No one is going to argue that thinning an edge makes it cut a little better. I understand your point Vivi and its a good one. Also, I'm not trying to suggest that some suggestions can't be tried or that they can't work in general. You are referring to something Cliff did himself. I'm not. Specific technical know how and other more detailed things are another story.
On practical tests that Cliff did himself well, yeah, he can speak first hand about that because he did it. But when he tells you how to do things he has not done first hand you have to be careful. Will it work? Perhaps so but I think the fact that he hasn't done that himself should weigh in there somewhere as to how much you can say is first hand and how much is not or you end up with, "well its supposed to work, gee I don't know what happened, Cashen said," and lead up to maybe you should try this and so on only to find out the guy never even tried it himself. I'm not attempting to say Cliff didn't make good points Ok? I'm only saying in a nut shell description, something like, "If you were a race car driver and getting ready to go around a new track you'd never done before and I told you how to properly take the right bank on turn number three but you then found out I'd never even driven the track but that I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, would you take my advice?' Pun intended.
Understood. The only real thing I have to say in regards to this is what I stated earlier, that every theory of Cliff's that I could personally test, I did, and I found the results to favor his opinion and often go completely against the popular opinion of posters here on BF. This just lent weight in my mind to his arguements I could not test because in certain instances I could test a portion of what he was describing and find it to be true, and the rest sounded logical, so I assumed there was a
good chance of it being true. Not definately true, but more likely true than not from what I could gather. Also, I can't say I ever recall a time in my year(s) here on BF that I saw Cliff to blatantly lose a debate. A man can twist words all he wants, but at some point you're going to have to put up some facts, measurements, data etc. I would think if Cliff were as ignorant as many would like to impress upon me, that this would of occurred more frequently? But time and time again real world experience showed me Cliff was right and others were wrong. When my Opinel #12 broke, most told me I shouldn't of chopped with it and that the reason it broke is because I'm an irresponsible fool. The knife was RC tested to be well below normal hardness levels (Low 40's if I recall correctly) and guess who was one of the people most adamantly defending the idea that the knife just had a bad heat treat? Cliff. Same thing happened with the aforementioned SE to PE Endura 3 thread, what types of knives can stand up to batoning and multiple other such instances. Honestly Cliff is one of the only people here who has really stood out to me for being very knowledgable about what they do, with you and Sal being among others. Not to say there aren't many others here, I just haven't had the amount of interaction with them as I have with you three.
Telling a manufacturer how to do their edges sold to the masses is out of line I think, as was calling them liars and everythng else that came up. They have to cover their behinds and I think you know as well as I do that a .005 thin edge in the hands of most real world users would be disaster for a company to deal with regarding warranty work. We want them to survive I hope, not go under because of stupid moves like that.
I like some of the steels Cliff talked about personally also. But M2 is problematic for a number of reasons. Ask BenchMade. You know, dealers complain about corrosion or little pits showing up on 13C26 to Kershaw more than they would like. Can you imagine the response M2 would bring?
Have you spoken with Thomas at all about the Shun line and some of the things they've seen on those thinner kitchen knives? Thinner is fine for some that can make them work. But John Doe out in the oil fields would end up breaking that off and throwing it on the ground with some very loud expletives I'm sure.
STR
In some of my posts in the Kershaw forums, you can see me continually rasing the point of their (IMO) obtuse edges. However, I've conceded to Thomas' well written responses that it is a practical business move in a sense. I won't deny that. However, I still notice Buck, Spyderco, Benchmade and others putting thinner edges on their factory knives (Measuring by eye and simply cutting with the knives, so take that claim with a large grain of salt). Is it insulting Kershaw if I state that my Mini Cyclone came with an edge angle less acute than a 30 inch axe I recently bought, or is it simply stating real world observations? I'm of the mindset that 20 degrees per side is quite simply madness for a knife to have as an edge angle assuming it's not a specialized tool for more abusive purposes where a more obtuse edge would make sense. I'm no longer arguing for companies to all ship their knives with 15-25 degree inclusive edges on their knives, I understand the business POV. What I don't understand is why I can post here about thinning out X knife and people will cry heresy. Knowledgable knife collectors who should know the facts, who should know how knives work in the real world and so forth. If you've tried a 20 degree inclusive edge and found it broke on you, I won't try to sway you from your thicker edges. But a lot of the people here haven't even tried taking a factory knife down lower than it ships. Why not? A factory knife is designed with multiple people in mind, not one particular individual, so it follows that a particular individual could, quite often, find things to change about a knife that would increase its performance for him or her.
To me, if I find fault with a knife and don't tell the company when I have such easy access to giving them that information, I'm being irresponsible and dishonest. As far as I can see, knife companies thrive on the end users input to make knives that continually change to better meet their needs. I see Kershaw, Spyderco etc do this and with great results, so I figure my input would only help. I've felt some of my posts of edge angles have rubbed Thomas the wrong way, possibly due to his past "discussions" with Cliff on the subject, but if an end user thinks their knife came with an obtuse edge, I think the company should know. I've done the same thing with Buck and Queen, and publically discussed even more brands, so it's nothing exclusive to any one company.
In regards to steel, I think one of Cliff's points was quite valid. That a lot of the "bad" steels are primarily used in cheap knives and therefore aren't given a good heat treat, giving end users the impression that the steel itself is junk rather than the companies method of treating it. How many knives do you see in 420J2 that you can say received the best possible heat treat that steel could of been given? However my Kershaw Leek in 440(a?), which probably has a HT Cliff would say could be improved upon, performs great as a work knife cutting up boxes and plastic wrap all day. Same with my Buck's in 420(C or HC, don't remember). Considered by many here to be a rather foul steel indeed, but I get incredibly fine, crisp edges that prove very durable. Much better performance out of Buck's and Kershaw's 400 series steels than a lot of the junk you see carrying the same steel label.
All in all Cliff wasn't tactful, not at all, but a lot of the people who piss and moan about him aren't any better. I've seen a lot of people here blatantly insult him time and time again, including a number of people whom as far as I was aware he never insulted himself or implied something more than constructive criticism of methods. I don't think he was here to make friends, but rather to discuss knives. Same reason I'm here. If I can't get along with a member here, than I don't pay attention to their arguements in a thread and so forth. There was a time when I felt like debating Triton over in political discussion was like talking to a brick wall, but after I ignored him for a while and then came back to his posts, I found I could look at them more objectively, less emotionally and see the value of his thinking. I think that if more people could of done this with Cliff IMO. He often "corrected" me and my methods, but like I said when he did that I went out and tested what he told me and if I found myself in the wrong and him in the right, I'd acknowledge that and be happy I learned something. As long as what people are defending has some rational basis in reality I don't care much whether I disagree with them or not, that's why I can see eye to eye with Triton now or why I can respect Kershaw's manufacturing decisions. But if I see a flaw in something, it's always been my nature to point it out, whether it's in a knife company, in someone's arguement about marijuana legalization or simply my own beliefs.
