Damascus Steel blades today a fake?

Damascus steel got its name because the pattern resembled damascene cloth, though that was probably the original Wootz steel, not the twisted rod patterned steel etc. produced by the Vikings, though these others are also called Damascus.

One researcher says the wootz damascus came from an ore with a percentage of molybdenum impurities that helped the properties. Also that it was made by taking the high carbon flakes that chipped off of the surface of the surface of steel they were carburizing as the pounded it. Then these chips were put in a crucible and melted. The resulting ingot was way too brittle to forge, but they decarburized on the outside of the ingot to form a sofer malleable rind. This could then be forged because the outer layer kept the brittle inner core from shattering when hammered. Then the surface was ground off and the fiberous dendritic wootz steel core was left. http://damascus.free.fr/f_damas/f_quest/f_wsteel/indiaw.htm
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9809/Verhoeven-9809.html
http://www.vikingsword.com/ethsword/pat05.html
http://home.att.net/~moltenmuse/
 
I'm not sure anyone can say for certain where the term 'damascus' (referring to steel) comes from, though speculation abounds.

With numerous theories touted by numerous experts it always strikes me odd that folks will use the term "true damascus" to describe Wootz. If one can't say FOR SURE where the term originates and why, how can one say what is "True Damascus"? You would have to be able to show that the term described one type of material to the exclusion of others, but there is documentary evidence that the term is used in antiquity to describe both Wootz and pattern welded products.

Wootz cannot be shown to be older than pattern welding, and noone is certain where or why Damascus (presumably Damascus, Syria) had become associated with a particular type of steel, or what that type of steel would be. So how does someone say 'true damascus' as if pattern welding is a latter-derrive fake.

There is great imprecision in scholarship on this subject which is why I consider Al Pendray probably the greatest and most reliable Wootz expert, as he has managed to replicate the ancient Wootz to a very high degree of accuracy. I don't believe his methods include 'blister steel' much less boiled urine or eye of newt.

The academics (most of whom have limited or no experience actually working steel) seem happy to perpetuate supposition and myth along with their solid work on the subject. This makes the history interesting but sometimes questionable. For example:

"Damascus is where the Crusaders discovered Muslim weapons made of Wootz"? (a common, romantic explanation.)

What, then, did the Muslims carry during their great, sweeping conquests which penetrated well into Europe and predate the Crusades by centuries??
Rather, we KNOW that Europeans were exposed to this technology before the Crusades. And what about the Byzantines? They were prolific traders throughout the known world. It does not seem likely they (or the many other trading cultures before them) would not be aware of this material and spread it, at least to some degree, within their sphere of influence.
It may seem like a fine point, but affirming that the Crusades precipitated Europe's first exposure to Wootz, is a little reckless and makes me wary of other history presented from that source. --just one example.
 
mete said:
Knarfeng , I sent you a message......Bladeprince , those Mcusta knives are like the Shun knives and are very fine but are not 'real' damascus since they are made of powder metal !! They look nice and perform very well.
Click to expand...

So, you are saying that 420J2 and VG10 are powdered steels? I've never heard of that one. I know ZDP and some of the newer high tech steels are powdered but not 420J2. That's been around forever. That is what the outer layers of the Mcusta Damascus is made from. I just got an email from Jananese Knife Direct confirming this.

Regards
 
The Mcusta laminated blades do not have 420J2 outer layers. The outer laminates are 33 layer nickel damascus. I have no idea if the damascus is made from powdered steel.
 
I am not sure that use of wrought iron is proven - is it result o analizes? I think that rods they use most likely were from same steel carbonized or decarbonized (same as katanas) which this artice states and then twistet etc...

http://www.vikingsword.com/serpent2.html#anchor514234
--------------------------------------------------
Being composed of several rods welded together and running the length of the blade, such piled structures allowed the smith to localize desired properties by empirically joining together irons with differing properties owing to different origins and concentrations of trace elements. Additionally, small rods could be carburized to increase hardness by increasing carbon content. Ideally, steel (which is an alloy of iron with small amounts of carbon) would be chosen to provide hardness at the edge. However, since an increased carbon content concomitantly causes brittleness, softer and more malleable wrought iron or mild steel is better used for the remainder of the blade in order to impart resistance to fracture.
-----------------------------------------------------
I do not think that at that time they had different grades of steel awailable, but I can easealy imagin smith holding blade in furnace to decarbonize or carbonize on of rods from package.

I agree that true or not true damascus questinable term. However blades made in old time and modern multysteel damascus is different things.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Keith Montgomery said:
The Mcusta laminated blades do not have 420J2 outer layers. The outer laminates are 33 layer nickel damascus. I have no idea if the damascus is made from powdered steel.
Click to expand...

Keith...That was my understanding too. I states it on the website. But in an email from the owners of "Japanese Direct", I was told the outer layers were 420J2 so I that as true instead of the website.

I have sent them another email ask for an explanation.

I was also able to find this info on the net describing a Hattori Damascus knife:

"Nickel stainless Damascus steel - the core cutting edge is the Cowry-X sandwiched with 60 layered 420J1 and Nickel Damascus steels. Cowry-X is a newly developed powdered metal alloy of 2.0% chrome and 3.0% carbon that can be hardened to HRC 65-68."

Maybe the Mcusta Damascus is similiar. Hopefully they will respond to my email. And it seems I was wrong about it not being a powdered process.
 
Cowry-X (which is the core metal) is a powdered steel, but I don't think the 420/nickel damascus is. I could be wrong though.
 
nozh2002 said:
I am not sure that use of wrought iron is proven - is it result o analizes? I think that rods they use most likely were from same steel carbonized or decarbonized (same as katanas) which this artice states and then twistet etc...
Click to expand...

There has been a great deal of analysis, particularly in Europe, of these ancient swords. Manfred Sachse has publish a lot of this sort of information (along with a wealth of other information on all types of 'damascus' from many cultures of the world. One of his books, "Damascus Steel, Myth, History, Technology, Applications" features a lot of this data.

One typical specimen of this construction (from M.S.'s book mentioned above) specifies carbon as such:

Core of twisted 'high' carbon (0.4%) and low carbon (0.02%) with high phosphorus (essentially WI). The edge features uniform carbon content of approximately 0.8%.

When a bloom is developed from a traditional smelting, it features regions of divergent grades. There is some WI, some high carbon, 'cast iron', etc.
I find it most likely that the ancient smiths were able to roughly identify and segregate the various grades, refine them through forging and use them accordingly rather than decarbonizing material as a secondary, relatively superficial operation.

I think 'experts' that have never forged a sword of this type are prone to some easy mistakes in analysis. This is why it's important to defer to sources such as Sachse and Pendray because they've actually made the stuff they're talking about.

For instance, having forged Viking-style swords using high and low carbon bars for the center, I can tell you there is substantial carbon migration during the process from the high to the low carbon members. To those with no practical experience, carbon analysis might seem to suggest that a case-carbonizing/decarbonizing procedure was performed to the pre-welded bars because there will be a measurable 'zone' of carbon variation where it migrated between the two. The high-carbon material will seem to decarb near the low carbon material, and the low-carbon material will seem to carbonize near the high-carbon material.
This happens naturally as part of the process of pattern welding and is especially severe when you're using very low carbon material. It will seem to draw carbon right out of the high-carbon material. This is something you try to avoid, really. Sometimes you can see the effect in the pattern after the etch.

It's funny to think that published 'experts' would interpret this phenomenon as evidence of ancient smiths purposely decarbonizing their bars before welding them up.
 
Got this form Japanese Direct:

The Mcusta Damascus blade. Its outside steels are layered of 420J2 stainless and nickel, that makes Damascus design. Mcusta San Mai blade outside steels are made of 420J2 steel. (3 layers).

Regards
 
JCaswell said:
It's funny to think that published 'experts' would interpret this phenomenon as evidence of ancient smiths purposely decarbonizing their bars before welding them up.
Click to expand...

It is funny to be announced as an expert. If I give my opinion based on information I got from Internet does not mean I claim myself an expert, and I guess the fact that I did not make blade myself does not mean that I should not say anything.

So the question remain same - is modern damsccus and ancient damascus same or modern damcacus blade especially knife blade are just a decorative arts and does not really provides more cutting power then monosteel blade?

So far I did not hear anybody claim that damascus knife blades are better in performance (I can imagin how it benefit fencing for sword but knives have different purpose). I hear a lot from different smithes that they can make damascus blade almost as good as modern monosteel in terms of edge holding or cutting performance.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
nozh2002 said:
It is funny to be announced as an expert. If I give my opinion based on information I got from Internet does not mean I claim myself an expert, and I guess the fact that I did not make blade myself does not mean that I should not say anything.

So the question remain same - is modern damsccus and ancient damascus same or modern damcacus blade especially knife blade are just a decorative arts and does not really provides more cutting power then monosteel blade?

So far I did not hear anybody claim that damascus knife blades are better in performance (I can imagin how it benefit fencing for sword but knives have different purpose). I hear a lot from different smithes that they can make damascus blade almost as good as modern monosteel in terms of edge holding or cutting performance.

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...

My understanding it that Damascus is mostly for the decorative appeal. It sure doesn't outperform steels like S30V or D2. Good custom knifemakers can get the RC rating up to about 58-59 but that's it (got this from a couple of custom knifemaker websites).

San Mai, which it not Damascus but a "sandwich" steel, will perform as well as what ever in the middle layer. Some (but not you, I'm sure) get these two mixed up.

Bottom line, one does not buy Damascus for its cutting power, but because it looks nice (to some). I don't find it all that appealing but that just an opinion, of course.

Regards
 
nozh2002 said:
It is funny to be announced as an expert. If I give my opinion based on information I got from Internet does not mean I claim myself an expert, and I guess the fact that I did not make blade myself does not mean that I should not say anything.
Click to expand...

Vassili,

I was not directing my comments toward you, but rather to some (not all) of the 'experts' publishing theories in magazines and on the internet.

To the contrary, your posts on the subject are polite and reasoned and I do not mean to say that only working smiths should engage in this discussion.

What's funny to me is that sometimes theories are put forward by people that are supposed to be experts that are intended to answer mysteries that are not mysteries at all. It's kind of a disservice to us students of the subject because these things tend to stick and become sort of pseudo facts, repeated by people in good faith.
Again, I'm sorry if it seemed I was coming after you, that was not my intent.
 
nozh2002 said:
So the question remain same - is modern damsccus and ancient damascus same or modern damcacus blade especially knife blade are just a decorative arts and does not really provides more cutting power then monosteel blade?

So far I did not hear anybody claim that damascus knife blades are better in performance (I can imagin how it benefit fencing for sword but knives have different purpose). I hear a lot from different smithes that they can make damascus blade almost as good as modern monosteel in terms of edge holding or cutting performance.

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...

You're right. Pattern welding today is primarily a decorative art, though done properly, it should perform about as well as it's constituent alloys.
For instance. I like using 1084 and 15N20 for knife blades. Both are good materials on their own and will yield excellent performance heat treated together. I would be much surprised if a 'damascus' knife made of this combination, for example, would not perform as well as a 1084 monosteel blade, all else being equal.

If you use the new 'supersteels' in the 'damascus' mix and they're compatible (each reaching top performance from the same HT regimen), your damascus should perform with the mono- 'supersteel'.

As to whether modern and ancient damascus (I assume we're talking about pattern welding) is the same, I would say generally yes, except that the modern pattern welded material is likely to be much better. The quality and purity of the modern materials a maker starts with makes that almost unavoidable. It is not uncommon to find 'issues' in fine ancient sword blades that would be considered flaws in a modern recreation. In some ways the 'bar' is higher for the modern pattern welding smith, but it's easier for us to get great results.

The ancient materials were legendary in their context, but I wouldn't expect them to stand up to a modern 'supersteel.'
 
JCaswell said:
Vassili,

I was not directing my comments toward you, but rather to some (not all) of the 'experts' publishing theories in magazines and on the internet.

To the contrary, your posts on the subject are polite and reasoned and I do not mean to say that only working smiths should engage in this discussion.

What's funny to me is that sometimes theories are put forward by people that are supposed to be experts that are intended to answer mysteries that are not mysteries at all. It's kind of a disservice to us students of the subject because these things tend to stick and become sort of pseudo facts, repeated by people in good faith.
Again, I'm sorry if it seemed I was coming after you, that was not my intent.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. I am lately come to be more sencitive, for reasons unrelated to this forum, sorry if I misunderstand you.

It is really interesting, I did not know really that "damascus" was rutinely used in Europe even 500BC. It was really interesting links yuzuha provides.

I had impression frome some article that modern damascus was result of attempts to recreate wootz by European whrn they discover it during colonial era. Which is obviocely wrong. Probably damascus term is similar to San May, whic many here use for laminated blades, but it came from Cold Steel marketing department and in Japan and of course in Europe nobody call it this way.

What I read in that article very interesting. However I see that the was Vikings used it is different. It is like spring in the middle area of the sword but edges in general are from monosteel as I see. And way they position pattern different - it is perpendecular to the blade not parallel as it is now (for majority of modern damascus).

Do you think that somehow damscus pattern benefit cutting power? Because it looks like it is more about toughness of blade, impact resistance etc, which is important for sword, big bowie, but not for little knife.
------------------
Friend of mine - Ivan Kirpichew, smith enthusiast from near Tver Russia, currently achive some encuraging results in replicating old bulat-wootz. He even get credit for it from expert in persian blades:

http://www.persianmirror.com/Article_det.cfm?id=917&getArticleCategory=41&getArticleSubCategory=117

It is very interesting, because according to him, key to reproduce it - way he "coock" his ingridients in crucble. His initial thought was that at that time smith who routinely make blades for army do not have luctuary to thermocycle blade 100 times and works on one sword entier day. So he challange Verkhoeven method which Achim Wirtz uses now and it seems like he has some interesting results.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Here is how I do the 'typical' sword from the migration/heroic era and Vikings. This construction is quite common in ancient and early medieval pattern welded swords:

http://www.caswellstudios.com/SwordPages/BodyPages/swordmakingpage.html

My thought is that it was intended to combine toughness with edge-holding, but it's really an obsolete technology today for swords or large knifes. You can get tremendous toughness and impact resistance from monosteels, even simple carbon steel. (1075 or 5160 are favorites among makers of better European monosteel swords such as Angus Trim and Albion).

An etched damascus pattern running across the edge of a knife can render a sort of toothier cut which some people prefer, but that is probably the extent of difference in 'cutting power' compared with a similar monosteel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top