Found: the Ultimate Waterstone
by Mathieu
It was a bit cruel to end the previous post without revealing the actual stone. Without further ado, here it is.
Tadaaaa.. It is the Suzuki-ya original #4000 water stone. In case you are wondering why it doesn’t look all shiny & brand new, that’s because I have been using it almost daily for the last six months. He has been jaded and enslaved, put to hard work in a high stress environment. I can say he has held up very well, Mr.4000 has removed a lot of steel, he has also shrunk by 8mm in thickness and sharpened not only my own but many tools of fellow daiku.
Lets take a look at the different criteria which I think are important when we judge the performance of a stone.
Criteria
Speed
I make a living as a carpenter and I am not willing to spend a lot of time sharpening during my work and I am even less willing to compromise in edge quality or sharpness. It is bad practice and simply unprofessional, I was always taught that our clients do not pay us to play with our tools. In my free time I often end up sharpening for hours but that is irrelevant and is more a way of relaxation more than anything else. High speed is what I expect from a stone.
Flatness
This is related to the previous point in regard that I dislike wasting time on flattening my stones constantly. More importantly, I like stones that remain flat since the stones flatness is your reference and during the sharpening process your are actually transferring the shape of your stone to your blade. A stone which remains flat longer will thus give you a better reference. For an ultimately sharp edge a flat bevel is helpful and therefore requires a flat stone.
Hardness
The hardness or wear resistance will determine how long it remains reasonably flat. It also influences it’s feel. A hard stone may also require a more precise technique to achieve optimal results since harder stones may have the tendency to make the blade vibrate or ‘rock’ over the surface.
Feel
This aspect may be completely subjective but in the long run it is the most important aspect of any sharpening stone to me. If it doesn’t feel good I will not continue to use it no matter how good it’s performance may be. I love to sharpen and I want it to be enjoyable, if the stone is a struggle it will remain on the shelf.
Cleanliness
The amount of time it takes before the pores of a stone fill up with loose metal particles, the stone turns black and it’s efficiency might be decreased.
The Tools Used
Yamahiro, White Steel#1, oire nomi
Kiyohisa, unknown steel, oire nomi
Veritas PM-V11 Blade
Preparation
All tools where sharpened to a keen edge on a very fine natural finish stone. This sharp edge was set as the reference to start the test with.
The stones where dressed flat with a Atoma diamond plate and checked with a straight edge to verify their flatness.
The Test
I was not able (or willing) to test these stones with all available tool steels. Instead I have used the tools that I use daily and tried to conduct a test which reflect my sharpening method. This test is thus a ‘real life test’, we can’t label it scientific but it closely relates to daily shop practice. The results may remain open to discusion but not to any extend that I doubt them or my conclusions. How my tools perform with these stones is the only thing that really matters to me. I think it is fair to assume that you will have very similar results whatever tool you may use. Especially if you mainly use hand forged Japanese tools.
Assesment Method
The amount of strokes was counted to acquire an even burr along the whole edge. This number of strokes required to produce the burr indicates the speed of the stone.
After each sharpening session or surface flattening, the thickness of the stone was measured at 6 locations. The average of these measurements indicate the amount of wear after sharpening or flattening the stone. It tells us how long the stones remains flat in relation to the amount of strokes used.
It is good to notice that the results are considerably influenced by the freehand technique I use and also by the feel of every specific stone! The blade moves in a different way on either type of stone and thus influences the effectiveness. For example on a specific stone you might have to use more force to hold the bevel steady. Using more downward pressure could influence the amount of abraded steel with every stroke. This means that the results could be different if the same test was performed holding the tool in a jig where almost the exact same movement or pressure can be applied on each stone.
I am aware that the test could be improved in many aspects and therefore I am happy to accept critique. But on the other hand I have no acces to an electron microscope or other high-tech measuring devices and for now the workshop-environment-real-life-test was sufficient.
The Results
Speed
The number in the table represents the amount of strokes required to create a burr. The Yamahiro nomi is 30mm wide and the numbers in that row are the actual strokes that were needed to create the burr. For the other tools the number was recalculated since the bevel surface was larger. The numbers in the table represent the number of strokes as if it where tools with the exact same bevel surface area.
In relation to the values, the lower the number the better.
Conclusions:
- Suzuki-ya 4000 is the fastest stone
- the Shapton 5000 is much slower then I thought
- my Aoto stone is faster then I thought (except with the PM-V11)
- Japenese hand forged tools sharpen faster then PM-V11
It is very interesting to notice how the tools are abraded differently by either stone. The statement that ‘every tool has it’s ideal sharpening stone’ is not a myth!
Wear
Again lower values represent better performance.
Conclusions:
- Suzuki-ya 4000 wears slightly faster then the Shapton 5000
- there is a clear relation between the speed and stone-wear
- my Aoto stone wears relatively fast
- PM-V11 doesn’t work well with my Aoto
Feel
Self explanatory. I didn’t need any measuring devices to asses this criterion. Although that the Suzuki-ya stone is very hard and wear-resistant it has no tendency to make the tool vibrate or rock. It feels as if it was a very soft stone, easy to use and to maintain precise movement and control. You can really concentrate on how the edge is abraded and the stone gives a lot of feedback. Only my Aoto compares to it but this natural stone is more difficult to use.
Cleanliness
None of the stones that where tested had any significant amount of imbedded metal particles in it’s surface after one sharpening session. Ceramic stones in general hardly suffer from this aspect but I was surprised by how clean the Suzuki-ya remained. Below a comparison after 150 strokes.
When the picture was taken some of the metal particles had oxidized already, they appear a bit brown. Clogging is certainly not an issue with any of these stones.
The Source
Below are the specs as I received them from Suzuki-san from Suzuki Tool who supplied the stones to me.
-Our man-made or synthetic sharpening stones (waterstones) come from the stone maker directly. They are produced by “vitrification” – a method by which both the ceramic binder and abrasive material are blended under pressure and then baked for 36 hours at an unusually high 1300 degrees celcius (over 2,300 degrees fahrenheit). Stones made in this way are superior not only regarding sharpening speed, but also regarding their durability. The bound particles interact with microscopic air bubbles to create the sense of a brand new stone with every use (time you flatten it) hence the resembling feeling of a natural stone. Because of “vitrification”, they cut faster, stay flat and last longer than others.
-The stone maker’s name: They requested me not to share their name with the public since they usually do business with the middlemen, but not a retail store in Japan.
The main problem I had with these stones is that they are too good. I ended up testing other stones from the same factory a #1000, #1500 and #2000 and decided to buy them all since they all performed superior compared to any of my other synthetic stones. Both my teacher and some colleagues immediately got there own after they had tried mine.
Will I trow away all my other stones? Certainly not and I will keep using them for specific purposes but for everyday fast and reliable sharpening I now have a set of stones that I am truly happy with.
The stones are unique both in performance and availability since only Suzuki-ya sells them. Let me assure you that I have no personal economic interest with this store but I also have no problem directing some attention to it. Her service is simply very professional, she has a lot of experience thanks to her close and ongoing relationship with both the blacksmiths and professional carpenters.
She doesn’t carry a huge stock but is able to get anything you are looking for. It is nice just talking to her because she knows just as much about tools as any daiku does. Convenient shopping they say.
For example, she found us a certain type of Japanese plaster which we thought was discontinued. A few days later we had exactly what we needed and could make our client happy.
It would be nice to do more tests under all kind of circumstances with a decent setup and accurate measuring devices. But even the amateurish test I described here took quite some time and it would need a whole gang of sharpening nerds to get some work done in an acceptable timeframe. Planting a little seed.
Ideally we would have an international standard of testing stone performance. A test everyone could conduct themselves with minimal equipment required. You could then publish your results in a database and over time we would know exactly how stones would perform on any type of given steel. Both Natural and Synthetic.
Maybe I missed it, but how did you dull the tools before you sharpened them?
LikeLike
Hi Seekelot, The tools where not dulled before the test instead they where sharpened. A sharp edge is something I can reproduce consistently without any high tech measuring devices. I first tried to dull the tool by removing the edge only to realize that this did not produce accurate or consistent results. I decided to start from a sharp edge and then counted the amount of full length strokes until an even burr was created. You can feel the size of the burr really accurate with your fingers.
When a small but even burr along the whole edge was established the sharpening stopped. This would normally be the point where you would either remove the burr or move on to the next finer grit in your setup.
You could argue that with perfect technique and starting from a perfectly sharp edge a micro-bur would be created after the first initial strokes. However both technique and edges are never perfect. We can try to come close and many do but perfection is an ever exceeding horizon.
Although I have no numbers to back it up I dare to believe that the size of the burr assessed by my fingers is a fairly accurate way of determination. Especially when you take into account that it was my goal to test the stones in a manner that relates as closely to daily shop practice as possible.
I hope this clarifies things a little. If you have any suggestions or comments I look forward to hear them. Like I said there is a lot of room for improvement with this test.
LikeLike
Thanks for your answer Mathieu. that makes things a lot more clear.
I wonder a bit about the amount of strokes to get a burr. I am one of these infamous hollow grinders, so I expect to raise a burr after just a few strokes on an Arkansas translucent, when the chisel is freshly grinded. So I was amazed about the amount of 75 up to 480. But I suppose you usually start with a coarser stone?
I also wondered about the PMV11 taking a much longer time. That’s more then you would expect from the LV literature. Of course, being a fan of vintage tools this leaves me with a sick grin on my face. I could imagine that you loose your concentration after more then a 100 strokes, and maybe not use the most efficient technique anymore. That would skew the results for the tougher steel.
Anyway, I think you did a great job, because investigating this kind of stuff that has a very subjective aspect (the feel and the hand technique) is difficult. Maybe you should have use a jig to make the test more objective.
LikeLike
Hi Seekelot, thank you for your thoughts.
Indeed, usually you start with a coarser stone and work your way up. The amount of strokes is really not that much and during regular sharpening you can do 2 to 3 strokes a second and sharpen a chisel to a fine edge very quickly. I should start keeping track of my sharpening time with any given tool. It would be good to know exactly how long a tool takes to sharpen.
I have already said it elsewhere but the graph might be a bit deceiving. The PM-V11 steel is quite something and sharpens pretty fast. It also holds an edge pretty long, even when it is used on bone dry old oak. The other tools used during the test, the Yamahiro and Kiyohisa chisels are just amazingly good tools. They sharpen very easily and hold an edge very long. The fact that these tools are laminated, both soft and hard steel, contributes to their ability to be sharpened very quickly. It is like comparing a F1 racing engine to the engine of an Audi, the Audi is still really good it is just that some other engines are even better.
I considered using a jig and but I was curious to see how the performance would be when a freehand sharpening technique was employed since that is what I use. I don’t use a jig while sharpening, only for repairs or specific situations. For general sharpening I consider it a waste of time.
I agree that the test would be more complete if it was repeated while using a jig. We could then compare the results and that would tell us something about freehand technique vs jig-sharpening.
One of the main themes in this test was the freehand technique and how the result might be influenced by the feel of the stone. Doing the test with a jig would have defeated that purpose.
I would say let’s get together and expand on this test in different ways with different techniques and stones. I am curious for the results.
LikeLike
After using Shaptons and Suzuki ya stones on a day to day basis I am not surprised with your results Mathieu. In fact I can confirm them.
This was a very interesting test. More tests should be done on a real life day to day situation.
Good stuff well done.
Andy
LikeLike
Hi Andy,
Thank you for the comment. If time wasn’t an issue I would love to do more tests but we can’t play all the time. Need to make a living with cutting some wood as well.
LikeLike
This post is extraordinary, a lot of real good info, I have enjoyed it. I´d wish to share my experience. I have got one Oishi 10000, it leaves a reasonable good polished edge but I am not very happy with it I want to change this stone to another that I feel better. It is very soft, it soaks quite water before acting fine and when you rub the nagura it still sticks together, even I soak in water the nagura too for some minutes before use. I want to say I don´t like the feel of this stone so I think I am going to sell it and to purchase one 8000 from Suzuki ya. Any advise by here ? would you be so kind as to tell me your opinion please ?
I have got a Naniwa chosera 3000 and I am very happy with it, I like the feel, it is hard, almost no need a lot of water to work out, you only need to soak a couple of minute its nagura in water and they both match very well.
Thank you so much for this wonderful site Mathieu.
Best wishes.
LikeLike
Hi Julio,
I am happy you enjoyed the post and that you got some useful information out of it. I have never used the Oishi 10000,never heard of it to be honest. It has a funny name for a stone since oishi means delicious or tasty.
Keep in mind that I did not test a stone in the 8000 or 10000 grit range for this blogpost. As a finish stone I use natural Japanese stones. There is only one synthetic stone that I can recommend as a finish stone and that is the Naniwa Jyunpaku, you could ask Suzuki-san about it I am sure she can arrange it for you. If your budget is limited this might be the best option otherwise I would recommend to try using a natural stone, it will be a whole new experience if you are not used to it.
I have used the Shapton Glass 10000 as well but can’t recommend it. I don’t think it is worth the money. Good to hear you like your Naniwa 3000.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much for your reply I really appreciate it. I agree with you about the natural stones and of course I want to have got them in my sharpening proccess. But I also need a sinthetic one for less quality steels. I will try to get that wonderful Naniwa I am sure you are right.
Thanks again.
Cheers !
LikeLike
A friend pointed out that the stones Julio mentions are named Ohishi instead of oishi. This makes much more sense to me. It would be a bit weird to name a sharpening stone ‘delicious’.
“Hmm, this is such a delicious stone”, no that doesn’t sound right.
LikeLike
Sounds fine to me. Some natural stones smell nice enough to seem tasty. Thanks for the effort testing. Your methodology makes sense to me. The powdered metal results were surprising.
LikeLike
Indeed many Japanese natural stones have this refreshing clay smell that makes you want to lick your stone.
Hmmm, stone… delicious…..
LikeLike
Interesting – I would have liked to see it compared with the Sigma – which is my favorite stone. And that “feel” is the most interesting aspect, unfortunately not discussed enough
LikeLike
Hi Mihai,
Before I used these stones my favorite where Sigma Power series (the hard version). They’re feel is comparable but these new stones are better to my own taste. About their performance there is no doubt. They cut faster and stay flat longer. Since I got these stones my Sigma’s have remained on the shelf most of the time. I have now reserved them for chona and leave them ‘dished’ according to the shape of the chona blade. They have become designated stones.
For clarity sake I am referring to courser stones both #1000 and #2000. I was not able to compare them the Sigma Power stones to these new ones since I don’t have a #4000 grit stone from Sigma. I am not sure wether these exist.
There are many more stones available on the market and I have not been able to test them all. It would be nice if more people posted about their findings.
LikeLike
Thank you Mathieu,
I understand, from Sayuri, that I you close to post a review of the new Suzuki 8000. Would it be possible to compare it with Naniwa Snow White Jyunpaku, please? Everyone is talking so highly of it…
For other stones you might also consider a comparison with: for the
1. Quality of the edge: Naniwa Superstone
2. Low maintenance (stays flat): Suehiro Gokumyo 10k and, maybe, Shapton Pro 8k
3. Speed: Norton 8k
All the best
LikeLike
Hi Mihai,
Yes indeed I have been testing several new stones and can already tell you that they are pretty amazing. I think a comparison with the stones you mention is a great idea. The only problem is that I don’t have all the stones you mention and was planning to compare them only to the ones I own. I have a Naniwa Jyunpaku #8000, a Shapton glass #8000 and #10000 but not the Suehiro or Norton. Do you have these and if so we could collaborate and collect some verifiable data for a review. I have no intention to buy several stones just for a review but would love to work together with other people who do have them. Looking forward to hear your thoughts.
LikeLike
Mathieu,
Unfortunately I don’t have the Norton or the Gokumyo… Norton is just a very soft stone – that is why is so speedy, otherwise is not a great choice at all – don’t bother with it. Gokumyo seems to be a different animal – the hardest of them all, and able to put a very keen edge – comparable with Chosera or Superstone – but is pricey at 18000 JPY…That is why people don’t bother with it…A comparison with Snow White/Chosera/Superstone, Shapton and, maybe, if you have, a Sigma Power (the hard version) should do it.
Arigatou
LikeLike
Sure send them all to my place and I will test them……
I am obviously being sarcastic.
I am sorry to say Mihai but I ave no intention to spend a fortune on stones that I wil likely never use. I already have a stock that I need to use up before acquiring new ones. Also this test take time and are things I do on the side. In the evening on a cold winter night when I have no business related tasks at hand. As I said before it would be great if all these stones could be tested but I would certainly be looking for other volunteers to collaborate on such a test. I prefer to spend most of my time doing actual carpentry. Sharpening I do all the time but the regular sharpening session is too subjective to be viable as a test.
I certainly would like to invest my time to set up a specific test that most woodworkers could perform themselves, gather the data and process them to come up with a comparison of stones.
In regard to a new stone test I can probably make time to compare those I have in my shop but it idealy more people would work on such a test instead of just me. I guess I can make time and spend my retirement funds on stones at the age of 98 but that is still quite some time. away.
LikeLike
Hi Mathieu- I’m wondering how you’re liking the Suzuki-ya 4000 stone these
days, and how much soaking it needs? I’m using the Shapton M-series in
2k and 5k for the last several years and like them, but this stone sounds interesting…
Best
Carey
LikeLike
After using them all this time I still love them. In fact I need a new one since it’s almost used up. They need a couple of minutes of soaking but I don’t consider that an issue taking it’s performance in account.
LikeLike
Hi Mathieu,
Picked up a 4000 and 10000 out of curiosity. I’d been using the same Kuromaku 5000 and found the simultaneous stickiness/slipperiness to be increasingly bothersome, and the 10000 Naniwa Super Stone loads up immediately. So these Suzuki-ya stones can be left to soak in storage, but should they? I’m wondering if there are long-term effects on doing so.
LikeLike
I only leave the 1000 and 4000 in the pond and have not noticed any influence on their performance or hardness/consistency. The 10.000 I take out at the end of the day since it only needs a minute to soak before use. i don’t know why I do that since I have not noticed it that it couldn’t handle being in the water for a long time. It is just what I do not wanting to take a risk.
Anyway what I find most important is that I can just sharpen immediately when I want to do so and therefore I keep the two course stones in the pond so they are always ready to go. I used to think that soaking stones was a bit of a nuisance but the performance and feeling of these have changed my opinion.
LikeLike
Thanks for the reply. It’s good to hear that you’re liking these stones as much
as ever, and that you’ve been leaving the 1k and 4k soaking (as I like to do if
possible) with no problems.
Carey
LikeLike
Mathieu, do you have any comments on the Suzuki-ya 2000 stone?
I bought the 4000, like it very much, and am thinking of getting the
2000 as well.
LikeLike
Hi Carey, I have the #2000 as well and like it a lot but to be honest I don’t use it that much because the #1000 and #4000 are so effective there is little need for an intermediate stone. I do use it when I aim for a perfect edge, for instance when I am finish planing. In that case my sequence is 1000, 2000, 4000, natural stone. Hope this helps.
LikeLike
Mathieu, thanks for your reply. My thought was, because the 4000 is so
fast-cutting (relatively speaking), that I might be able to use the Suzuki-ya
2000 stone as a first stone if it is similarly fast, rather than using a 1000 stone. I’m interested in doing this because I’ve simply never found a
1000 stone that I’m happy with (I have tried many), but maybe the Suzuki-ya
1000 is the way to go? If you have any any additional thoughts on this,
I’d be very interested in hearing them. Thanks again-
LikeLike
I suppose you are sharpening edge tools for woodworking and in that case I would certainly start with the #1000. It cuts very fast and therefore you can raise a burr quickly. But not as fast as the #2000.
Imagine having to sharpen out a chip in the blade, you really don’t want to do that on a #2000 even if it is a relatively fast stone.
The only reason why I keep using the #2000 on occasion is because I can more accurately eliminate all the deep #1000 grit scratches before moving on to the #4000 and to be honest I am not entirely sure if it actually makes a huge difference. !?!
I would suggest to use #1000, #4000, #8000 (or #10.000 or J. natural stone) for anything except finish planing. So far these are the best stones I have used and it is a simple and efficient setup. 3 stones that’s all you need!
Let me know how they work for you.
LikeLike