At nearly 69 years old - I've learned you can't beat...

Grew up with carbon steels. It's still good. When stainless started coming out a lot of it was junk. Now there is a lot of 1st class stainless. I have some of it but still like my carbon blades.
 
Richard338 said:
https://knifesteelnerds.com/2020/10/12/what-is-the-future-of-stainless-knife-steel-design/
Larrin's latest article talks about how future stainless steels might be designed to perform as well as nonstainless, which they don't yet...
Click to expand...
Larrin talks about how future stainless steels might do as well as some very high-tech modern non-stainless steels. But there are already common stainless steels that outperform 1095 (as is made clear in the article).

I like traditional slipjoints - not because of their performance but in spite of it. Giving up one-handed opening and locking and modern steels is a luxury I have (although my favorite knives are slipjoints in modern super-stainless steels). If you state an aesthetic preference for old school slippies and steels, I get it.

But I'm a little mystified by the fairly regular "I like these lower levels of technology and materials because Grandpa's knife never needed to be sharpened" discussions I see around here. It's just a variation on the same thing that leads tacticool fans to justify their weird knives as practical (instead of admitting that it's an aesthetic choice).

-Tyson
 
I'm with you. There are a few different points of view in this thread. In my first post I said how I like 3V and M4, neither of which are stainless. I don't tend to use simple steels like 1095, but there was some confusion about how hard it could be after heat treat. Some of those steels are good for getting a hamon, but that is a different game than optimizing performance.
 
I like modern high performance steels such as S110V, M4 and Rex45. I've bought the proper equipment for sharpening and learned how to use it.
 
first off, if someone likes a particular steel, I say enjoy it!

as far as comparisons go, I like sal's adage: "all good, just different"

it may be true, that some knife steels are objectively better than others, but it's the nuance that's useful to understand. and theoretical, abstract comparisons are, at best, terribly fraught

there are some interesting reasons why people choose the steels they do (e.g. I like 26c3 because it's so freaking easy to sharpen without using any specialized equipment and I can easily maintain a super fine razor sharp edge for use in the kitchen; I like s90v because it maintains that working edge beautifully when I need to vent aggression breaking down cardboard boxes and I don't mind having to stick to using diamonds to sharpen it when necessary).

I remember reading an article, might have been by wootz (user from a knife sharpening forum), about research they did on the cutlery used by meat processing workers in Australia.

it was about why super steels, like s125v or whatnot, that didn't need to be regularly steeled like the knives they used, were not as useful as something like boring old aeb-l

the reason the old boring razor blade steel was more desirable was because of the way the knives were actually used in that context

(something like... the knife steel used was desirable compared to something more exotic for the practical reason that it was much easier to sharpen when the time came, and considering there were many, many knives that needed sharpening, using knife steel that was easier to sharpen helped reduce operations costs; whereas using something more difficult to sharpen would have raised costs, possibly requiring reducing worker compensation or increasing the cost of products for consumer, or whatever other undesirable outcomes)

use dictates need.

plus, we all know there are more significant factors involved than just the steel used in a knife's construction (geometry, ht, cost/availability, grind-ability, ease of forging, etc).

to the extent steel type is in some ways determinative, it's still directly related back to the particular ways the knives in question will need to be used and the context of their use

otherwise it's just, however pleasing, mere mental m*sterb*tion and/or hifalutin nonsense (and trust me, I should know... I have a BA in philosophy...)

please pardon my long-winded-ness. did I mention I majored in philosophy??? :rolleyes:

p.s. I shouldn't forget to add, one valid use for knives is, and I say this as the amateur knife gathering enthusiast that I have become, where the knives don't necessarily "do" anything special other than sit around and look pretty, open mail or get fondled and cleaned by the royal we - that's a legitimate usage too! knives being, not doing!! :D:cool:
 
Last edited:
I feel a little guilty that I stated earlier in this thread that I like carbon steels, but also replied to another thread how I would like to see traditional patterns in some good stainless steel (not super steels), but I do like both. So I like how someone above stated it depends on usage. So not a crime to like both. I have wanted a traditional pattern but in a good stainless when I go to the beach or a humid area when I camp. I was a political science major so I know about being long winded, I am that way too. I figured if I could make my papers so long, or my arguments (biased opinions really), that they would give up because of exhaustion. :D
 
I like pretty much all blade steel from the past and current. They all have a purpose or niche if you will of what they do best wether it be ease of sharpening, Maintence , holding a edge and slicing. The key is to find one that has the best of all worlds and works for your needs.
 
and to finding the one that tastes the best when you lick the blade! :D

obviously more of a "thing" (if it was, I mean) with carbon blades, but I could swear the patina on 26c3 tastes significantly different than that on 1075!!

someday I'll need to compare the 26c3 to white paper #1/#2, see if I can tell any different :cool:

and, now I'm thinking about it, it does actually makes sense why that would be. and this is where I'm supposed to shill Larren's book :eek:

just another reason for the horses for courses approach :p
 
M B said:
and to finding the one that tastes the best when you lick the blade! :D

obviously more of a "thing" (if it was, I mean) with carbon blades, but I could swear the patina on 26c3 tastes significantly different than that on 1075!!

someday I'll need to compare the 26c3 to white paper #1/#2, see if I can tell any different :cool:

and, now I'm thinking about it, it does actually makes sense why that would be. and this is where I'm supposed to shill Larren's book :eek:

just another reason for the horses for courses approach :p
Click to expand...
He who licks blades ends up with fork tongue :D
 
Heat treat ,geometry,and stock thickness is what matters most,sandvik steels,aus 8 ,420hc,are as easy to sharpen as carbon blades,and they do not rust,and hold edge for decent amount of time.Some knives with thin edges in supersteels are also easy to touchup in field with diamond sharpeners.It all depends on geometry,stock thickness and heat treat,in my opinion sandvik steels with good heat treat is more than enough for any task,with edge holding and toughness .low hardness 1095 blades like old hickory,or carbon opinels are ok,but lose their edge too quickley.
 
Hal said:
a good old fashioned carbon steel blade.

Stainless is ok - if you want something that resists moisture.
But, if you want a sharp blade - with minimum effort going into keeping it that way - you just can't beat "rusty steel".
Click to expand...

^^^Amen brother!^^^
 
I just turned 70 and just to emphasize the point, despite the many more expensive/high grade steel knives that I own, these are the knives that I use over 99% of the time in my kitchen, which is when I use a knife over 99% of the time.

All of these knives (except the paring knife) were owned by my parents and were used in my house when I was just a child over 60 years ago and it's a testimony to the durability and versatility of carbon steel knives that have been in use for centuries.

mlIH1fs.jpg
 
000Robert said:
I agree. There's no substitute for high quality steel.
Click to expand...
You're saying that 52100, O-1 and A-2 are "low quality" steel? There is a reason that the vast majority of competition choppers are carbon steel and it's not because it's "low quality". Most of the high hardness,stainless super steels are also brittle and prone to chipping.
I suppose if you just carry your knife around to show people and don't use it hard, you might come to your posted opinion.
Having carried and used knives for over 60 years, I heartily disagree.
 
Good old carbon steel still has it's place here. It certainly has a place in my heart if nothing else.
 
cbach8tw said:
I feel a little guilty that I stated earlier in this thread that I like carbon steels, but also replied to another thread how I would like to see traditional patterns in some good stainless steel (not super steels), but I do like both. So I like how someone above stated it depends on usage. So not a crime to like both. I have wanted a traditional pattern but in a good stainless when I go to the beach or a humid area when I camp. I was a political science major so I know about being long winded, I am that way too. I figured if I could make my papers so long, or my arguments (biased opinions really), that they would give up because of exhaustion. :D
Click to expand...
Good heavens no! Liking all types of steel isn't a problem at all. I buy what I want because it is what it is. If the $1 no name "surgical Stainless Steel" knives from the Dollar store fit the bill, I buy them.

My initial post about "rusty steel" was simply off the top of my head.
I had two knives on the desk in front of me, both dull.
One - a Kershaw Lever Lock is stainless steel and the other, a Schrade Old Timer (80T) is carbon steel.
I was just musing over the fact that the Old Timer will be much easier and require a lot less time to bring back to sharp.

So - spare yourself any guilt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top