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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just saw the spreadsheet with the color coded setup. It may be just me but I would argue it looks good. Most were within spec or margin of error of the machine. And a few less than steller companies dropped the ball completely.

I would make one more change a color for being above the HRC but within margin of error of machine, just like the yellow. And one color well above that, I'm thinking purple for this as only a few knives fall under this that would require a change.
 
As an observation; trying to shame or draw out an Italian company (AKA Lionsteel) on social media etc. about them not meeting your expectations isn't going to work out well.
 
Danke42 said:
As an observation; trying to shame or draw out an Italian company (AKA Lionsteel) on social media etc. about them not meeting your expectations isn't going to work out well.
Click to expand...

My suggestion in-group has been to third party verify, then inform companies directly, regarding extreme low outliers. Once they’ve had a chance to respond, then post those results. Part of that has been to cut off the meme blitz.

I can’t speak for everyone involved, but I haven’t made any pointed memes. I get tagged in them when people post them.
 
I am not a metallurgist but still a scientist.
If someone reports some wild values (relevant to my field of study) obtained from unidentified machines, which may or may not be calibrated, used in a uncertain test environment with unknown test procedures, I would probably just scoff at them.
 
I didn't think the initial testing was bad but I wasn't one to readily believe these companies were doing anything intentionally out of spec. I took most of the results from reputable manufactures, at least prior to this over blown mess, to be exceptions to the norm instead of indication of foul play. I am surprised by the turn of events as I expected a mistake in a batch and some misreadings from the testing but this just puts it all on the individual testing that had been done.
 
miso2 said:
Now we know that 60 HRc can be 50 HRc depending on who measures it with what and how.

I am pretty sure Peters follow NIST recommendation mostly.
https://www.nist.gov/publications/n...-measurement-metallic-materials?pub_id=853006
Click to expand...

The testers (our guy and Peters) use the same methodology, confirmed calibration, etc, matched results on other samples, and were only out of alignment on the Dom.

I’m not reading anything about the Dom into that. It’s simply what happened.

That same day, 64 was 64 (Manix in M4), and so on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mo2
Banter 247 said:
The testers (our guy and Peters) use the same methodology, confirmed calibration, etc, matched results on other samples, and were only out of alignment on the Dom.

I’m not reading anything about the Dom into that. It’s simply what happened.

That same day, 64 was 64 (Manix in M4), and so on.
Click to expand...
Honestly, given that, I would say it looks a lot worse for 'your guy' than it does for Lionsteel. That's a huge discrepancy and if all the testing is lining up except on one specific brand of knife it makes me rather strongly question the motivations of the person doing the testing.
 
Banter 247 said:
The testers (our guy and Peters) use the same methodology, confirmed calibration, etc, matched results on other samples, and were only out of alignment on the Dom.

I’m not reading anything about the Dom into that. It’s simply what happened.

That same day, 64 was 64 (Manix in M4), and so on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but still it can differ by 10 units (20 µm depth difference) on an individual sample, and we don't know the source of the offset.
It is a good thing to know.

So, it is probably irrelevant to speak about a single measurement or an outlier as in general science, unless it is found in multiple samples or verified by multiple measurements and preferably using multiple different methods.

There are makers who own and use hardness testers in house.
I guess I just have to trust the maker of my choice and take the face value the maker provides for the hardness.
And judge with the performance of the product.
 
miso2 said:
Yeah, but still it can differ by 10 units (20 µm depth difference) on an individual sample, and we don't know the source of the offset.
It is a good thing to know.

So, it is probably irrelevant to speak about a single measurement or an outlier as in general science, unless it is found in multiple samples or verified by multiple measurements and preferably using multiple different methods.

There are makers who own and use hardness testers in house.
I guess I just have to trust the maker of my choice and take the face value the maker provides for the hardness.
And judge with the performance of the product.
Click to expand...

We’re in alignment here. Outliers definitely need further testing before reporting.
 
Since it has been public already, it might be nice if the original YouTube poster submits a follow up video saying that the value has not been confirmed in a different facility at the moment.
Also, the google docs list should have a disclaimer that the values are based on single specimens.

Just my 2 cents.
 
miso2 said:
Since it has been public already, it might be nice if the original YouTube poster submits a follow up video saying that the value has not been confirmed in a different facility at the moment.
Also, the google docs list should have a disclaimer that the values are based on single specimens.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

His video is going up very shortly, if it isn’t already up. Disclaimer isn’t a bad idea.
 
Insipid Moniker said:
Honestly, given that, I would say it looks a lot worse for 'your guy' than it does for Lionsteel. That's a huge discrepancy and if all the testing is lining up except on one specific brand of knife it makes me rather strongly question the motivations of the person doing the testing.
Click to expand...
Lololol

You got to be kidding.
Everything else lines up and you think he's out to get lionsteel. Lol. I mean he tried multiple times cause it was hard to believe. Then he took it to Peter's to test it and you still think it's foul play. Seriously what's wrong with you. Even Peter's wants to have it tested again by another 3rd party because they are both doing it right.

Just put you on ignore. I can't be bothered to read some of the things you post.

Hope you know a machine did the results and not the person. Ltk was the only one that got all pissed and didn't wait for more testing.
 
Last edited:
Banter 247 said:
His video is going up very shortly, if it isn’t already up. Disclaimer isn’t a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Looks like the original video is removed?
Or may be under revision.

Anyway, to me, that rant was prematurely and unnecessarily posted, so it is a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Mo2 said:
Lololol
Click to expand...

When this is the basis of your response and you otherwise can't be bothered to address some rather pertinent points that are being brought up (summing it up as "hand holding"), you do whatever credibility you might have had a real disservice. I don't know you from "Adam" but you continue to make claims without backing them up with evidence, which has been repeatedly asked for.

In the other thread, you attack a member of our community who is in good standing, post a ridiculous Instagram link in an attempt to bolster your claims, and then expect that we shouldn't demand something considerably more concrete? You aren't really batting a thousand here, are ya?

The conversation, sans attacking dealers and such, could be productive and interesting. But I have a real problem with members who seem to think they can get away with attacking good folks. Here, YouTube, Instagram or wherever else.

(And for the record: That Instagram post was simply a screenshot of a comment of Mike's with a bunch of idiots trashing him.)
 
Pàdruig said:
When this is the basis of your response and you otherwise can't be bothered to address some rather pertinent points that are being brought up (summing it up as "hand holding"), you do whatever credibility you might have had a real disservice. I don't know you from "Adam" but you continue to make claims without backing them up with evidence, which has been repeatedly asked for.

In the other thread, you attack a member of our community who is in good standing, post a ridiculous Instagram link in an attempt to bolster your claims, and then expect that we shouldn't demand something considerably more concrete? You aren't really batting a thousand here, are ya?

The conversation, sans attacking dealers and such, could be productive and interesting. But I have a real problem with members who seem to think they can get away with attacking good folks. Here, YouTube, Instagram or wherever else.

(And for the record: That Instagram post was simply a screenshot of a comment of Mike's with a bunch of idiots trashing him.)
Click to expand...
Lol really. Honestly if your going to take Mike's recent post as 100% validity when he wasn't even there between two men, why is he even making a post on it. He was not there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top