Editing Talk:Hones - comparison table

This is a snake pit...
I have a DMT-C (350mesh), DMT-F (600mesh), DMT-E (1200mesh), Belgian Blues, Coticules, a Naniwa Chosera 5K, a Naniwa Chosera 10K and a Japanese Nashii Nakayama.

I can exchange some of my Coticules (with use of slurry) with the DMT-E, for bevel correction purposes. None of my Blues come even close to that: they're just way too slow to remove enough steel within a reasonable amount of time.
But they are great to refine an already good bevel, coming off a Coticule with slurry, or the DMT-E, or even the DMT-F. The Chosera 5K does about the same for the keenness of the edge, but faster, while leaving a less smooth edge. The Chosera 10 pushes the sharpness envelope, and leaves an edge smooth enough to shave with, but a Coticule with water makes it smoother. Where '''my''' Nakayama fits in, I haven't figured out yet. I think it compares to the Chosera for boosting keenness. I don't like it as much for smoothness.

How this need to be put in the table without confusing a newbie that seeks information, I have no clue.
When I started out honing, I was misled by the idea that the Blue/Coticule tandem was comparable to 4K/8K (Norton). It caused me many weeks of frustration, till Josh Earl and David Polan finally pointed out that there's hardly any relation between the Belgian combo and the Norton combination hone.
I definitely object to rating the Belgian Blue as a 1K Norton, but then again, I don't own a 1K Norton, so who am I to change the table?

I think it would be better to make 4 categories: (I have indented hones that less ideal for that use, but still doable)
1. BEVEL REPAIR (DMT-C, DMT-F, ''DMT-E, Norton 1K''...)
2. BEVEL CORRECTION (Norton 1K, DMT-E, Fast Coticules/slurry, Shapton 1K,2K, Naniwa 1K, ''Norton 4K'' ...)
3. EDGE REFINEMENT (Norton 4K, Belgian Blue, Naniwa Chosera 5K, Shapton 4K, ''Naniwa Chosera 10K, Nakayama
'',...)
4 EDGE FINISHING (Coticule/water, Esher, Naniwa Chosera 10K, Shapton 16K,...)
--[[User:Bart|Bart]] 23:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

== I like Bart's categories ==

* Barring protest on SRP, let's go for Bart's categories.
* We might want to nuke the "similar hones" column, although I personally like it.
* We might want to add a "going rate" column, to give new users the opportunity to quickly (and, roughly!) compare prices. Seems to make the most sense in combination with "similar hones".

Catch 22, anyone?
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 Catch 22, anyone?
-== okay, so we've got some solutions ==
-as far as comparing different aspects of hones i started three tables to compare relative speed, keenness and smoothness. this seems reasonable to me. it needs more data.
-the write up currently at the beginning of the article is not well written, but i think it or something like it is important. if anyone wants to rewrite it or change examples please go ahead, i would appreciate it. i may still feel like revising any revisions, but i realize it could use some work.
---[[User:ezpz|ezpz]] April 2nd 2011