Cutlery Science?

It's called cutlery science and he's not testing knives the same way so you can have a way to compare them all and see which is bets at cutting cans or whatever.

If it was called knife fun or something similar I would understand him doing his test unprofessionally or in extremely diiferent ways.

But that's not scientific IMO.

I don't wish to argue.

You may do your tests that way but then again you don't run a website called cutlery science and post amatuer tests on it.

I believe the professional way to test knives would be to test every one of them the same way so you can look at them and compare every aspect.
 
Don M said:
You have to read those reviews and tests very carefully. There are things he does that are easily missed or misunderstood that have a large bearing on the results. For example, he gave the small Sebenza some bad marks for edge durability in some tests. But hidden in all the talk (or at least just stated in passing) is the fact that he had sharpened the blade to something like 6 or 8 degrees per side, and then cut plywood across the grain. That is a smaller included angle than a straight razor! Who actually uses a straight razor to cut plywood across the grain? We're not talking about utility knife razor blades, we're talking about straight razors used for shaving.

The point made was that another blade sharpened to a similar angle (O1 steel, if I recall correctly) fared much better. That may be so, but it is not especially surprising given the properties of O1 vs S30V (much finer grain, and tougher). But in the mean time, Chris Reeve gets a bad name because someone heavliy modified a Sebenza and then put it through things that most people would not even consider.
Click to expand...

I have done more abusive work with S30V folders from other companies (Buck & Spyderco) ground at thinner edges and they did not fail the way that Sebenza did. I am not concluding anything from this other than my S30V knives do more extreme tests than that particular S30V knife did. I do not know how other Sebenzas, Bucks and Spydercos compare. I do know that based on my experience what he did does not seem outside my expectations of the steel and geometry.

--------

I respect Cliff for his often rational thoughts concerning knives, and the information he has accumulated, organized and posted for the benefit of people like us.

I have never taken a single persons opinion as truth without comparing it against what I know, and sometimes going out and performing new tests to see how my experience will compare with what I read on here.

When people here said I'd ruin the temper of a knife by taking the serrations off, Cliff laughed at them and said that was impossible as I'd be doing it by hand. He was right.

When I was making my baby steps towards learning how to sharpen, Cliff gave me the idea of try reprofiling knives too. If I went by common opinion here, I would of thinned my knives out to 18~15 degrees per side. I find 5-8 degrees provides more durability than I need and has superior cutting properties. Cliff advocated these edge types.

When I broke an Opinel chopping with it, I had pages of people insulting me and repeating ad nauseum "Right tool for the job." I knew these people were speaking irrationally, because an Opinel is fully capable of handling what I was doing with it. Cliff agreed. The Opinel had a defective heat treat. I have been batoning and chopping with my remaining Opinels without issue since, and can make video to document this for anyone who still thinks they can't handle it.

People on here post about spending hours on the sharpmaker reprofiling a knife. That is stupid, period. Cliff advocated using low grit stones instead of fine ceramics (Sharpmaker rods) to reprofile a blade. Cliff's method is utterly superior as far as speed is concerned.

When I wanted to know what others recommended for putting an edge on a Swiss Army knife, Cliff said thin it out. He said he's taken the edge to about half it's original thickness and has not noted durability issues. Others said that was crazy with how thin the SAK blades already were. What they missed was the edge was obtuse, despite the thin blade stock. Again, I tried what he said, to see whether or not it worked, and it did.

Again there isn't a single member here who's word I take as gospel. I have to admit though, that while the forum opinion was often against what he was saying, everything I have taken upon myself to test that Cliff told me has shown itself to be true in my experience. Sharpening methods, edge angles, steel selection etc. nothing he said was revolutionary or new, it's common knowledge that for one reason or another has been overshadowed by a heap of misinformation and untruth. If you look at the last three thousand or so years of knife-making, you will note a common trait. Thin edges.

I value his reviews because he does more than hold the knife, tell you it feels well made, then post some out of focus photos.

I also like his approach. He is interested in performance, not obsessing over looks, fit and finish, style, sexiness or other irrational attachments people have developed towards their tools.
 
Last edited:
Science is relating and applying known facts.

Not twisting facts to meet a pre disposed result.

Even with my limited experience I could see through his babble. This forum does not need his input.

Jim
 
Alot of people know that Cliff and I have become good friends over the years and some of you think that I cann't resist posting in a Cliff Stamp thread. I think those people may just be right. :)
 
Cliff contributed a great deal to this forum. It's a shame he's gone, but that's the way things go sometimes. He always maintained that you can take or leave whatever parts of his testing that you want to, depending upon your application.

You can take a lot of things with a grain of salt, many posts here included.
 
I've got to say that Cliff's tests fit his criteria of what those knives should do (whether from the knife's adcopy or from the voices in his head). For anyone whose requirements are different, they may have no bearing. For anyone who's tried using their knives in the way he's tried and suggested and it didn't work out, they may have no bearing. For anyone whose requirements are similar, they're very helpful and illuminating.

If you don't like his reviews, put in the requisite paperwork so the men holding you at gunpoint to read them will eventually desist and you'll no longer be forced to read them. If you're worried that they're all a pack of lies and someone not as smart as you will read them and believe what's written, then it's your duty to not only write the truth, but write it in a way that's more appealing than what Cliff wrote.
 
JimConvex said:
Science is relating and applying known facts.
Click to expand...
Ok generally that it is. And Cliff is applying to unknown facts? As far as I can tell most of the ppl have a beef with his methods when their favorite knife fails.

JimConvex said:
Not twisting facts to meet a pre disposed result.
Click to expand...
How can you make that statement w/o being there, i.e. watching Cliff do all that?

JimConvex said:
Even with my limited experience I could see through his babble. This forum does not need his input.
Click to expand...
If your experience is limited may be you're not right about this forum not needing his input?
Besides, again, if you can tell with your limited experience that his reviews are a bubble, what's your worry that other folks aren't smart enough to see it and will get deceived by evil Cliff?
 
Vivi said:
I respect Cliff for his often rational thoughts concerning knives, and the information he has accumulated, organized and posted for the benefit of people like us. <snip>

I also like his approach. He is interested in performance, not obsessing over looks, fit and finish, style, sexiness or other irrational attachments people have developed towards their tools.
Click to expand...

Same here. There's lots of excellent information in his posts, and he was always willing to share his insights. He was also the one who started looking at the literature from outside the US, for instance Roman Landes' important work on edge geometry.

That said, I can well understand why some people here don't like him much. His posting style was often, shall we say, somewhat abrasive, and he all too often started arguing about semantics. He wasn't content to put his point and let others disagree if they were inclined to do so, he seemed to feel a need to win every single argument.
 
I seem to recall he changed his site to cutlery science about the time he had all these grand plans to organize big passaround reviews. If you don't like the stuff he's written, then this might be the best way to get involved and learn something.
The idea was, he'd have several knives of the same general type, often custom made. Some would be what he considered ideal, and there may even be a blade in the bunch that was never even heat treated. They were not marked, so it was up to you and your own testing methods to really see what worked.

On one hand, I'd like to do some more detailed testing work myself, but I'd be really apprehensive about even posting it here. Any man who tries doing something like that will be ridiculed and heckled by a large number of people here.
 
the possum said:
On one hand, I'd like to do some more detailed testing work myself, but I'd be really apprehensive about even posting it here. Any man who tries doing something like that will be ridiculed and heckled by a large number of people here.
Click to expand...

What I find ironic is how few of the critics ever suggest other methods to test knives with.
 
STR said:
I have seen knives here, sometimes as many as three of the very same model in the very same steel, and each one gets a unique and different review because each one is a separate entity
STR
Click to expand...

Great point. This reminds me of a car my dad had in the 1980s, a Reliant K, made by Chrsyler. They were pretty well known to be lemons, even though they got made for several years. But my dad, who is a car enthusiast who does a lot of his own repairs and maintenance (or did, before cars became too computerized), said it was one of the best cars he'd ever had. He realized he'd bought a diamond in the rough.
 
...had some good information when he was here, and it is carried over to his website.

What Cliff did, in very broad terms, was to inform everyone of some criteria that would be helpful in evaluating personal needs in cutlery, which is good.

HOW he did it was to present bloated, loaded posts full of hot words, specifically, calling people liars....which was neither called for, or accurate, many times.

His banning from the BladeForums was long overdue, and of great good to the community, imo.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
I'll give him credit for the testing, the work to provide his analysis for all to look at, and many good ideas and certainly a lot of knowledge about the steels and etc., but it was impossible to disagree with him without him in a round about way calling you an idiot.

Though he did make many good points, he thought his own ideas were absolute truth and fact. And no scientist worth a plug nickel believes his own work is absolutely infallible.

I thought it was classic when he told the BYU professor who was a pioneer in doing FSW on high temp metals, with multiple patents to his name, that he had a poor understanding of steel. CS's anecdotal knowledge was high, but he overrated his own scientific acumen.
 
The most important thing I learned from the Cliff or Noss style knife tests is that thick knives made of tough steel are harder to break than thin knives made of not so tough steel.
 
Obviously, you have shown that you can see the trees in spite of the forest, so why not get what you can out of his tests? So he didn't fool you with the old, "I didn't open the can of food with this knife" bit, huh?

As long as he doesn't tell you he did when he didn't, what's the beef? He doesn't say his tests are uniform, and specifically states when he is comparing one knife to another. I've also got to wonder why you're posing this here, rather than asking him your hard questions on his forum and getting an answer from Cliff himself?

I learned a lot from Cliff and his site, and think it was a shame he couldn't play nice with others. I also think there are always many willing to criticize the one who actually does something.
 
L. Uebelein said:
The most important thing I learned from the Cliff or Noss style knife tests is that thick knives made of tough steel are harder to break than thin knives made of not so tough steel.
Click to expand...
Ok, I figure you didn't read Cliff's reviews, you just looked at the pix. Common practice amongst his critics :) How did you do with Noss reviews, watched them with closed eyes and sound turned off?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top