Which Whetstone & Grit Should I Buy?

0:00The true meaning of the word 1000

Four 1000 grit stones on the bench today: the Chosera, the Shapton, the Suehiro Cerax, and the good old King. Ask around online and you will get two camps — the Shapton lot love how fast it cuts, the Chosera lot go on about the feedback and how smooth it feels. The truth is the 1000 doesn't really mean that much, which is why I grabbed a single-bevel kiridashi, flattened everything, and put them all under the microscope to compare the scratch pattern.

2:42Do I really need to flatten a brand-new stone?

Yes, and I flatten every stone that comes near my bench, new or not — an unflattened surface just won't leave an even scratch pattern for a test like this. After sharpening, the burr gets stropped off and it's down to the lab, where the 1960s Olympus microscope that Shoichi Hashimoto gifted me, with a digital camera on top, photographs the edge and the surface in high resolution.

Even if the stone is new, it is still a good idea to flatten the surface of it.

4:26The sound test

Under the microscope, three of the four stones are near enough identical — similar scratch pattern, similar feedback while you sharpen. The Shapton is the odd one out: it cuts noticeably faster and leaves a coarser feel, and the sound tells the same story. I pointed a mic straight at the stone during these runs, and the finer grits run almost silent while the coarser ones get audibly rough as the abrasive bites in.

it feels more like the 400 rather than the 1000. I would say it's probably somewhere about 600 grit.

6:15Don't mix and match by the printed number

Different manufacturers use different systems for naming their stones, and there is an excellent chart on Wikipedia that maps each claimed grit onto a common scale — it confirms the Shapton sits on the rougher side of its number. And I'm not bashing the Shapton here, I think it's an excellent stone; it's just that pairing its 1000 with the next stone up makes a jump that's too big, whereas a proper three-times step like a Chosera 1000 to a Chosera 3000 climbs cleanly. The number on the box is really not the most informative number out there, so work out which grit feels right in your hand and don't try to mix and match.

12:17My take on the four

The Chosera is what we use in the shop and it earns that spot — excellent feedback, and the closest of the four to a true 1000. The Shapton I would start at 2000 rather than 1000, since you get its speed without the extra coarseness. For white bevel sharpening and carbon knives the Suehiro 1000 is hard to beat, and on modern steels like R2 or ZDP-189 I would not bother with the King — it is a little rough and a little slow for them.

0:00Which is better, the Chosera 800 or 1000?

Honestly, one of the most-asked questions in this hobby, and it's been going for years. Naniwa's Chosera line is among the most reputable in Japanese sharpening stones, and the 800 and the 1000 sit so close in grit that everyone has an opinion. I had wondered it too, but had never put the two side by side — we use the 1000 in the shop, while I only use the 800 occasionally. It's the sort of question people will happily argue in the comments, which is exactly where it keeps showing up.

For many years, even myself have wondered this question, which one between these two is the better one?

3:16Sharpening my kiridashi on both of them

I sharpen my little kiridashi on each stone and compare the surface finishes under the microscope. The 800 leaves a visibly coarser scratch pattern than the 1000, and yes, that shows up magnified — but in actual sharpening feedback the two perform very similarly. You can feel the 800 cut slightly faster, though the 1000 is not slow at all, it's genuinely fast. The clearest difference between the two is what you see under the scope, not what you feel under your hands.

5:14My take

If you prefer the harsher, more direct feedback, take the 800. If you're like me and prefer the slightly smoother feel and a more refined, even surface finish, take the 1000. Neither is a wrong choice, they're close enough that it comes down to how you like a stone to feel, and there's absolutely no problem picking either one. That's the whole point of the side-by-side — so the next person asking doesn't have to buy both to find out. The full sharpening plays out in this final pass, no step-by-step voice-over, and that's it from me, really.

0:00Which one should you buy?

Three Shaptons, all 1000 grit: the Kuromaku — the long-running Shapton Professional, probably one of the most popular Shapton stones around — the Glass series, and the latest addition to the lineup, the Rockstar. Different thicknesses, different price points, and the question is a fair one: is one of them actually better value than the others? To answer it in a scientific way I took a Hatsukokoro 210mm gyuto through all three and looked at the edge under a microscope.

1:53Coarse stone first, every time

The order never changes: the knife always meets the coarse 400 stone before it touches the 1000, then back to the 400, then on to the next 1000, so every stone faces exactly the same edge at exactly the same point in the progression. After each pass I checked the result under a 30x and a 60x microscope. If one stone ends up finer than the others, or they all turn out the same, that is where it shows.

2:58Pure Performance

Pure performance, the Shapton Pro is quite fast, and it's a speed that shows up in the scratch pattern — easily the most scratches of the three. The Glass and the Rockstar sit much closer to each other, with the Rockstar edging ahead for a slightly finer, hazier finish. All three are fast splash-and-go stones, so speed alone does not separate them; I would take the Kuromaku for pure speed and the Rockstar if I'm after that more refined 1000 grit finish. Full disclosure: of the three, I only carry the Rockstar.

if you just talking about Pure Performance, I think the Shapton pro is quite fast, and that's noticeable because it has the most scratches

6:04Getting less stone for more money

Here is the point I certainly missed when I bought my first stone ten years ago: thickness. The Kuromaku is about 15 millimetres and the Rockstar around 10, but the Glass is also about 10 millimetres overall and only five of those are actual abrasive — the rest is the glass backing. So with the Glass, one of the pricier stones of the three, you are buying five millimetres of stone; add in the flattening such a thin working layer needs, and it does not last you that long.

So you are paying for the same, if not more, for a lot less abrasive.