Hi all,
This may have been covered elsewhere, but I can't find it. I also have a suggestion.
The Pro Pack 2 comes with a set of 'Micro Fine Ceramic Stones'. Looking at the Accessory Stones info, it says these are 1.4 micron/.6 micron grit.
My question, what stone grit is this equivalent to? The various grit charts I've seen would put these near 10000 grit and 30000 grit, which can't be right.
So help me out here, I'm obviously reading the charts wrong, but could we get a comparative grit number with the other stones so I know where they fall?
This would be good for the stropping pastes as well.
I'm just suggesting consistency in labeling, so if you're used to looking at a stone that is 5000 grit, it might also say it's 2.9 micron or whatever...
Does this make sense?

Have you seen the Grit Comparison Chart?

I don't think the new ceramics are on there, but there's enough info on the page, you should be able to fit them in.

I actually have tried, which is why I asked if the stones *really* are around 10000 grit (1.5 micron) and 30000 grit (.5 micron).

They just don't feel that smooth, and also the stones in that range are far more expensive.

This is why I think I must be misreading something.

Oh ok... I thought you were just looking for some type of grit/micron comparison.

I don't think you're misreading anything... there is a difference between rating and actual performance.

I didn't notice until now that Clay had added microscope pictures of these stones on their product page, that may help in giving a comparison?

Not sure price is a good reference either, you're right there are some 30K stones that are expensive, but type and how they're made plays a big part.

I and a few others feel that the Coarse - Micro Fine is more coarse than the 1200/1600 ceramics in actual use. Even after lapping mine, I still feel that way, although I haven't really taken the time to look at comparisons... just going by how they feel and how the blades come out. The Fine - Micro Fine does seem to be finer than the other ceramics.

Spyderco ceramics, which are similar to the Micro Fines, won't even rate them... they'll just tell you the medium is medium, and the fine is fine.

Add in that waterstones wear and ceramics don't, and you can get an even finer polish from a waterstone. One reason why Tom recommends "stepping back" when going from diamond to waterstone.

You'll see this in other areas, for example, DMTs XXF is more coarse than their fine until after a looooong break in.

So rating and reality can make it a bit muddy.

I'm pretty sure Clay has plans on updating the Comparison page with a set of photos taken with the same parameters... that'll help too.

Did I confuse you more?

I did two blog posts on the micro fine ceramics: first post and second post.

The fact that I needed two posts, with revised conclusions in the second one, already indicates that (at least to me) it is hard to position the micro-fine ceramics on the coarseness scale. But my current conclusion is the same as Curtis': 1.4 micron ceramics -> 1200 ceramics -> 1600 ceramics -> 0.6 micron ceramics.

When I first read that these stones work differently from other stones, and that their effectiveness cannot just be measured from their particle size/scratch size, my reaction was "yeah, sure". But now I have used them more, I think there is a point to that. One theory I have read (I forgot where) said that these stones don't just abrade, but also burnish pretty effectively. At least they're hard as... uh stone.

Some more interesting threats on this subject:

- www.wickededgeusa.com/index.php?option=c...d=6400&Itemid=63
- www.wickededgeusa.com/index.php?option=c...0&Itemid=63#4389
- www.wickededgeusa.com/index.php?option=c...8&Itemid=63#6638

mark76 wrote:


Great information there Mark, may I wish you a happy 500th post!

Heheh. Thanks! I'm going to bundle them in a book

I did an update to my second blog post on the micro fine ceramics. I wanted to know whether the 0.6 micron micro fine ceramic stones produce a result comparable to that of the 30K Shapton stones (0.49 micron). As you may have suspected after this and other threats on the micro fine ceramics: they are fine, but it doesn't seem they are that fine.

But we're still awaiting photgraphs from the 1000x microscope .

mark76 wrote:


That would be my progression as well. Thing is, even though I do own the 1200/1600 ceramics, I NEVER use them. The progression from 1.6->.6 seems to work perfectly without them, so why bother?

As to your comparison pics of the .6 vs 30k Shaptons, it's exactly what I'd expect to see. I find my 12k Super Stones leave a much more refined edge than the .6 and I would expect the 30k Shaptons to be even more refined.

For average working edge, the .6 are as far as I'll usually go. Anything beyond that is more for show than go, for me

Ken

I just received my Micro Fine Ceramics this week and tried them today. When I tried the Coarse side, which is supposed to be 1.4, it felt coarser than the 1600. When I moved to the Fine side (.6), this side just seems to be fine as it should. It feels weird if you compare the 1200/1600 with these two Coarse/Fine in a sense of when you switch from 1200 to 1600, it just feel actually similar, but when you go from Coarse ceramic to Fine ceramic it feels like going from almost a 1000 jumping to a 1600.
Anyway, at the end the result with the Fine Ceramic was really excellent. It was super sharp. I just end up with 2000 grit 3M sand paper in which I got the mirror polish look.

Jose