DAMASCUS – Functional Knife Blade or Art?

[Larrin]

Thanks for that. I understand there are different formulations of Damasteel suitable for knives, one of which contains RWL-34 and another of which does not. I would certainly like any further info from anyone who knows what kinds of performance differences the various Damasteel formulations deliver.

The only kind suitable for knives has RWL-34 and PMC27, the only other combinations are austenitic (not hardenable).

 

[geagle]

Very interesting questions, all.

First of all, let me say that I personally like the looks of damascus (pattern-welded) steel, and really love many of the fine examples that have been posted.

Then, onwards, with the rest: a while ago I took to surfing the internet to understand better what damascus is, and if the additional premium that you usually pay for it was really worth it from a purely performance point of view.

My understanding of all the material I read boils down to:

- ancient damascus was wootz, western bladesmiths were so impressed with it that they tried to copy it, got mislead by its appearance and arrived at pattern-welding as a way to replicate its appearance, but not its performance
- wootz and pattern-welded damascus are made by totally different processes
- pattern-welding is mainly for artistic/beauty purposes, but in the hands of a good bladesmith can yield a knife as good as a single-steel one

The only hard reference I recall claiming that pattern-welding damascus may actually be superior to a plain carbon steel blade is by Bill Bagwell in his book on battle blades etc. (I am assuming that Mr. Bagwell refers to pattern-welding damascus - I do not think he actually goes out and say that, though)

That said, I only have some pattern-welded damascus blades by Kevin Cashen, Tom Ferry, John Christensen, John Fitch, and have never had the courage to actually do any performance test on them against similar plain carbon blades; nor do I have any wootz blades, or any experience on mosaic damascus.

The point which was made by Steven Garsson and Anthony Lombardo on pattern-welded steel being more rust-resistant is one I've heard several times and that seems entirely reasonable; it also chimes perfectly with something which Jim Rodebaugh once said to me about making an extended (I think it was a couple of weeks in Alaska, but I may be wrong) hunting trip with a carbon steel and a pattern-welded damascus bowie, both functional pieces which were there to be used, and used hard; they performed pretty much the same, but at the end of the trip the damascus one simply had to be wiped and little less to pretty much restore it to its previous state, while the carbon steel one had be subjected to a much more serious maintenance treatment.

The other point which was raised by some about (good) pattern-welded steel being comparable or even superior to differentially tempered plain carbon steel is another one which looks very reasonable on the surface, but does not really chime with my understanding, which is that (good) pattern-welded damascus can get to be as good as plain (good) carbon steel, not really superior from a purely performance point of view. On this, though, I may be wrong, and would be very interested in getting to see what is the consensus on this, if there is one. I would love it if there were some sort of magical steel which is the end-all be-all, but if there is one thing this place has taught me over the years, is that there is no such thing! Just different trade-offs....

Here's some links which may be of some interest (some are pretty arid going):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel (obvious starting point)
http://damascus.free.fr/index.htm (site with a lot of info on the different types of damascus - difficult to navigate, though, in that you have to browse most all pages to get to what you want)
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9809/Verhoeven-9809.html (seminal scientific article by Verhoeven & Pendray)
http://users.ntsource.com/~bluedevil/ Tribune_damascus_steel.htm (journal article popularising some of Verhoeven/Pendray results)
http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/def_en/kap_5/advanced/t5_1_1.html (just stumbled on this, but it looked like a nice summary)

Best,

Guido

 

[micromike123]

Damascus steel dates back before 400BC getting it’s name from the artisans of Damascus Syria who used the steel for making fine sword blades. I’m very partial to damascus knives and in my opinion pattern welded steel gives the knife another dimension of interest and beauty while giving the maker another opportunity to display his/her artistic talent. ..... NO two damascus blades just alike. It’s almost like the finger print of a knife. ...... it was just amazing seeing the actual forge welding of the billets, the manipulation of the steel and pattern then forging to shape of the final blade. .... Mosaic damascus is another process by which the artist can create any number of elaborate patterns and images in the blade steel as we see utilized in many beautiful folder and fixed blade designs..... Please feel free to address the above questions and/or add any related comments, opinions and views.

IMHO, the above quoted post is somewhat confusing. To begin with, it would be more accurate to say that ONE OF THE THEORIES says that the name "Damascus steel" originates from the smiths etc. etc. There are at least two more theories that I've heard of: one says that the name "Damascus" comes from the fact that this place was a big market, trade-place where merchants were buying blades, and another theory says that "the mount of Damascus" was providing with this "unique" ore enriched with micro-elements that were so important for making of the CRUSIBLE Damascus (alleluia, Pendray&Co!). Now, the author of the quoted post made a "Damascus cocktail" . There are two types of Damascus steel: i) crucible (aka "true") Damascus and ii) pattern-welded Damascus. IMHO, the mosaic Damascus can be considered as one of the types of pattern-welded - simply because it is patterned and .... welded . The crucible Damascus is somewhat similar to Wootz or Bulat steel - and although it may be referred to as "fingerprint-unique", there are certain well-documented patterns that considered as typical for the high quality of what I prefer to call "patterned crucible steel" - meaning that the patter is achieved through the process of manufacturing of the steel and not through welding.

 

[micromike123]

... My understanding of all the material I read boils down to:
- ancient damascus was wootz, western bladesmiths were so impressed with it that they tried to copy it, got mislead by its appearance and arrived at pattern-welding as a way to replicate its appearance, but not its performance
- wootz and pattern-welded damascus are made by totally different processes
- pattern-welding is mainly for artistic/beauty purposes, but in the hands of a good bladesmith can yield a knife as good as a single-steel one

I would allow myself to kindly disagree with some of the points in the above mentioned quote. The thing is that many Scandinavian swords of superb quality were in fact made of pattern-welded Damascus - and this technique IS good for working blades, including swords. This method (pattern-welding) is also documented and seen in examples of Chinese and Japanese blades.
Also, I have seen here posted many examples of most beautiful pattern-welded (mosaic) blades - but not of the patterned crucible steel. I would allow myself to bring your attention to some of the crucible patterned steel (aka "true" Damascus, aka Wootz, aka Bulat) examples at: www.wootz-online.com

 

[Kevin Jones]

IMHO, the above quoted post is somewhat confusing. To begin with, it would be more accurate to say that ONE OF THE THEORIES says that the name "Damascus steel" originates from the smiths etc. etc. There are at least two more theories that I've heard of: one says that the name "Damascus" comes from the fact that this place was a big market, trade-place where merchants were buying blades, and another theory says that "the mount of Damascus" was providing with this "unique" ore enriched with micro-elements that were so important for making of the CRUSIBLE Damascus (alleluia, Pendray&Co!). Now, the author of the quoted post made a "Damascus cocktail" . There are two types of Damascus steel: i) crucible (aka "true") Damascus and ii) pattern-welded Damascus. IMHO, the mosaic Damascus can be considered as one of the types of pattern-welded - simply because it is patterned and .... welded . The crucible Damascus is somewhat similar to Wootz or Bulat steel - and although it may be referred to as "fingerprint-unique", there are certain well-documented patterns that considered as typical for the high quality of what I prefer to call "patterned crucible steel" - meaning that the patter is achieved through the process of manufacturing of the steel and not through welding.

Good questions and no hijack at all, as that was where I was trying to go with my original "function vs beauty" question.

Unless I'm mistaken, the very early wootz damascus was actually the most durable and fictional steel of the day at a time when these attributes could mean life or death for the sword bearer in battle. The wootz steel (ingots) were actually produced in India then sent to the sword makers of Damascus Syria who then forged these fine swords. So the first damascus was actually utilized for it's functionality not it's beauty.

I know we have some damascus scholars on this forum that can give us some good information. I kind of intended this to be an informational thread on damascus with a lot of eye candy thrown in.

micromike, the above was a follow-up to my opening post as I was inviting open discussion on the subject form the very knowledgeable on this forum.

Evidently, we have a "NEW" expert , so welcome. Perhaps you can teach us all a thing or two.

 

[micromike123]

micromike, the above was a follow-up to my opening post as I was inviting open discussion on the subject form the very knowledgeable on this forum. Evidently, we have a "NEW" expert , so welcome. Perhaps you can teach us all a thing or two.

Oh, please... I am not an "expert" - I consider myself to be no more than a humble student of archeometallurgy

 

[Kohai999]

Oh, please... I am not an "expert" - I consider myself to be no more than a humble student of archeometallurgy

1. Welcome to the Forums.

2. Who are you and what do you do? Is it a secret? My hope is that you are Michael McCarthy, http://www.cdblacksmiths.org/scrapbooks/symposium2004.html

We like to know a little bit about those that make a splash into our little corner of the 'net.

We also like to use emoticons.

Best regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[geagle]

I would allow myself to kindly disagree with some of the points in the above mentioned quote. The thing is that many Scandinavian swords of superb quality were in fact made of pattern-welded Damascus - and this technique IS good for working blades, including swords. This method (pattern-welding) is also documented and seen in examples of Chinese and Japanese blades.
Also, I have seen here posted many examples of most beautiful pattern-welded (mosaic) blades - but not of the patterned crucible steel. I would allow myself to bring your attention to some of the crucible patterned steel (aka "true" Damascus, aka Wootz, aka Bulat) examples at: www.wootz-online.com

micromike, kind disagreement is always welcome, and is often the basis of broadening one's views.

Please note, though, that I did not say that ancient pattern-welded blades were not good blades, but simply that - in my understanding, at least - they were not as good as the ancient "true damascus" (wootz) blades they hoped to replicate. Do you think this wrong or unsupported?


Guido

 

[micromike123]

micromike, kind disagreement is always welcome, and is often the basis of broadening one's views. Please note, though, that I did not say that ancient pattern-welded blades were not good blades, but simply that - in my understanding, at least - they were not as good as the ancient "true damascus" (wootz) blades they hoped to replicate. Do you think this wrong or unsupported?Guido

To be honest, I don't have any opinion on this matter. I WANT the crucible patterned blades to be better than the pattern-welded ones . But - this is just because I like the "magic" behind this type of a steel. Did those who were making the pattern-welded swords really try to replicate the patterns of the crucible Damascus? This assumption does not seem to be unjustified, in fact, it sounds pretty logical to me. As for the "quality" of the steel - it all depends on the purpose, really... And I assume different types of steel will be considered as 'the best' for short and for long blades, for kitchen knives and for skinners... Personally, I am 'under the spell' of Wootz because of its magical look and seemingly simple technology which no one understands completely.

 

[micromike123]

1. Welcome to the Forums.
2. Who are you and what do you do? Is it a secret? My hope is that you are Michael McCarthy, http://www.cdblacksmiths.org/scrapbooks/symposium2004.html
We like to know a little bit about those that make a splash into our little corner of the 'net. We also like to use emoticons. Best regards, STeven Garsson

Regretfully, I have to disappoint you: I am not one of the recognized and well-respected gurus. As I already said, I consider myself a humble student of archeometallrugy.. how should I say it - not with "hands-on" but rather with "brain-on" approach . I don't really speak much about my hobby, just from time to time:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1KOATMDRJUY86?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview
http://www.persianmirror.com/Article_det.cfm?id=917&getArticleCategory=41&getArticleSubCategory=117

 

[Kohai999]

Regretfully, I have to disappoint you: I am not one of the recognized and well-respected gurus. As I already said, I consider myself a humble student of archeometallrugy.. how should I say it - not with "hands-on" but rather with "brain-on" approach . I don't really speak much about my hobby, just from time to time:

Well, welcome anyway...we can always use an educated mind in the many discussions held here.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[Kevin Jones]

Evidently, we have a "NEW" expert , so welcome. Perhaps you can teach us all a thing or two.

Oh, please... I am not an "expert" - I consider myself to be no more than a humble student of archeometallurgy

Actually, I was being just a little facetious in that your first two post here were both in disagreement. Perhaps not the best way to start off.

But welcome, just the same.

 

[micromike123]

Actually, I was being just a little facetious in that your first two post here were both in disagreement. Perhaps not the best way to start off. But welcome, just the same.

But.. they were KIND disagreements, right?
And - thank you for the warm welcome, it does feel good!:thumbup:

 

[Kevin Jones]

But.. they were KIND disagreements, right?
And - thank you for the warm welcome, it does feel good!:thumbup:

True, as I've seen much harsher for sure.

 

[Keith Montgomery]

The answer to the original question that was asked at the beginning of this thread is, yes.

 

[Kevin Jones]

The answer to the original question that was asked at the beginning of this thread is, yes.

I was hoping as a group we would determine just that.

 

[stefanj]

I am still trying to figure this out so please excuse the dumb questions. I might have missed the answers to these questions, if I did please just point them out to me. Thanks!
Isn't oxidization a process of corrosion? Is that oxide formed as a result of the forge welding of two seperate steal leading to an oxide forming (galvanic corrosion? I believe this is the term I'm looking for?) or a result of the flux used? If so wouldn't the blade be inherently weaker since there is a oxide forming between two contact points? Or on the blade?

Or is the oxide the result of etching of the metals (the etchent)? I would think that the etching of the steel would remove any oxide on the blade leaving the blade more prone to corrosion.

I would like to see two blades using the same material one damascus and one not placed in a controled environment for a corrosion test, it is something that would be interesting to see!

This is very interesting but the link you gave me made me ask more questions.
I think you need to just put it into Infantry terms ie "Damascus blade, GOOD!".

I forged welded a blade from cable. I etched it with muriatic acid (hydrochloric acid) and then let is soak in hot TSP overnight to help neutralize any acid. I then rubbed down the blade with baking soda to confirm excellence. I did a little more works to clean up the blade and kept it dry only to realize that it was extremely prone to corrosion and very very sensitive to fingerprints as well as rust. I combated this with the use of automotive car wax after polishing any corrosion off. The wax worked wonders and the steel was pretty but it did not lend to corrosion resistence by merely being forge welded and etched with various steels in there from my personal observation. Of course this could just be the result of the properties of the steel cable I used but then the oxide should still protect against corrosion?


This is a complicated subject!!!! I wish I knew more and had a better understanding of metalurgy!

Thanks for the help and please excuse my spelling!

 

[jdm61]

I am still trying to figure this out so please excuse the dumb questions. I might have missed the answers to these questions, if I did please just point them out to me. Thanks!
Isn't oxidization a process of corrosion? Is that oxide formed as a result of the forge welding of two seperate steal leading to an oxide forming (galvanic corrosion? I believe this is the term I'm looking for?) or a result of the flux used? If so wouldn't the blade be inherently weaker since there is a oxide forming between two contact points? Or on the blade?

Or is the oxide the result of etching of the metals (the etchent)? I would think that the etching of the steel would remove any oxide on the blade leaving the blade more prone to corrosion.

I would like to see two blades using the same material one damascus and one not placed in a controled environment for a corrosion test, it is something that would be interesting to see!

This is very interesting but the link you gave me made me ask more questions.
I think you need to just put it into Infantry terms ie "Damascus blade, GOOD!".

I forged welded a blade from cable. I etched it with muriatic acid (hydrochloric acid) and then let is soak in hot TSP overnight to help neutralize any acid. I then rubbed down the blade with baking soda to confirm excellence. I did a little more works to clean up the blade and kept it dry only to realize that it was extremely prone to corrosion and very very sensitive to fingerprints as well as rust. I combated this with the use of automotive car wax after polishing any corrosion off. The wax worked wonders and the steel was pretty but it did not lend to corrosion resistence by merely being forge welded and etched with various steels in there from my personal observation. Of course this could just be the result of the properties of the steel cable I used but then the oxide should still protect against corrosion?


This is a complicated subject!!!! I wish I knew more and had a better understanding of metalurgy!

Thanks for the help and please excuse my spelling!

The experts can correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that the oxides left on the surface of an etched blades by the weak acids are analogous to the "controlled rusting" left on the surface of ferrous metals by the various blueing, browning and blacking techniques.

 

[Don Hanson III]

Joe's right and...

Isn't oxidization a process of corrosion? Is that oxide formed as a result of the forge welding of two seperate steal leading to an oxide forming (galvanic corrosion? I believe this is the term I'm looking for?) or a result of the flux used? If so wouldn't the blade be inherently weaker since there is a oxide forming between two contact points? Or on the blade?

There is no oxidation between the layers. Oxidation is a surface treatment to show pattern but also protects the steel.

 

[stefanj]

Joe's right and...



There is no oxidation between the layers. Oxidation is a surface treatment to show pattern but also protects the steel.

Aaahhhhhhaaaaa! So in itself damascus steel is not more corrosion resistant.
You need a sort of bluing/surface treatment?

BTW would bluing be good to highlight the different steels?? Or something else?