Talk:Sandpaper

Grit Size Table Source

The grit size table seems to come directly from here and is not cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.232.78 (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a method to compute the absolute average particle size in µm? Because when I use the definition and devide 1" = 25,4mm by the paper number I get different values. Off course, I get maximum particle size not average. For my work it would be interessting to know how to compute the average particle size.

Historically grit sizes were based on wire screen sizes, so the number might easily translate into the number of wires over a length or area. However the size of the grit that can pass through this is a complex and non-obvious relationship to the wire count. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Title

Would "Abrasive paper" be a more correct title for this article. It gets a similar number of hits on google and is the generic term. Sandpaper refers to abrasive paper that uses sand as the grit although many people use it as the generic term.Zarboki 10:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Coated abrasives is even more generic and is the term used by the industry, and you could argued that sanding belts that use cloth as a backing are not paper. Actually, if you do a google search on "abrasive paper" as a phrase (with the quotes), you only get 84,000 hits compared to 2.3 million for sandpaper. Most of the 2 million hits on abrasive paper (without quotes) have the words "abrasive" and "paper" at different places on the page rather than together. Cheers. Luigizanasi 17:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Sandpaper can also be used for skaters to make their skateboards level in the edges!

I'm in favor of sticking with the most commonly used term, whether technically correct or not. Other terms can be covered with redirects. StuRat 17:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Along similar lines, I question the phrase "real name 'glasspaper'". 'Sandpaper' is most certainly a real name, if not the real name of the product in question, and is an unambiguous label that would be recognized by vast numbers of folks. "Originally called 'glasspaper'", or "more accurately called 'glasspaper'" might be more appropriate. PurpleChez (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is probably a UK thing. There's a tradition, especially in UK school woodworking post-war into the 1970s, that "sandpaper" was an error, not just an alternative. Teachers were regularly obsessive about this and it seems to have been widespread, not just one or two personal foibles. There's also the long-established warning (in the article already) of "glasspaper" being the good stuff and "sandpaper" being a cheap fake.

Despite that, I strongly favour keeping this under sandpaper as a well-understood WP:COMMONNAME. Coated abrasives is more precise as a title, but it's really unhelpful to almost all of our readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"ceramic aluminum oxide"

I thought regular Al2O3 was a ceramic.

It is. I've changed it.--64.122.105.220 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

History

Exactly what was patented in USA in 1834? Sandpaper/glasspaper was being produced before then. Might this refer to a new process or adhesive? Have also added note on Oakey in UK. Ephebi 17:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it, it apparently was a process for making it (based on the Isaac Fischer article.)Luigizanasi 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone knoe wat that stuff is that cleans the sandpaper? if so can u put it in the page please!!!!

The cleaner is basically a crepe rubber material.

There needs to be a reference of some sort to the statement that 3M invented the waterproof sandpaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikigod2010 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have noted your request in the article. Wizard191 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the term "wetordry" is a registered trademark of 3M. As such, it should include the TM symbol. See their website http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Marine/Home/Products/Catalog/?PC_7_RJH9U5230GE3E02LECIE20S4K7_nid=GS682WVHR8be4CCRDFQ26Jgl for an example of this usage. Oakland24 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS Wikipedia doesn't used trademark symbols. Wizard191 (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Question on grade

An editor asked on the main article page:

"What is sandpaper grade?! I can't find it anywhere on the internet"

(Piano non troppo (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

Unless I'm missing something, I would think the sandpaper grade is the same as the sandpaper grit. Wizard191 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wet and dry?

Does anyone have good details on 3M's original Wet & Dry? In particular a patent number for it.

I'm finding some contradictions in just why it was waterproof. It seems that there were other abrasives around at this time that were already on waterproof backings (most metalworking emery cloth is, as it's a cloth backing not paper). I suspect that 3M's innovation wasn't to waterproof the backing, so much as the adhesive used. As these were animal glues (I think mostly rabbit skin, for flexibility) these were the real water limit for other coated papers.

I'm also trying to find a 1930s precursor to Micromesh abrasives, developed for polishing early plastics. This was coated onto moleskin cloth, which gave a similar "floating" effect to modern Micromesh, with similar benefits for fine polishing. I think this stuff was made somewhere in Lancashire (near the cloth weavers). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Repeated para blanking from the lead

OK Plantsurfer, why is an accurate lead "false"? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

the statement "Grit refers to the average particle diameter and is marked on the reverse of the sheet" is false because the quoted number is typically inversely related to the particle size, and refers not to the particle size per se but to the mesh number of the sieve(s) used to separate the particle grades. Typically 100 grit means it was a cut of particle sizes obtained using a sieve with 100 meshes per inch. Plantsurfer 00:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

So in what way is that "false"? Especially as you've cut the following sentence:

"Grit refers to the average particle diameter and is marked on the reverse of the sheet. The higher the grit number, the smaller the particle size. The lower the number, the coarser the particles are."

"Refers to" does not imply proportional. It's an inverse correlation (not even a useful relation) and that's made clear in the following sentence.

Nor is it true (or has it been usefully true for half a century) that "100 grit is made with a sieve with 100 meshes per inch". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Since you seem to have the facts at your fingertips, perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us? Plantsurfer 01:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Why? Do you need more text to summarily blank? If you WP:OWN the article, then why should anyone else waste time on it just so that you can revert them? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Grit Size Table - Finer Grades?

Searching the internet, I am having difficulty locating grit size information for ultrafine microgrit papers beyond CAMI 1000. Papers in grades 2000, 3000, 5000, 8000, 10000 and 12000 can be found, but size information for the grit particles of these grades seems nonexistent. If someone has access to a reference for these abrasives, please add them to the table. Thank you.47.147.7.207 (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Rip off or ripped off?

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/Sandpaper appears to be remarkably similar to this page. Is this page ripped off there, is there ripped off here or are both ripped off somewhere else? Neither lists the other among its references. --86.5.88.131 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The history over there shows that it is taken from an old version of this article in 2010. (For the future – Wikipedia mirrors/copying from Wikipedia is very common, and usually they will have something somewhere on the page to mark it as being taken from Wikipedia, this one's was in the page history as it's a wiki.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

formulas for grit sizes

not sure if there is an official formula for these but they're not random and cracking open excel one can easily derive the exponential equation used (i used excel's autofit)

for CAMI/US: particle diameter = 35733*(CAMI grit)^-1.195 (R² = 0.9899)

for ISO/FEPA: particle diameter = 18510*(ISO grit)^-1.017 (R² = 0.9943)

the imperfect R² is probably due to rounding

US/CAMI grit designation vs particle size

ISO/FEPA grit designation vs particle size

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hexbugman213 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Given the recent merge, in which it was decided that sandpaper is the COMMONNAME for a coated abrasive, it now seems sensible to merge two other stubs to this page: Crocus cloth (a type of coated abrasive used in jewelry-making) and Emery paper (a type of sandpaper with a particular abrasive). The proposal is on the grounds of short text and context. Klbrain (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

AGREE. Crocus cloth is very very short. And as for Emery paper, Emery cloth is already in sandpaper, so there whould be synergy there. Ponken (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Support merge of both. Joyous! | Talk 04:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I am late to this party, but I :Support the merge of both considering that "sandpaper" is the common name for a coated abrasive. We should probably reorganize this page where the merged types of sandpaper are all gathered under a headding. --Found5dollar (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Alternate 2/0, 3/0, 4/0 ... notation

If anybody were comparing the "grit" notation with "x/0" notation for emery paper, here is a short reference: https://cafa-info.org/page/GritSizesForEmery It should be better sourced and included in the main table, though. FDominec (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sandpaper/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Flexagoon (talk · contribs) 22:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: OzmoOzmo (talk · contribs) 07:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Legend

• Y — Meets the criterion.
• ? — Partially meets the criterion.
• N — Does not meet the criterion.
•   — Reviewer not sure if meets criterion.
• C — Reviewer cannot assess at this time.

Quick fail check

• Y This article is not a long way from meeting the good article criteria.
• Y Using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, the highest similarity was 15.3% similarity with https://www.golden-abrasives.com/abrasive-paper/ (unlikely violation).
• Y There are no cleanup banners on the page.
• Y This article is not subject to an edit war, and seems stable.
• Y There are no previous GA reviews, so Quick fail #5 does not apply.

Well-written

1. Clear, concise, and understandable, with no incorrect spelling or grammar:
   • Y Overall, this article is clear.
   • Y Overall, this article is concise.
   • ? The term "grit" is not defined anywhere in the article. I assume it means the adhesive, but I do not know for sure. This should be explained in the article somewhere. The caption "Assorted coated abrasives" in an image at the end of the article also is not understandable; and I do not know what it means. Otherwise, this article is understandable.
   • Y There was a slight grammar mistake in the section on grit sizes, which I have boldly fixed. The word "the" was missing at the start of the first three bullets in the bullet points. Otherwise, this article has no incorrect spelling or grammar.
2. Compliance with the Manual of Style guidelines on lead sections, layout, words to watch, writing about fiction, and embedded lists:
   • Y The lead section complies with the guideline about lead sections.
   • ? The order of article elements is correct, body sections are correct, and appendices are correct. However, there appears to be too many images in the section Shapes and types, which causes the section to spill over. They could be made to be in the same frame using {{multiple images}}, or one of them could be deleted (I do not know what to do in this situation).
   •   This article contains weasel words. Examples: Some manufacturers use additional weight designators (in the section Backing), Some abrasive materials (in Friable grits), and Some sandpapers may sometimes only use descriptive nomenclature such as "coarse", "medium" and "fine", without referring to any standard. (in Grit sizes). However, I am not sure if this is unacceptable use of weasel words per the guideline, because I do not have access to the books that are used in this article. If the books do include these vague terms, then it will be acceptable. Otherwise, make them more specific.
   • Y Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction is inapplicable for this article.
   • Y This article meets the guideline about embedded lists.

Verifiable with no original research

1. Containing a list of all references presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
   • Y This article contains a list of all references.
   • Y The references are presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2. Reliable sources are cited inline, and content that could reasonably be challenged is cited no later than the end of the paragraph:
   • Y All references are inline footnotes ("Further reading" is not references).
   • ? The section on grit sizes does not have enough references. The first passage and bullet list are stuff I find to be reasonably challengable, and they should be cited in the article. Otherwise, the article is fine.
3. Not having original research:
   • C I do not have access to the books used in citing this article, so I cannot verify that there is no original research or synthesization from information that is not stated in the books.
4. Not having copyright violations or plagiarism:
   • Y Using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, the highest similarity was 15.3% similarity with https://www.golden-abrasives.com/abrasive-paper/ (unlikely violation).

Broad in its coverage

1. Addressing the main aspects of the topic:
   • Y The article addresses the main aspects of the topic.
2. Staying focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
   • Y This article does not go into unnecessary detail.

Neutrality

1. Being written from a neutral point of view, representing viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
   • Y This article is written from a neutral point of view.

Illustrated with media

1. The article is illustrated by media, if possible:
   • Y This article is possible to be illustrated, and it is illustrated by media.
2. Media is tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
   • Y All media used in the article is tagged with copyright statuses.
   • Y There is no non-free content in the article.
3. Media is relevant to the topic, and has suitable captions:
   • Y The media used in the article is relevant to the topic.
   • ? None of the media in the article had alt text. I have boldly added alt text to the article. The captions seem suitable, except for the "assorted coat abrasives" caption, which provides no context and does not describe the image.

Discussion

This article seems to need a bit more work to meet the good article criteria at this time (see above). I am not declining this article yet, since it seems to almost meet the good article criteria. ozmoozmo@enwiki (talk:contribs) 07:08, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

On hold per above. ozmoozmo@enwiki (talk:contribs) 10:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@OzmoOzmo

I addressed the issues from your review:

• defined the word grit at the beginning of the article
• removed the "assorted coated abrasives" image
• removed the weasel words, except for the "some sandpapers" one because that's what the source says
• improved the sourcing of the grit sizes section

🍅 fx (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, then this seems like it meets the good article criteria.

Re-reading the article, this seems like a  Pass now that the issues have been addressed.

(This is my first review, so if I have made any mistakes, let me know).

Conclusion:  Pass. ozmoozmo@enwiki (talk:contribs) 23:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Flexagoon: I didn't notice this in my GA review, but I found that this article cites a blog: https://benchmarkabrasives.com/blogs/sanding/when-should-you-use-quick-change-sanding-discs. The blog should be replaced with a reliable source, although I cannot withdraw this pass without creating a reassessment. ozmoozmo@enwiki (talk:contribs) 07:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@OzmoOzmo I've just removed that section. It was left from before I rewrote most of the article, and I forgot to check it properly. I'm not sure it even has to be included; seems like a random fact for which I couldn't really find any sources. 🍅 fx (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2026 (UTC)