david weaver
I had figured that thickness was the issue. I'd like to get some of the waste (seconds) stones. In my experience, a lot of translucents are like guitar wood - the stuff that doesn't look quite as good is functionally just as good as the stuff that does, but it's difficult to get a hold of. Maybe at some point, i'll call norton and see if they can dig me up something interesting and ugly off their scrap pile (being that I'm already a loyal customer of their "perfects").

But I understand that norton doesn't want to sell most of that stuff.

I've seen a lot of vintage stones that have huge inclusions and imperfections norton would never sell. I think they're interesting, and it's funny how different groups value different things in stones. Color variation in japanese stones that doesn't otherwise affect sharpening often brings a lot of extra money. In arkansas stones, it's often described as cosmetic flaws.

At any rate, if norton says that it doesn't make economic sense (by their explanation) to order 8x2x1 stones, then I will follow their lead. I do have curiosity about norton's black stones, which I also wish were offered in 8x2 and one inch thick (which is not rare like it is with translucents), but I have never seen one from norton, and I've not been that excited with new black arks that I've tried elsewhere. So I ordered one of the black 8x3's instead.

I noticed in holzapfel's 3rd book last night (which I read after making my comment about narrower stones being easier to keep flat), that the same comment was made in there, that many of the stones sold to craftsmen in that era were narrow due to craftsmen having a better time keeping them flat without resorting to scuffing off their surfaces.

Thanks for entertaining the discussion, Joel.