By Eye & Feel and/or By Gauge & Meter

I agree that it takes an enormous amount of skill and expertise to make knives that way. And it still takes an artist's eye to see the design element. But for me.... so many things are made that way now it just takes some of the romance out of it. It sounds sappy, but I like to feel like I'm going back in time when I walk into my shop. And I like when customers feel that way when they stop by.

I hope this isn't considered snobbery. Just a different perspective.


And if you ever visit my shop, maybe you won't notice my ancient milling machine in the corner. :o That mill is why I have such an enormous amount of respect for people who can make knives with those things....
 
Rick Marchand said:
In a nutshell....

I think fooling yourself into believing you can compete with science (regarding heat treat) is a bad move but making an honest compromise while remaining truthful to your customer is a reasonable path, IMO.

Rick
Click to expand...

Best observation I've heard in a long time...
 
Mossanimal said:
I hope this isn't considered snobbery. Just a different perspective[/B].
Click to expand...


That's not 'snobbery'. :)
There are folks that are very dismissive of the machinist craft/art as it relates to knives.

Most of the time when someone is running down knives made with CNC equipemnt, it's because they don't know anything about it and maybe are protecting their lack of understanding with a superior, dismissive attitude. They'll infer it's an inherently "easier", lower-quality approach, which is simply untrue.

To me it's about delivering the best product possible--period. Sometimes that means sparking the forge and banging away. Sometimes it means sitting at the computer full-time for months on end (no joke) then doing fixtures and set ups and test parts--fixing problems adjusting programs before you throw chips on a single real part. And nothing comes off a machine "finished" by any stretch.
It all depends on what you're making.

Like I said, I'm involved in both approaches. To me, they're about equally difficult for their own reasons, but I like it all!:D
 
Hey Phil, you got a new H.T. oven! congrats! Anyway, these days I know I can make a knife a lot faster and probably a little cleaner skipping the forge altogether and just going stock-removal. But I still forge most of my blades. That's just what I do. I love it. Stock removal is fun too, but I really enjoy starting out at the anvil and having my blades be "birthed in fire." (Hence, "Promethean Knives.") To me, it is a communion with the roots of the craft, the roots even of all technology. There would be no industry, milling machines, crucible steel without first the blacksmith, and ultimately the pre-iron metalsmiths.

It also just depends on the knife. When I am doing folder work, of course I am more precise than when I'm turning out a pretty basic hunter. I enjoy folders because they are like a little machine.

I guess to me it just reflects the broader nature of the craft entire. Such a huge range of possibilities in design, execution, purpose, and above all in the diversity and uniqueness of every knife maker out there. There's room for it, us, all.
 
On the HT issue, … If the only way to tell the difference between a blade heat treated by hand/eye (by an experienced smith) or one done more “scientifically” (with more sophisticated equipment) is by inspecting them with a microscope and a Rockwell hardness tester etc.,… is this difference really worth all the fuss? In other words, if you can’t tell the difference between the two (everything else being equal) through serious field testing and hard use,… then aren’t the differences really more theoretic and idealistic than practical and applicable?...

... From what I've heard and seen, many times the blade heat treated by hand/eye wins out by comparison over the more "scientific" blade in actual field testing and usage. I’m sure there is a scientific explanation for this,… but it seems to be contradictory to the "scientific approach".
 
Last edited:
Tai Goo said:
On the HT issue, … If the only way to tell the difference between a blade heat treated by hand/eye (by an experienced smith) or one done more “scientifically” (with more sophisticated equipment) is by inspecting them with a microscope and a Rockwell hardness tester etc.,… is this difference really worth all the fuss? In other words, if you can’t tell the difference between the two (everything else being equal) through serious field testing and hard use,… then aren’t the differences really more theoretic and idealistic than practical and applicable?...

... From what I've heard and seen, many times the blade heat treated by hand/eye wins out by comparison over the more "scientific" blade in actual field testing and usage. I’m sure there is a scientific explanation for this,… but it seems to be contradictory to the "scientific approach".
Click to expand...

I think it's completely possible to get optimum HT "by eye" given the maker is familiar with the material and his apparatus (and knows what 'optimum' looks like).
I don't run a pyrometer on my forge, for instance, and have never seen the need. Still, I have no trouble doing (what I consider) pretty intricate pattern welding. When it comes to my favorite materials I just know where they are at all times and how they behave.
For HT, I have salt pots, mostly for ensuring even heat along the length of a sword. It works really well for knives too, obviously. Though I use controllers on those, if I took them off, I'd still be able to function by sight because I know what the material looks like at the right temp. It would just be a lot less convenient running the apparatus. HT simple carbon steel knives in a forge? No problem.

I'm not sure what a "scientifically HT blade" is. The "by eye" guy can be very scientific in his approach. Just because it was done at a factory with computerized ovens doesn't mean they're nailing the optimum protocol for a given material. It is not uncommon to have a commercial blade that's supposed to be 61 actually test much lower, for instance. I would not blame a 'scientific approach' because they were using professional gear to get sub-optimum results. It's just sloppy work on behalf of the HT outfit.
HT "by eye" on simple carbon steels is perfectly legit IMO, if the maker knows what he's doing and given that what he "knows" about steel is actually so.
 
Last edited:
I think either approach requires a lot of skill and know how, but just because one approach has all the superficial trappings of "science" doesn't necessarily make it a better or easier approach... or more scientific. I also don't think that one approach is necessarily more "romantic" than the other.

I know some guys who "seem to be" emotionally attached to their salt pots etc. ;)
 
the 'romance' of it all is a matter of personal opinion really... but you can't deny the image of the traditional smith and his hammer and anvil. It's an iconic image in many societies for good or evil. I guess I call that 'romance' for lack of a better term. And I think many people have a different 'feel' about something that was made without a lot of modern machinery than something that was. there is no doubt about that. you know what I'm talking about... you pick up something that was completely hand made with minimal technology and it feels different to you... You immediately form a different kind of mental relationship with that object. I'm not saying that it is SUPERIOR in any way... although... with my own values... I myself have more respect for it... but not from the perspective of art or skill. It's more because I love history, I love old things and I love thinking about the craftsmen who made them. I mean it's all about what makes people tick right?
 
Hey! I'm on your side Scott,... just trying to be fair about it. Some guys get really turned on by science and technology...

It’s just a different philosophical/cultural approach to knifemaking, technology and science.

It's a different experiment with different parameters… Nothing wrong with that.
 
Last edited:
Tai Goo said:
... From what I've heard and seen, many times the blade heat treated by hand/eye wins out by comparison over the more "scientific" blade in actual field testing and usage. I’m sure there is a scientific explanation for this,… but it seems to be contradictory to the "scientific approach".
Click to expand...

There is a very good scientific explanation for this, but it's in psychology. Anecdotal evidence is garbage yet people are completely willing to accept "I knew a guy who said he'd skinned a thousand deer without sharpening once," with absolutely no proof. It's just one of the many dumb things the human mind does.

Unless you're using a consistent measure of performance, you are guilty of bad science. Anecdotal evidence is not a consistent measure.

Knifemaking certainly isn't a purely scientific endeavor, but heat treatment is. Heat treatment has definite quantifiable measures of success. While there is a range of "good enough" as far as heat treatment is concerned, that doesn't mean you are optimizing, or even getting close to optimal performance out of your steel.
 
Destraal said:
Knifemaking certainly isn't a purely scientific endeavor, but heat treatment is. Heat treatment has definite quantifiable measures of success. While there is a range of "good enough" as far as heat treatment is concerned, that doesn't mean you are optimizing, or even getting close to optimal performance out of your steel.
Click to expand...

Agreed. When I talk about getting optimal results in carbon steel "by eye", I'm talking about using advanced experience with the given material AND the given apparatus to apply the correct HT protocol. For simple steel, that's just not that hard to do, IMO.
The problem, I think, comes when people vary into "special procedures" which could never provide optimum results.
 
Destraal said:
There is a very good scientific explanation for this, but it's in psychology. Anecdotal evidence is garbage yet people are completely willing to accept "I knew a guy who said he'd skinned a thousand deer without sharpening once," with absolutely no proof. It's just one of the many dumb things the human mind does.

Unless you're using a consistent measure of performance, you are guilty of bad science. Anecdotal evidence is not a consistent measure.
Click to expand...

Yep.

That's exactly why you have to find out for yourself...

I’ve tested lots of custom knives and factory knives, and just because certain claims are made, or theoretically eluded to, about their performance, … doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll like the knife, or that it will perform the way you expected.

However, I try to give folks the benefit out the doubt most times, just out of courtesy, unless I have a good reason not to.
 
Last edited:
Tai... didn't mean to come across defensive. I wasn't... I know your work and it has been a big inspiration for me.

One thing we have to keep in mind is that technology doesn't always = science. Science is a philosophical method for discovery. Science is at the base of everything we all do. Experimentation has always been the method for figuring things out whether we knew it or not. It just had a different cost 1000 years ago.

So... we are really talking about modern technological methods versus 'hand made' methods. I guess.

Maybe this distinction has already been made... time to start back at the top of the thread and read it!
 
Mossanimal said:
Science is a philosophical method for discovery.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with this statement. They are very different approaches to gaining an understanding of a certain subject.

Science - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Philosophy - Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.


In other words, we study metallurgy to understand the facts about the inner processes of our heat treat... then ponder how it applies to our individual experience as knife makers and users.


Rick
 
It is fairly easy to understand and agree with the techno-paradigm. After all, known steels with known alloy constituents and known heat treat temperatures and cycles, along with computer controlled ovens and engineered quenchents make for pretty predictable results. What’s to argue with? Not a thing!

On-the-other-hand, what about the “primitive” paradigm? It might involve magnets and color charts, files and brass rods, vegetable and mineral oils, vermiculite and dry ice. Naturally this approach is not typically recommended for the beginner. In fact it seems to be repeatedly, if not frowned upon or even denigrated, questioned or challenged. This certainly seems understandable; as it does not seem likely makers will inherently have the skill-sets to succeed in such a manner. Indeed, it is often implied that it is not possible to even develop such skills to succeed with the unaided eye, hand and mind.

Thankfully there are, of course, the exceptions to the “rule.” There are knifemakers that are extraordinarily successful in the marketplace and acknowledged as masters of the forged blade; that do not use computers and digital assistance. Of course these guys are likely to have decades of experience under their belts, if not even generations of blacksmithing or artisanship of one sort or another in their heritage.
Click to expand...


I refer to the original post, which I think I agree with, if I’m reading it right.

I see it as a reversal of burden of proof from the "techno-paradigm" or scientific approach back onto the “primitive” or hand/eye side. Generally speaking I don’t hear the hand/eye camp making any general sweeping theoretical claims about the superiority in the performance of their knives or their methods,... or the inferiority of the “scientific approach”.

However, there are always a few exceptions to any of it.

To often when the hand/eye camp even so much as questions claims of the absolute correctness, authority and superiority from the "scientific approach",… the burden of proof is reversed back onto the hand/eye guys... It can be a vicious cycle.
 
Last edited:
Rick... that is a pretty gray area. Many would consider the scientific method to be a philosophy since it is indeed the most empirical of any approach used to investigate the world. Some consider it the 'king' of philosophies. There was a time when there was no difference between a philosopher and a scientist...after all a 'doctor of science' is a PhD... a 'Doctor of Philosophy'. Then there is the Philosophy OF Science. And then there is the philosophy of whether or not science is a philosophy. Maybe this a tangent.

Where is Farmer Phil anyway?
 
"Scientism" is the philosophical position that science is the only true path to knowledge. Scientism and science are not the same thing. The two do often get confused with each other.

Yeah, where is Farmer Phil anyway? I thinks it's an interesting topic and discussion,... not sure where it's going though.
 
Last edited:
Ha!... lotsa thinkin' going on here... and no insults.... me likey!!!

All good points Scott.... better discussed over a cold beverage. (signing off to go get one)

Back in a bit.

Rick
 
Rick,... you mean we're allowed to think?

I beat you to the brew big buddy,... lots of good calories for thinking. Did you know the brain burns and average of 25 percent of the body's overall calories? At least that's what I remember hearing the scientist say on the PBS channel. :)

I got to get ready to go to church now, but I'll be back.
 
To capture quality, heart and soul. You have to live in both worlds. If not, you are limiting your self.
There are machinist, there are black smiths, there are Hobiest, then there are cutlers. Master Knife Makers learn every single day. It's how they become Masters!


Mike
Maker
The Loveless Connection knives
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top