brownshoe :
Boye claims that dendritic steel makes a great knife that will take a fine edge, cut for a long time w/o sharpening, is relatively easy to sharpen, and is stainless.
I would agree with all of that, and have made such statements in the past.
He wasn't comparing D2 vs. his dendritic 440C.
Neither was I specifically, that was just an example. An Opinel will out cut a Boye Drop point hunter as the Opinel is of thinner stock and has a similar edge geometry. If the Opinel is sharpened much more coarse it will also give better edge retention on hemp rope.
Therefore, knives that outcut dendritic steel, because they are harder, would be harder to sharpen ...
That is a myth. Ease of sharpening is far more dependant on blade geometry and suitability of the steel to the task at hand, does the edge roll, chip or rust too readily.
Boye designs sharpening guides into the blade to assure a correct angle in freehand sharpening.
Yes, I haved used one.
You might question his micrographs ...
I clearly stated the microstructure is different, grain size and extent of carbide segregation vary widely from one steel to another. I simply stated that it is rarely the dominant effect in cutting ability or edge retention. I also noted that as with most enhancements there are downsides, specifically that a enhancing slicing ability by aggression will tend to degrade push cutting ability.
Just to give you some more information. David Boye states in his literature that accompanies all his knives that they should be sharpened with a medium grit stone.
Which is one of the critical reason why they slice so aggressively and last for so long.
Boye compared his 440C to his dendritic, not to someone else's product.
Others use the material in a market he is in competition for.
However, the logic by which you discount Boye's and other knifemaker's opinions, can be used on your reviews.
No as I don't make any money off of them.
You have so much ego invested into being a knife tester, that you
cannot objectively draw conclusions.
I can see where this comes from. And this is one of the reasons why I attempt to be as detailed as possible about exactly what was done so others can attempt to duplicate it (many are subject to pass arounds). As well giving a detailed description of the knife in question, so it can be judged as a reject or being what is to be expected, as many aspects of performance are specifically just geometrically controlled and independent of the user. But yes at some level you either believe that I write what I have seen without picking or chosing work, or just making it up altogether to support a particular product.
I would argue however, that many if not all of the reviews contain a balance of performance to reduce the promotional aspect, where the knives don't do so well, where there are better choices. There are lots of posts and other such references to comparisions where the blades that I would usually recommend, do not come off as being superior, such as the Becker vs Swamp Rat bone cutting noted in the Combat Bowie review. This doesn't stop me from including it in the review. I also don't give manufacturers / maker editorial power over the reviews, or accept knives for free (reviewed blades are returned or donated to a passaround) or even discounts on the blades.
But yes unless you know me, or have seen personally what I have done, obviously doubt is a reality especially when you have seen differently. I would argue that my history would speak against this - but I realize many people do believe it, and maybe I would be one of them if we switched places, I would hope to be more objective however and instead explore the other possible reasons to explain the difference in observation.
In any case this isn't the most obvious source of bias. Many of the blades are specifically donated for review, and there is then the obvious possiblity of the QC being a little higher than normal. In general I don't think this is that much of an effect - mainly because I have seen gross flaws in such blades. Though I realize that it probably is in general a problem, it hasn't been an issue from what I have seen. This judgement is however significantly influenced by personal interactions I have had with the people who send out the blades and the makers involved so it isn't a conclusion an outside observer can so readily make.
You only test a single knife.
No, there have been multiple reviews of several samples of the same knife.
However, in general many are single samples, not of steels as usually I use several examples, and when the results are different from the past experiences the reviews will be updated and cross linked. But specific blade patterns are often used in isolation, which is fine as that is all you need to look at geometry and issues of balance and weight and so on. Where steel exposure is limited however there is always the question so to if the behavior seen was representative of the population as a whole (the behavior of the VG-10 Deerhunter for example as was discussed in the thread).
Those kinds of questions can be dealt with by asking the manufacturer for performance expectations which are guaranteed. For example I commented on Lukes Battle Mistress that the tang extended0.055" above the spine (0.055") which made the grip very abrasive. Busse then clarifed that this was abnormal, the tang should not be raised that high, and such problems would be addressed by Busse Combat. When such statements are publically made by makers/manufacturers they will be included in the review, usually as reference links.
With a population of 1 you can't even measure the level of confidence of your results.
Yes, with only one sample, you can not estimate the variance independently, however it is obvious that it isn't unknown - the variance is directly the maker/manufacturer QC. For really cheap blades this can indeed be massively high. Look at the Ontario reviews for example, I saw widely different behavior from one blade to the next as the steel properties are not very consistent. Same thing with the Becker blades, I saw chipping readily on the Machax on woods, but the Combat Bowie (with a more acute edge) could cut even frozen bone without problems. Which reminds me that the Machax review needs to be updated to include the Bowie performance as they are the same steel. Thus I would caution in general against looking at single samples when the QC is low, and always recommend getting a guaranteed statement of expected performance from a maker/manufacturer, just ask them if it is the expected behavior or not.
Dendritic steel is old fashioned.
The segregation of carbides is a well known problem in steels, it is the fundamental driving force behind the CPM process for example. What Boye has to be commended for is looking at something that most people automatically rejected with out of hand. There are by the way lots of other dendritic steels, there is also dendritic D2 for example.
Boye puts one of the best edges on a knife in the world.
Indeed, Phil Wilson uses similar geometry, he noted that his grind geometry was very influenced by Boye. His blades will cut better because he uses thinner stock, and the edge retention will be higher because of the harder and higher alloy blades. Toughness isn't high though, these are beater utility blades, but like Boye very tightly focused, though he has done some 3V blades for cutting competitions.
-Cliff
