone.

I think of all of the stones I've tried, the most near to ideal is the washita, though not all of them are the same (some are quite fine). For the last week, I"ve been off and on using the cretan that I got, which is the light colored type of turkish stone. The dark type with more fractures is fairly rare. a 2x8 size version of those sold for what would've been $180 with shipping on ebay yesterday. Hasluck says that the two types are little different, with the dark more fractured type being just finer and harder.

This is the cretan that's sold in the US. It's a kilogram (so it would be 20 euros if you could buy it at the source), and costs $70 here with shipping. It's a good size and without significant flaws.

I had a little bit of trouble at first determining how fast it goes out of flat. I finally figured today to start picking the swarf off of the stone, and if you put it between your fingers, you can feel that the swarf is full of particles, but without being a sloppy muddiness that you get from synthetics. So, the comments about it being hard or soft are relative. I could see describing it either way, depending on what someone is using (if using a slurrying slate, you'd consider it really hard. If using an arkansas stone, you'd consider it to be pretty active and fast cutting ...and soft in relative terms).

I think holtzapffel described the type as being prized for really hard steels, but the second version he had already described it as being expensive (I could be wrong about the expensive attribution that might've been hasluck, but even 100 years ago or more, the dark type was expensive and becoming uncommon).

ANYWAY, someone on here remarked about the speed of these stones. I'd describe this as a better than synthetics synthetic type stone. Better because you can work flat tools on it in any direction and it won't gouge. But it has an almost ideal particle release rate for fast work - it is relatively as fast as a synthetic of similar fineness but the edge is more receptive to an extremely fine following stone. On sheffield steels, it will raise a wire edge even if you're working a full bevel. It could be used entirely by itself if followed by a loaded strop. On japanese steel, it leaves a reasonably fine edge.

One more picture with one of my two favorite washitas (strangely enough, I got this one from the UK, it's giant for a washita, and thick).

I still prefer a washita stone. It has the ability to be fast or fine, depending on how you use it, and it creates an edge that's a little bit finer - it's easy to see why it was so popular. I'd still take the cretan over any synthetic stone that I've tried. A pretty interesting stone, kind of glad argument last week convinced me to finally try one.

In the context of actual work, if the market was more professionals, I think these types of stones would outsell the synthetics.

 

[bugbear]

But we have no idea what relationship (if any) your modern "Cretan Stone" (from whatever modern quarry) has to the "Turkish Stone" as known to Holtzapffel.

BugBear

 

[D_W]

But we have no idea what relationship (if any) your modern "Cretan Stone" (from whatever modern quarry) has to the "Turkish Stone" as known to Holtzapffel.

BugBear

If the holtzapffel listing is only in relation to the black stone that has far more fracturing, I would guess that the relationship ends at sharing similar characteristics.

This stone has fine particles, but so does every novaculite stone that I've used. Coarseness only is determined by space between particles or the stones' desire to let particles go in clumps.

In terms of fineness, if one was to slurry a translucent arkansas stone, this one is about as fine as that, maybe a bit finer in that it's not as harsh as the trans is when fresh abraded particles are floating about it. A washita can cut finer if it's allowed to work without being abraded (than the slurried trans).

So, I'm guessing a little, but suspect that this is the light colored stone that hasluck mentions. It was whitish grey before being oiled, and I've read elsewhere that the black turkey stones start dark, but once oiled, they are all dark. It couldn't be much finer before it started to violate rules I've come to accept of natural stones.

 

[D_W]

A quick search of ebay history the past several months shows only one stone that looks characteristically like the dark type - it is already sold, of course. I saw it yesterday and pondered making a run at it, but whoever bought it was motivated to pay a fair amount and I know that these stones are not as fine as a trans arkansas because that's what the old texts say. If I bid against motivated bidders, sometimes I get something and then wish I didn't, because I guess I am motivated, too!!

201668877845

At some point, I'll probably buy one, but I may forget about it, too. I'd sure love a big WOA finest grade stone, but not at $350 or whatever they have been bringing.

 

[swagman]

DW; I was the 2nd highest bidder on that Turkey Stone that was sold by barnes. 201668877845

Stewie;

 

[D_W]

DW; I was the 2nd highest bidder on that Turkey Stone that was sold by barnes. 201668877845

Stewie;

Well, I'm glad I wasn't bidding on it then. Never know where rare stuff is going to go, anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to see one of those go for $250, and the next one go under the radar at $75.

 

[adrspach]

The specialist on Cretan and Old Turkey is Vasilis on SRP. To my limited knowledge the main difference between brown and nearly black is that the darker version was cooked in oil which increased harness as well as getting finer results. The payback for it is increased fragility. Old Turkeys were known for that undesirable atribute.
As with the results compared with Washita and Translucent in my opinion is. They have in common that you can sharpen on all of them with pressure and any direction without visibly damaging the hone. The results are Washita can do corse to medium work with exception which can do fine work but not course. All of it reasonably fast. Translucent is slow for extra fine work.
OT in my opinion is as fast as Washita able to do all spectrum from coarse to extra fine depending on pressure. The lighter version of the OT/Cretan is up to fine work.
Last thing if you have uncracked OT look after it it can crack so easily that one would not believe.

 

[D_W]

thanks for the thoughts, Ardspach.

 

[essexalan]

Postage to the UK is 30 Euros but I think that covers up to at least 3 kgs did not try more than that. Why would it be written that these stones are unsuitable for carving tools?

 

[D_W]

Postage to the UK is 30 Euros but I think that covers up to at least 3 kgs did not try more than that. Why would it be written that these stones are unsuitable for carving tools?

I believe hasluck wrote (I think in the carving book) , or edited (if someone else wrote it - I can't remember the premise of that book) that the stones would get grooved easily by carving tools.

Of course, it's far better for carving tools than most of what's on the synthetic market these days, but his comparison was to arkansas stones and charnley's, so the bar was pretty high for comparing surface durability.

This stone is a little bit more friable than I like, but I have tons of stones so there's no need for me to modify it to make it like the rest of my stones. I did get an indirect tip from one of the hasluck's texts that using linseed oil as a honing medium is a good way to make a stone more durable and less apt to release particles (hasluck suggested that as a possible problem with a charnley that cuts really slowly).

 

[essexalan]

Linseed oil? Hasluck says to avoid this but advises Neatsfoot and paraffin. Reckons Turkey stone, when good, is the best but Washita for general use. Must be more texts elsewhere you are thinking of.

 

[D_W]

Linseed oil? Hasluck says to avoid this but advises Neatsfoot and paraffin. Reckons Turkey stone, when good, is the best but Washita for general use. Must be more texts elsewhere you are thinking of.

It's what he says when he describes why to avoid it that tips me off about why i would use it. He suggests that stones that have been used with linseed oil will become hardened and will cut slowly. That suggests to me that it's a way to solidify the cretan that is releasing particles quickly and make it perform more like an arkansas stone.

Of course, I have arkansas stones already and don't need to do that, but I'm filing away the comment for later in case I have a stone that I'd like to do that to. Travertines come to mind, the particles are silica, and sometimes fine, but they release particles too easily and thus don't finish finely enough.

 

[MIGNAL]

Linseed is a drying oil, so if you left it on the stone for long enough it would probably tend to clog it. Think of it as a very slow drying soft varnish.

 

[ED65]

I did get an indirect tip from one of the hasluck's texts that using linseed oil as a honing medium is a good way to make a stone more durable and less apt to release particles

Good inference I think. I've heard of thin varnish or lacquer (not both, just can't remember the specifics) being trialed to do something similar.

You might need to do it just for a while, then switch to anything you would normally use once the surface toughens up.

 

[ED65]

Linseed is a drying oil, so if you left it on the stone for long enough it would probably tend to clog it.

Uh, that's the point.

Worse case, if it doesn't work quite as desired the semi-cured linseed can quite easily be cleaned out of the stone or the surface dressed to remove the contaminated layer (probably vanishingly thin).

I've always found it odd when guides, old and new, say that using linseed will ruin a stone irreparably given how easy it is in practice to resuscitate an old car boot hone with decades of gunk built up on every surface. That surely can't be worse than what a little linseed would do.

I'd bet that many an old clogged stone had linseed used on it because it was what was at hand at some point in its history, and the user either didn't know or didn't care that it was the wrong type of oil to use.

 

[D_W]

Linseed is a drying oil, so if you left it on the stone for long enough it would probably tend to clog it. Think of it as a very slow drying soft varnish.

Exactly. On the razor fanatic side, i believe razor folks are attempting to reglaze barber hones with shellac since they are often quite coarse in abrasive and their ability to cut finely is based on the glaze keeping the particles dull and in place - same idea, except shellac is much faster.

 

[D_W]

Linseed is a drying oil, so if you left it on the stone for long enough it would probably tend to clog it.

Uh, that's the point.

Worse case, if it doesn't work quite as desired the semi-cured linseed can quite easily be cleaned out of the stone or the surface dressed to remove the contaminated layer (probably vanishingly thin).

I've always found it odd when guides, old and new, say that using linseed will ruin a stone irreparably given how easy it is in practice to resuscitate an old car boot hone with decades of gunk built up on every surface. That surely can't be worse than what a little linseed would do.

I'd bet that many an old clogged stone had linseed used on it because it was what was at hand at some point in its history, and the user either didn't know or didn't care that it was the wrong type of oil to use.

Plus, these days, a slow stone is easily woken up for a period of time with a quick scuff from a diamond hone. Wasting expensive emery paper or making a mess with loose emery, possibly at a remote site, would've been a bigger problem in the past.