Antique blade performance?

Rick Baum

Rick Baum

Joined
Mar 14, 2000
Messages
509
I'm sure that there has been some metallurgical studies done on blades of antiquity, but has anyone ever heard of any documented performance tests of antique blades. I hear all the time how James Black supposedly made an incredible knife, or the stories of the Damascus swords, or the Japanese swords, or Richtig, or...

I guess what I'm getting at is, I'm betting that some of today's bladesmiths have surpassed by far what some of these fabled blades would have been able to accomplish. Anyone?

Rick
 
Some were made that would match modern performance. However the average antique would probably not peform as well as the average modern.
I would not say weve surpassed them, we just have better tools and materials to make it easier. The truth is were still doing about the same thing, same challenges ect.

Joe Renner
 
I bought a knife from George Cummings, it was most probably made in India over 100 years ago. The knife is pictured in my article in Knives 2002. That knife by virtue of excellent geometry and his heat treatment out cut most production knives made today. Actual slicing tests on rope beat my old standby reference knife by an average of 25 cuts as I remember. Richtig made some great cutting knives, they were also very tough. The blades I tested cut with the best production blades, but were much tougher than most.

Some of the old blades, like Wootz were exceptional as far as tough. Many of the Damascus are beautiful but not exceptional at cut, some are tough.

We have the opportunity to make outstandig knives today, the best ever. The problem is that the ultra high performance knife requires liberal amounts of tincture of time to excell. Many of the paths to high performance have been known for a long time. As a general rule cosmetics are more highly rewarded and function not tested, therefore the incentive goes to cosmetics and function becomes implied or hoped for or disregarded.

One issue that cannot be disregarded is that a knife that was made 100 years ago may not perform to the level it did at the time it was made, therefor while it may cut better, tough could very easly be less than it was when made.
 
Ed,

I read your responce with great attention. I respect you with your craft. My question, please: would these old blades exhibite greater martinsite now than before because of aging? I ask this because I have been taught through word and reading that cryogenics expedites the aging process.

Thank you;

Roger
 
Roger; You are correct, martensite is the most relaxed stage of hardened steel, the tendeancy is for retained austenite to convert to martensite. The blade could have been tempered adequately when made, but the continuing conversion would make it harder over time. Other factors probably influence the blade, but this is highly likely. The more complete the initial hardening, the less retained austenite available to influence the blade.

Soak time and or multiple quench reduces the retained austenite.
edited to add last sentence.
 
Some real good info coming from your question Roger. Like Ed said, a tendancy to convert to martensite is true. Of cryo... longer at higher temps and shorter at lower temps.

Question for Ed:

Now that I hear you've made the switch to the new round bar as opposed to ball bearings in 52100... how you do prefer to break them down into blanks? Do you forge them down by hand or enlist the aid of a power hammer or press? What is the diameter of the bars you prefer for your knives? Just curious I need to invest in at least a press.

K, last two questions, I swear. :cool: Any idea what those 52100 round bars typically end up as in the industry? Do they get forged into parts or more often machined into a part? Thanx. I'm just curious.

-Jason
 
Ed,

Thank you for that. Now, do I understand you corectly at your edit - that a double quench is better (double HT and quench)? And should I presume this to be true for only simple carbon steels or does this also include the steels we effectiantly call super steels (the ATS-34, CPM's, BG-42 and such)? This is important to me - please.

I just only an hour or so ago remarked in a post that I double quenched a O1 blade which has turned out to be my best rententive O1. It was not by design but because I was not sure I had HT'ed it properly the first time; kind of by accident you might say.

Thank you again;

Roger

Jason,

I see by your foot that you do S5. Very interesting. Very wear resistant. You make choppers don't ya?

Roger
 
Rick started a great thread with a super question. I hope that we do not get off center, if so Rick can spank and we could discuss where we are going on another thread. Rick that is kind of an apology.

Jason: We are now using 5 1/2 inch diameter round bars. This is the best I have known. I beleive that hammer forging is the best treatment to work the steel down, one discussion in a metals magazine cotrasted steel reduced by hammer to pressed stock. The hammer forged had a finer grain. This may indicate how the reputatioin of hammer forged blades was established. A lot has to do with the temperature the steel is worked, low temp, 1625 f maximum temp. forged steel has finer grain. Reduction by rolling reaquires higher temperatures to reduce wear on the equipment, the higher temperatures result in comparitively larger grain. I believe that the continued hammer hits from 1625 down to too cool to work are very significant.

Forging down from a 5 1/2 inch round bar results in a reduction by forging in the edge of about 99+%. The degree of reduction by forging (I believe) is the key to high performance, if the forging is done right at the low temp. This may be the reason the man who made blades from large stock with a hammer could produce the great blades of history. This stands for any cutting tool, the more hammer hits, the greater the potential of the steel.

When an outfit orders steel, they can specify the reduction by forging ratio, and request a closed center as well as the form. What and how they work the steel after they get it probably varies
from outfit to outfit.

Roger: My experience with multiple quench is that three is the optimum. I investigated 52100 and 5160 extensively and it was always three. Sometimes a higer number of quenches equaled the quality of three, usually there was a loss in performance. One batch showed 7 quenches about 5% better than 3 but this was not conclusive. One quench = hard and uniform. Two quench = kind of crazy stuff, hard - soft a lack of uniformity. Three quenches very uniform grain and hardness, softer by the RC but cut better and greater toughness.

If the heat treatment is absolutely correct for a blade, Cryo will do very little to improve performance. This is one easy way to evaluate your progress in developing your blades. If Cryo makes a big change, you can probably make up for it on the front end of developing the blades.

There are a lot of variables, evaluation takes a lot of time. Some chemistries may vary from what I have investigated. This is why once we have found our steel, we need to stick with it to be able to find the gold.
 
No apology necessary. These are all good questions with good answers. If I could, I would do nothing but travel and learn. I'm getting some great learning out of these questions. Thanks, keep them comming. Maybe I can bring us back on subject a little with Ed's comments about cryogenics. I have been doing some reading regarding this subject. I don't pretend to know much about it yet, but what I have read backs Ed's comments and experiences. Cryogenics does wonders to correct a not so perfect heat treatment. But, if all is done correctly with heat treatment, cryogenics will not do much to improve the steels performance. Here's where we get back to the original subject... Maybe James Black or Schivley or whoever had developed a heat treatment process that was far superior to his local competetors, therefore, his knives out performed the competition. Then, since these people lived in a time with limited communications with the outside world say 50-100 mile radius, facts were stretched and legends were born. But then again, some cutlers probably deserved the acclaim. There are many old knives that I can sit and look at for hours, wishing that I could hold them in my hands. Some catch my imagination, making my mind wander, wishing that the knife could speak and tell it's story. Some are simple to look at while others are works of art, but who are the knife makers that actually produced a blade that would perform by our standards today? I doubt that anyone has taken a James Black knife and performed cutting tests but then again maybe someone has.

Speaking of blade performance... I saw on Amazon.com that Ed's new book will be out this month. What can you tell us Ed? I'll be ordering my signed copy diectly from you Ed. Let us know if you have a delivery date. Now that's getting off subject!

Rick
 
Good knife talk is over a cup of coffee, on an over-cast day. Just like today for me. I have been enoying this thread.

Ed, thanks for the info. Oh by the way, will Rex Walter offer micrography services for makers? If so, does he prefer samples to be made or polished a certain way prior to study?

Baumr,
I was thinking about some of your questions. Especially, those who may have produced blades by our standards today. Came to many thoughts of my own.

Some thoughts... I feel James Black may well have been as average as any other blacksmith in his day. You must consider that Bowie helps his credibility greatly. Like you mentioned, I believe limited outside contact and comparison to others, especially the world over, is a HUGE variable to consider. Blacksmithing as a full time profession at his time and culture, was a far more profitable and necessary trade than being a full time bladesmith. This also effects time to perfect a skill. Wise man say, "fox who chases two hares, will go home hungry" or something wise like that. ;) Forging out an occasional blade, is vastly different than doing it full time.

I feel the time in history and that which surrounded him culturally, is also important to consider. For example, the Japanese were producing fine swords later into the worlds history than other nations, because the age of the gun had already swept western nations and a lot of technological advancements were happening around them. A need for a better tool depended on the cultural demand. Kind of like a community that sees logging, may have had more axe and saw blade makers nearby back in the day. Just like every town once needed a blacksmith. They could make better money that way, as opposed to be a professional axe maker in the desert or a swordsmith in a fishing community. :cool:

Bladesmithing is an extension of blacksmithing and requires its own study and skill. This leads to a time when a 'great' blade made, may not have been needed, seen or appreciated either. 'Good' may have been just fine and never questioned. If only one other smith is in town, well you see. Plus, cutlers effected the reputation of a bladesmith at well. Just like seeing a polished Japanese sword. The smith didn't do that work, so eyes that fall upon a shiny blade think very different things than those who peer into the flame.

In Black's time, the cherished age of the blacksmith was starting to see the sun set and the dawning of the age of the machine and mass production would begin to take great grip on the nation. These truths I think are also a variable.

James Black was probably a good maker by today's standards. In fact I believe he probably was. Compared at his best, I feel many makers can match or exceed at the properties of a tough blade; at his best, I feel many makers can match or FAR exceed the ability to make a knife keep an edge. Just by some CPM stuff; At his best, there are makers that make a polish and fit and finish that is superior in every sense of the world to anything ancient history has shown us. Many of them do the whole package as well and do not give the work to a cutler or specialist to do.

Just rambling. Thinking. No real point. :cool:

-Jason
 
Outstanding thread, hope it continues. Why? I just purchased an “Antique” Meiji period Aikuchi. Now I first started buying cutom knives to understand the difference in steels and grinds for a particular job. Only way to do so is buy more, and more customs, until you realize…whoops…you are a knife collector. So I know a bit about modern day steels but almost nada about earlier steels.
Obviously I am interested in the qualities of what I have purchased. Who do I ask? Where can I send the knvie too? Hmmm, then I see this thread and think…aha! Someone else with the same problem I have. Why did I buy it? It had beautiful carving but the Hamon’s were very interesting and wanted to learn more. A new direction in my collection.
I noticed that other bidders on the item I purchased and similar items ie hand carved ivory or such japanese short swords, do not seem very interested in the steel or the blade itself. In several subsequent listings, I have emailed and asked for pictures of the blade itself, which has many times been absent entirely. Interesting when compared to what is expected re pics and information about knives and the steels/grinds used for any knives posted here or other knife forums.
So what do I do to check the quality of the blade steel used. I don’t want to use and abuse it like I would a Mayo :) or Strider or such, but I would like to know if it is alright to test it.
Really great to read what Mr. Fowler and others have said so far on this subject.
Tks for reading this rambling,
Rad
 
OK, I'm sitting here at my desk and my mind started to wander to this thread. I started to think what would have been available to these old bladesmiths for heat treating purposes and the quality of the steel that they had access to. Petroleum products are out. So I guess that they would have been quenching in water/brine or some sort of rendered animal fat. Maybe there is a critter out there that has a "special" type of fat? Seems like it would just speed up or slow down the quench. But then that can be very critical depending on the rest of the heat treating particulars and the alloying elements of the steel being used. What kind of steel was being used in the early 1800's or before, here in the US? I would imagine that from the mid 1800's and on, we were importing a lot of steel from England. Does anyone know what kind of make-up the English steel would have had? I think it was called blister steel or shear steel. What modern steel would it have been similar to? I'm guessing, but something really simple like 0-1 or W-1 comes to mind. When did we start to become knowledgable about alloying elements of steel?

Rick

I did some research on the web... It looks like Sheffield started producing crucible steel about mid 1800's. This probably did a lot to clean up the steels impurities and get more consistent batches as far a quality is concerned. So, prior to all of that, it seems like it would be a hit and miss proposition to get good quality steel that a bladesmith could realy depend on and get consistent results from their heat treat processes.
 
Rad: I know absolutely nothing aqbout the blade you mentioned. When ever I buy a blade it will surly be tested for cut, but I don't buy histoirically significant blades as some need to be preserved for the future. I would suggest you talk to the experts on that kind of blade before working with it.

Ben Lilly liked rendered lion fat. I have a freezer full of lion and bear fat for future experiments. Should be fun.

Good Points Jason. In the Iron Mistress, Black's ability to make agricultural tools of cut that were exceptional quality may be significant of his talent. Popular knife blades are many times claimed to have quality that is not based on actual testing, but on legend. When it comes to blades that had to work, the farm is one absolute realistic place of testing as is the timber industry.

Not long ago I read about a blacksmith in St Louis who made the best traps known for the fur trade back around 1820. There was a comment about his quality springs. I would bet he made a few skinning knives also, one sure bet is that some of the broken springs became knives. Again a good recomendation!

I will ask Rex about the posibility of some testing for other knife makers.
 
It seems like I read somewhere that Lewis and Clark might have had a knife that was differentially heat treated. Too bad that the knife was destroyed to determine the type of heat treating;)

But seriously, do we know if any of these past bladesmiths did any kind of differential heat treating? If they did I'm guessing that it would have been an edge quench. I can't figure how they could have drawn a temper on the spine back in the old days. Heck, I wonder how they would have done a full temper. Did they stick it in the oven with the dinner that was cooking. It seems like it would have been tough to control the temperature to the degree that would be necessary.

Rick
 
drawing spine was as simple as heating a peice of stone or metal, and sliding the spine against it.
Tempering could be done by heating sand, or flash tempering could have been used.
 
flash tempering is heating(judge by color, straw blue purple etc.) and set aside. as aposed to soaking at a temp.
 
Differential hardening has been around for at least 200 years and probably more than that. It is nothing new, take a look at some of the early blades from India and Japan, Turkey and those folks. It is there as big as Dallas and beautiful.
 
When did we start to become knowledgable about alloying elements of steel?
Click to expand...

Metallurgy as a science, really began when a British scientist, Sorby, reported in 1864 the results of his investigations by use of a microscope, to study meteoric iron. Another scientist in 1878, from Germany had similar experiments reported. Not much was of any interest to the current metallurgical community until 1886. Sorby presented photomicrographs on the internal microstructure of metals. This spurred great interest in metallurgy. So, from about 1890 to 1920 many metallurgists devoted themselves to developing a science of physical metallurgy. In these early days are when the hardening of steel was still largely a mystery, as to why and how steel did what it did in such matters. They did not know why a steel with considerable carbon was soft when cooled slowly from a red heat and hard when cooled fast. X-ray crystallography of metals helped greatly answer many questions. Plus, as chemistry and physics grew closer together and stuff like wave mechanics, quantum theory, thermodynamics, etc. was applied such questions became more firmly answered. Physical metallurgy was startign to be understood. The "why's" of hardening was a big step in answering, to move further.

Then IMHO, our greatest leap in really moving forward in those understandings of alloys and how they effected steel (namely hardenability) came from a man named Dr. Edgar C. Bain and his staff. His work became widely available in a series of books presented to the ASM. That was 1939 to be more precise.

Metallurgy is a young science really.

-Jason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top