Does stainless belong on a traditional knife?

kamagong

kamagong

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2001
Messages
10,671
I like stainless steel. It has its place, especially on a modern, one handed opening folder. But truth be told I do not think that a stainless blade belongs on a traditional knife, whether it be fixed blade or folder. Traditional knives are known for their beauty and their use of natural materials (i.e., horn, stag, bone, wood, ivory, pearl). We all know that natural materials age, and we accept that. The problem is that stainless steel doesn't age. All it does is get scratched and look beat up, unlike the well-earned patina that builds up on a carbon steel blade. I think that it plain looks ugly at times, seeing a lovingly cared for knife with an aged handle and shiny blades. What do you think?
 
I think carbon blades are the way to go with exceptions. Like you said..nothing looks as warm & inviting as an aged carbon blade. I look at my old KeenKutters & go ohhhh that looks so nice! Stainless is the way to go under very moist/wet conditions however, I have never heard of a well oiled/cared for carbon blade rusting away. I also think carbon is a tougher steel than stainless IMHO.
 
Yes, I lean towards carbon and REALLY lean towards D2, but Ithink stainless can be good also.

Plenty of room for both!
 
I think it can fit in. Certainly the Uncle Henry line of Schrade was a good seller for many years, as was the 300 series pocket knives from Buck. I carried a 301 Buck stockman, and it tool me all of twenty years to wear it out, and it was stainless with black delrin scales. Not much of a looker, but it preformed well in the field, and thats what I cared about then. The Bucks were priced very low at the army PX's. But you could look at the Buck 301 and you knew it was a stockman. The form was there.

But I do prefer a carbon blade, and will always go that way if I can get it. I love my yellow CV peanut, but when I wanted the peanut in a dressed up version and stainless was the only blade available in bone stag, I took it. It's still a good little knife, and I think it still qualifies as a traditional pocket knife.

A traditional knife is still a traditional knife if it has stainless blades.

Is a 1967 G.T.O. not a classic muscle car if it has an automatic transmission?
 
The Last Confederate said:
Plenty of room for both!
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that point. It just doesn't seem right, that's all. To me a stainless blade on a slipjoint is analagous to a veggie burger.

The reason for my mini-rant is that I recently took out my laguiole for periodic maintenance. It's a good knife, with a fine Sandvik 12c27 blade. But the blade remains freakishly shiny while its horn handle has started showing its age. Looks very weird to me.
 
jackknife said:
A traditional knife is still a traditional knife if it has stainless blades.
Click to expand...
Yes, but is a burger still a burger if it has a veggie pattie? :D

What makes a traditional knife? Is it the design only, or should the use of traditional materials be taken into account?
 
I too like the nice patina on a carbon blade. However, I think stainless steel blades do not disqualify a knife as traditional. IMO, stainless is just another 'slice' of the tradition that makes this such an interesting pasttime. Here are two knice e.g.s of early stainless steel knives.
Sch-2.jpg

HH-P3.jpg
 
No, all things considered, I think theres room for both. If the overall knife is a stockman or what ever, and it still has nice handle materials, bolsters instead of a one piece molded zytel handle, it's okay. If its definatly identifiable as one of the traditional patterns, and someone wants stainless, I think I can be a bit forgiving.

I think traditional is defined more by form. I'd rather see my brother with a stainless trapper than a tactical. And look at all those nice using traditional Remingtons from the 80's that were made by Camillus. They all had stainless blades, but they made great using knives in the field.

I say we should let them on the bus. :D
 
While I am sitting here in my office reading this thread, I am also cleaning off the oily crud from my latest knife - a CAMCO 572 senator that just arrived this afternoon. If this little baby had CV blades it would be rusted solid. It's been sitting in a little plastic sleeve for more than 30 years and the original lubricant has turned into something like molassas left out in the sun. It's looking pretty damn good now though! I can't help thinking that this knife would not have made it to me unless it had stainless blades...

I am a carbon steel blade kind of guy, but I think there's room in my collection and in my pockets for all types of traditional folders.

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u131/kevins73cigars/penknives.jpg
 
Anything that represents the better endeavors of humans I hope will be considered traditional! Stainless was/is an attempt to do a better job. Some steels do, some don't. I have stainless fishing knives, that would be junk today if they were carbon. Tell me these aren't traditional!!
SchradeFish2.jpg
 
Like that carbon steel, no doubt. However, stainless goes back a little farther than a few years in traditional knives, as do some interesting handle materials, like the hard rubber I have on a Cattaraugus fixed blade.

Speaking of handle materials, the more traditional grips on the old Colt Single Action Army is hard rubber, not the wood we see so much on the clones.

I have and use both. I've had great service out of knives with 440A, 440C, and Case Tru-Sharp (the 420 HC version). I also have carbon and CV blades that have patina on them. As much as I like carbon steel/CV, my current work carry is a Case SS mini-trapper with smooth Chestnut bone scales, and my jeans carry is a Case SS trapper in Ky Bluegrass scales with hand engraved bolsters. These look great, give great service, and it's hard to think of them as anything but traditional knives. Even without a patina on them and wear on the scales and bolsters I think they will still be traditional years down the road, maybe even more so by then as stainless slippies and old style fixed blades will have been around for quite a while by then.

I can understand what you are saying though. I have a 1978 Case folding hunter, 6265 SAB SS. The blades are not highly polished, but there is a little visual ripple in seeing the stocks and bolsters against blades without a patina. However, I have an earlier Western 062 folding hunter with carbon blades that have a strong polish on them and they only have a few dark specks of the spine of the blades near the tips. So the carbon blades actually are shinier and newer looking than the stainless blades on the Case.

I also have a Case jack from 82 with carbon steel springs and stainless blades. The blades are not polished so they look more at home on the knife. If you really focus on comparing the springs and the blades it raises a little visual ripple, but for the most part it seems fairly harmonious.

I think Jackknife has the gist of it though. Pattern, and this includes the blades to me, carries the most weight in whether something is traditional or not. A lot of the high dollar, custom maker slippies that are called by traditional pattern names, aren't to me because their frame shapes only remotely resemble the traditional pattern and the blades are often not anything you would have found on the originals. An example would be some of the custom made barlows that have been shown on here. They are very nice, very well made knives, but to my eye they are not really barlows, even if they do have long bolsters on them. I find a traditional patterned trapper or stockman with the proper blade configurations and in stainless steel much more traditional than a custom made in carbon steel that takes wide liberties in frame shapes and blade configurations.

The usual caveats about two cents worth and varying mileage apply. Just my thoughts on the subject. A good one for discussion though.
 
Stainless steel blades ARE traditional. Queen started using them in the early 1920's. "Queen Steel" didn't rust, and it sold because of that, not in spite of it. Patinas I don't mind, but the bulk of old carbon steel knives that I have any experience with are RUSTED, not patinated. I have three old slipjoints that belonged to one grandfather and one from the other grandfather, and all four were in bad shape, rust in the backsprings and joints. Stainless wouldn't have been in that shape. As far back as the early 1920's, Case began chrome plating all of their fixed blade hunting knives blades, because of rust. Case changed to stainless backsprings on ALL of their folding knives in the early 1980's, because of warranty claims for loose joints and seized springs. Groaning and objecting to stainless steel blades is just silly to me. Why not complain about plastic handles and such, why, they're not bone or stag or anything! But wait, celluloid and composition plastic handles such as delrin have been around for many many decades.

How far back in materials, patterns, and build should one go before the definition of "traditional" is changed? Should we all go back to antler and sticks with chipped flint on them? That is what the "traditional" knife was for hundreds and hundreds of years. When the first guy came out and showed his buddies at the cave next door his shiny new bronze knife, did they all turn up their noses and mumble and fizz about it not being "traditional"? Then one day, some guy showed up with an iron blade, and instantly obsoleted the bronze one. Then damascus, then steel, and onward.

The definition of a traditional knife to me lies in the patterns and shapes. Everybody knows a traditional or a modern knife instantly when they see it, and it is not the steel within the blades that enables us to make that distinction. There is no mistaking a trapper, folding hunter, or stockman for a Spyderco Native or Benchmade 710, they are as different as can be.
 
Waynorth, I collect fish knives and have never seen the one on the left side of your post. Any more info you can pass on? I definitely need one of those in the collection.
 
realstag, so far I can tell you it was made for Abercrombie and Fitch, the outfitters. It has three backsprings, and the center one is for the can piercer, and it moves inward instead of outward when you open the device. It's extremely well fitted - a premium knife! I am looking for more info; can anyone add to this??
 
I only used stainless steel for a long time, chased around the latest super steel... well, you know the story. Then a year or two ago a knifemaker friend of mine talked me into trying carbon steel for regular use. He changed my knife habits completely!

I live in a hot and humid country, and I work outdoors sweating a lot. I find carbon steel fixed blades easy to mantain, but sometimes pocket knives can be a bit of a pain in the butt, getting rust in hard to reach places. I keep them oiled, but a drop of sweat and some nice South American humidity will cause rust in minutes!

I bought a Case trapper in CV and I'm giving it a try, it's summer here, the worst season for carbon steel, but I keep it in a buckaroo pouch with a thin coat of oil.

I LOVE the way carbon steel changes color, gets a nice patina. When you use a stainles steel blade, scratch it a bit or something, it looks ugly, while a nice carbon steel blade will get more and more beautiful with use.

So, short answer to the question, I do think you can have a traditional knife with stainless steel blades, in fact I would like to see more companies using quality stainless instead of "good enough" stainless steels.
 
Yes, stainless as a blade steel goes way back, to the 20's and earlier like PIA said.

Misc073.jpg


Here is another example:

ImperialSRBS004.jpg


and this Imperial too:

Imperial019.jpg


Or perhaps this Outers pattern:

Royal2.jpg

royallogo.jpg


So I would definitely call it traditional, and say there is room for both...

Glenn
 
It's an interesting dilemma. The patina aspect on carbon is undeniable,but to achieve it and maintain is very tricky.With small knives or multi blade sow-bellies rust spots can get in all kinds of awkward places, for food cutting stainless is obviously better(who wants oily steel taste in fruits or cheese etc?) Both are needed,and er it's yet another excuse to get 'just one more' knife...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top