Companies need to start issuing verified third-party HRC tests.

[craytab]

If you are going to be a child your now on ignore.

In no way did I claim any knife here was 57. It was a hypothetical thing. If you can't understand that and are just making trouble... That's on you.

*you are

Ignore me and others all you want. Parroting this stuff might be a crime.

Making stuff up will always get you called out here. Don't do it. This ain't Instagram.

 

[Danke42]

*you are

Ignore me and others all you want. Parroting this stuff might be a crime.

Making stuff up will always get you called out here. Don't do it. This ain't Instagram.

The old ostrich defense. I wonder how that'll turn out.

 

[Comeuppance]

I don’t think I’ve previously seen someone double down on not understanding a hypothetical statement. Fascinating.

 

[Danke42]

I don’t think I’ve previously seen someone double down on not understanding a hypothetical statement. Fascinating.

Let's get you up to speed champ.

It's not about "misunderstanding".

It's about some members on here making a direct attack on a site sponsor using no proof, hearsay, and speculation.

For anyone who misunderstands this post I predict some blue text in your future.

 

[Comeuppance]

Let's get you up to speed champ.

It's not about "misunderstanding".

It's about some members on here making a direct attack on a site sponsor using no proof, hearsay, and speculation.

For anyone who misunderstands this post I predict some blue text in your future.

Okay, so, let's look at what was said:

So you decided it would be good to cancel it based off of this? I didn't think so. I haven't seen one thing that would make someone cancel an order based on any of this crap. Even if it was 57hrc that's not a reason. I don't see anyone buying a slip joint let alone one this stylish to cut gobs of cardboard. Heck I don't see many people wanting to cut with there expensive knives in general. Not that some don't. But seems the majority don't. None of those people should be concerned.

I mean I don't want to pay m390 prices used or new for something that isn't 60-62 performance. But I'm using these things for cutting. My lionsteel tm1 in niolox is heavily used for cutting cardboard and edc. It's not the greatest at keeping an edge in extended cutting jobs, but I enjoy using it. But prefer to not sharpen so often. Hence why I have a plethora of great steels on different knives to use.

Doesn't read like an attack to me, my dude. Looks like Mo2 used a hypothetical statement in an overall brand-positive post.

I get the feeling you thought I was talking about something else, so, let me be clear, I was talking about these posts:

*you are

Ignore me and others all you want. Parroting this stuff might be a crime.

Making stuff up will always get you called out here. Don't do it. This ain't Instagram.

Making stuff up isn't helpful.

I can read just fine. You made up a number in a very serious discussion. Your quote admits as such.

Not just a double, but a triple-down on seriously not getting what a hypothetical statement is.

 

[Pàdruig]

Okay, so, let's look at what was said:



Doesn't read like an attack to me, my dude. Looks like Mo2 used a hypothetical statement in an overall brand-positive post.

I get the feeling you thought I was talking about something else, so, let me be clear, I was talking about these posts:







Not just a double, but a triple-down on seriously not getting what a hypothetical statement is.

I do not care about the so-called "hypothetical" statements you reference above. What I do care about are the baseless accusations he has made that he has yet to provide concrete evidence of.

For the record: Summarized interpretations of one's own findings do not make for evidence. As of yet, he still has not produced what has been asked for by a few of us, including a mod.

 

[Comeuppance]

I do not care about the so-called "hypothetical" statements you reference above. What I do care about are the baseless accusations he has made that he has yet to provide concrete evidence of.

For the record: Summarized interpretations of one's own findings do not make for evidence. As of yet, he still has not produced what has been asked for by a few of us, including a mod.

Okay, so you responded to my post about something specific, and you’re telling me now that your response (which was both condescending and seemed to imply I needed to watch myself) was also totally unrelated to the content of my post?

Gotcha. Cool interaction we just had.

 

[Pàdruig]

Okay, so you responded to my post about something specific, and you’re telling me now that your response (which was both condescending and seemed to imply I needed to watch myself) was also totally unrelated to the content of my post?

Gotcha. Cool interaction we just had.

You clearly are confusing me with someone else.

 

[craytab]

I don't remember the number there was so many listed from all the marks it made trying to find a good spot. I was just throwing a random number out that was just below there advertised #.

That 4v is nice, wish I had a spyderco in 4v. My family and I do most of our shopping online. Get alot of boxes.

Okay, so, let's look at what was said:



Doesn't read like an attack to me, my dude. Looks like Mo2 used a hypothetical statement in an overall brand-positive post.

I get the feeling you thought I was talking about something else, so, let me be clear, I was talking about these posts:







Not just a double, but a triple-down on seriously not getting what a hypothetical statement is.

I wouldn't want to be on this side of nonsense.

 

[Pàdruig]

I do not care about the so-called "hypothetical" statements you reference above. What I do care about are the baseless accusations he has made that he has yet to provide concrete evidence of.

For the record: Summarized interpretations of one's own findings do not make for evidence. As of yet, he still has not produced what has been asked for by a few of us, including a mod.

Okay, so you responded to my post about something specific, and you’re telling me now that your response (which was both condescending and seemed to imply I needed to watch myself) was also totally unrelated to the content of my post?

Gotcha. Cool interaction we just had.

And to further clarify: My point was that I am not sure why folks are getting hung up on this dude's "hypotheticals" when the more egregious matter is that he saw fit to bring accusations against someone without evidence.

 

[Comeuppance]

You clearly are confusing me with someone else.

I definitely am! My apologies.

 

[knifeswapper]

I didn't see this post until just now as my we have been involved in a devastating family event. And reading 10 pages would probably just aggravate me terribly. But I would like to offer this right here and in the other nasty thread - if you have a question about anything I said on social media about this particular discussion regarding its authenticity or truthfulness, post it right here and tag me. Not a nasty accusatory post, but a question of explanation in a courteous fashion - I will explain in kind.

 

[Petunia D. Feeble]

I didn't see this post until just now as my we have been involved in a devastating family event. And reading 10 pages would probably just aggravate me terribly. But I would like to offer this right here and in the other nasty thread - if you have a question about anything I said on social media about this particular discussion regarding its authenticity or truthfulness, post it right here and tag me. Not a nasty accusatory post, but a question of explanation in a courteous fashion - I will explain in kind.

For those of us that, like you, have had better things to do with our time than to camp out on social media and peruse the comments on every HRC related video/post can you please give us a quick rundown of the events/posts as they relate to you.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who's had trouble following the whole debacle across multiple platforms.

I feel like there's a lot of hearsay and misinformation that's been tossed around and the thread could probably do with a firsthand report.

I hope all's well with the family. Please also know that your reputation remains intact with many of us that have done business with you in the past. Kind words often don't make as much noise as the negative ones, but plenty have been uttered.

 

[knarfeng]

First post was Mike insinuating that they did an hrc test on the blade edge. Of which wasn't true.

The 2nd to last paragraph in particular in the latest post are a bit disingenious. Saying he would have to hunt down posts. And then next calling out one comment about paint chips, which is in reference to running the test. It's not hard, many knife makers get an aim's Hardness tester and read the directions. You don't need to be an expert to run an hrc test.
Pretty sure Kurt wasn't saying everything was super soft based on two knives.

If Mike was at Peter's, he would have known that they compared methods of running the test and calibration with Peter's and nothing is different in the methods. Not to mention they tested other knives that got the same results with on both machines. But Mike wouldn't know that, cause he wasn't there.

Ltk should have contacted the manufacturer like they did with the other knives that were low. And if you've seen the video he's apologized.

Yet Mike's making it seem like this anomaly makes all these tests invalid, of which does not. Then he goes and says how his work place must have all the wrong numbers...

Though this machines been verified by multiple others testers in the industry and other testers got the same results ie the Benchmade 3v got same results on 3 different machines. Sounds a bit messed up here thus far. Trying to smear someone who just ran a test and has been fair testing. Ltk was the one that jumped the gun here.

Besides all of this, it's just two knives. Ignorant people blew it out of proportion based off of what someone like Ltk said in his video. Of which is apparently corrected and he's apologized.

I think Mike owes Kurt an apology tbo for those comments. But I'm not gonna ask him to do that.

Why was there an anomaly? Who knows. Why did people go nuts on this? Who knows. You can't help it. Social media.

In any case the lionsteel controversy is now closed. I'm done with you kids too on this. Ltk has said he's going to 3rd party verify and wait to talk to manufacturers.

I'm still waiting for hrc values to go up and be more consistent on m390.

https://www.bladeforums.com/threads...tion-vs-reality.1666922/page-22#post-19110073

 

[me2]

Just perusing the title and a couple of pages leads me to believe knife companies should not publish their HRc testing or issue third party certs. They should make sure their blades don't fall outside the range they advertise, or don't advertise a range. The last thing they need to do is publish micrographs of their steels.

 

[FiveToes]

I'm just pointing out here why I don't think the testing you're suggesting will be at all helpful. A single test, or even a few, is unlikely to consistently catch the outliers that are likely to be the main issue or tell us how frequent those outliers are.

In a true CI QA process put forth by any of the popular ISO standards, there are requirements to determine the amount of outliers in a given process. Typically this might be testing 100% of some portion of your batches. Perhaps one batch per quarter to account for process drift, tooling/equipment wear, etc. That will give you a good idea of the frequency of the outliers, wherein you can set your requirements for testing to catch them in standard batches. It also falls into the continuous feedback requirements for the ISO certs to reaffirm your process hasn't changed due to misinformation, miscommunication, laziness, etc. These are reasonably simple QA processes that should already be in place (or similar) at any significant manufacturer. They pale in comparison to QA requirements for aerospace, healthcare, medical/security screening, etc. These aren't set in stone and will be different for manufacturers with 600 unit batches and 60,000 unit batches.

When the oldest asked "What kind of steel is it?", I answered with a wink and a "Aha!"

If your tool doesn't work for you, then toss it and get one that does.

How many substandard tools should I evaluate before I find one that works? Wouldn't it be easier to perform some standard research prior to purchase and select the right tool from the start? You may not have the same requirements I do for your son's knives, but why would you argue to deny me important information based on your need for loose requirements?

What I mean by "no use in nerding out over specs" is that we're probably getting what we paid for 98% of the time.

Based on what evidence?


I'll reiterate what I've posted elsewhere. Blade steel is 1/3 of the required info needed to make an informed decision about cutting ability prior to experience. Edge geometry can be measured and changed by the user. The heat treat is important, and it's more than just an HRC rating. You can have an improperly heat treated blade that attains attractive hardness ratings but has overall poor performance due to skipped steps like subsequent tempers. Heat treats are complicated things that were trusting manufacturers to do correctly. I don't think it would be out of line to request manufacturers identify their process by code. This way you can be reasonably certain all Spyderco M390 blades, of similar geometry, will cut the same as other blades marked with the same heat treat name. IE M390 6EHT. 6E is the name for one specific heat treat process that we know tests between 58-60HRC. Their secret sauce is safe and the consumer will have confidence they're getting what they think they're getting. Those consumers whom find no value in it can continue to ignore it as they do with steel designations now.

 

[Velitrius]

F FiveToes I'm looking at a very nice Spyderco knife I have here.

I didn't demand Sal send it off to some third party tester to get some certificate before I bought it. I trusted a quality manufacturer to get me what was advertised. It works just fine. Matter of fact, all the knives I ever got from Sal have worked just fine.

I got what I paid for 100% of the time. If that isn't enough evidence for you to back up my statement, get over yourself.

I have taught my young lads to purchase from reputable firms who make quality goods and will stand behind their product. This seems to be working out just fine for them as well. We have never had to root through a pile of "substandard tools" until we "found the one that works". There's no ghost in the machine here.

Not once did I "argue to deny you important information". It must be very stressful to approach a simple purchase of a simple tool with such a conspiracy theory mindset that requires a third party certification before you are happy.

If you are dissatisfied with the fact that I am happy without demanding more from Spyderco based on my "need for loose requirements", I have no help for you here.

 

[FiveToes]

I didn't demand Sal send it off to some third party tester to get some certificate before I bought it.

I am not demanding anything of anyone so I think think this statement is out of line in this disagreement.

I trusted a quality manufacturer to get me what was advertised.

What was advertised?

It works just fine. Matter of fact, all the knives I ever got from Sal have worked just fine.

Based on what criteria?

I got what I paid for 100% of the time. If that isn't enough evidence for you to back up my statement, get over yourself.

I'm sorry your opinion isn't a quantitative measurement accepted across the industry. I don't know how you'd expect to publish those opinions and what kind of scope you'd cast your opinions across.

I have taught my young lads to purchase from reputable firms who make quality goods and will stand behind their product. This seems to be working out just fine for them as well.

Spyderco is a fantastic brand, run by great people, with an amazing pedigree. I chose them for my example specifically so I couldn't be accused of picking on a brand. The unfortunate reality is that not all knife manufacturers are Spyderco, as much as I want them to be. Do we not buy knives from manufacturers until they've got 20+ years of exemplary performance?

We have never had to root through a pile of "substandard tools" until we "found the one that works". There's no ghost in the machine here.

Nothing you've posted points to having specific requirements that would necessitate buying a modern supersteel so what's substandard to me may be perfectly fine to you. I imagine you'd want different things if you were going into harm's way. Neither necessity is wrong, they're just different.

Not once did I "argue to deny you important information".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument appears to be this information is unnecessary and therefore shouldn't be collected/distributed.

It must be very stressful to approach a simple purchase of a simple tool with such a conspiracy theory mindset that requires a third party certification before you are happy.

I have 20 years in IT security and QA process improvement. This has taken me through the working process of many manufacturers. I've learned not to assume anything until shown otherwise. At no point am I championing third party certification. I'm simply saying manufacturers could share more info with the consumer without spilling any of their secret sauce industry secrets.

If you are dissatisfied with the fact that I am happy without demanding more from Spyderco based on my "need for loose requirements", I have no help for you here.

I am dissatisfied with your assertion that sharing more information with consumers is unnecessary. You're free to like whatever you want and I encourage you to do so to your hearts content.

I hope you haven't taken offense to my posts. It looks like you may have. This isn't an attack so please don't read it as such. I have no interest in tribalism and just want to look at things objectively.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

In a true CI QA process put forth by any of the popular ISO standards, there are requirements to determine the amount of outliers in a given process. Typically this might be testing 100% of some portion of your batches. Perhaps one batch per quarter to account for process drift, tooling/equipment wear, etc. That will give you a good idea of the frequency of the outliers, wherein you can set your requirements for testing to catch them in standard batches. It also falls into the continuous feedback requirements for the ISO certs to reaffirm your process hasn't changed due to misinformation, miscommunication, laziness, etc. These are reasonably simple QA processes that should already be in place (or similar) at any significant manufacturer. They pale in comparison to QA requirements for aerospace, healthcare, medical/security screening, etc. These aren't set in stone and will be different for manufacturers with 600 unit batches and 60,000 unit batches.



How many substandard tools should I evaluate before I find one that works? Wouldn't it be easier to perform some standard research prior to purchase and select the right tool from the start? You may not have the same requirements I do for your son's knives, but why would you argue to deny me important information based on your need for loose requirements?



Based on what evidence?


I'll reiterate what I've posted elsewhere. Blade steel is 1/3 of the required info needed to make an informed decision about cutting ability prior to experience. Edge geometry can be measured and changed by the user. The heat treat is important, and it's more than just an HRC rating. You can have an improperly heat treated blade that attains attractive hardness ratings but has overall poor performance due to skipped steps like subsequent tempers. Heat treats are complicated things that were trusting manufacturers to do correctly. I don't think it would be out of line to request manufacturers identify their process by code. This way you can be reasonably certain all Spyderco M390 blades, of similar geometry, will cut the same as other blades marked with the same heat treat name. IE M390 6EHT. 6E is the name for one specific heat treat process that we know tests between 58-60HRC. Their secret sauce is safe and the consumer will have confidence they're getting what they think they're getting. Those consumers whom find no value in it can continue to ignore it as they do with steel designations now.

So how many knives have you bought that you've discarded because they were substandard? And what standard are you applying to them?

 

[FiveToes]

So how many knives have you bought that you've discarded because they were substandard? And what standard are you applying to them?

None since that wasn't my process. That was proposed by Velitrius.