Folks please use whatever you like, I gave up any interest in that topic some time ago, but Rockwell numbers are being cited that are leaving me with a bit of confusion, and if it is confusing me I know it has to be losing other folks.
To judge the quench you need to have numbers on the as-quenched hardness (before temper) and while a range is good for after tempering (it can be anything you like after all) a range does not bode well for a quench. To show that the hardening operation was effective in avoiding softer structures you want to be within a point or two (only two if you are utlilizing marquenching techniques) of the maximum hardness. Martensite hardened to 65 HRC and then drawn back to 63 is good stuff, as-quenched steel that should be 65, but is only 63 or less, obviously is not entirely martensitic and would leave me looking for another quench (provided the soak temperature was correct). The other trouble would be where the tests were taken, obviously it had to be taken on a flat spot without a bevel in order for the test to mean something, this would mean a thicker area like the ricasso or tang, but in order for 10XX to give a reasonable approximation to the edge the test area would have to be around 1/8 or under and then the lower numbers would worry me once again.
Once again, far be it from me to tell anybody what to use for a quench, and that is not what I am doing here, but Rockwell numbers are often pointed to as the final word in many aspects of heat treating when it is far from it. It can be a very powerful tool in seeing one section of the puzzle but is much less than useful when not applied very carefully and in context. I humbly and gently present that as my only point here.
I think I paid $10 for 8 litters