Fura, Eafengrow, etc. - False Advertising?

redsquid2

redsquid2

Красивы Поросенок
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
3,063
I recently discovered the spreadsheet linked below, which claims to show independent hardness test results, as well as steel analysis. Can anyone vouch for the accuracy of the data?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OepNr_D4lqbdTFqdqWl1rmAd4bOzPzJe6J0iEWrdJGU/edit#gid=0

If the analysis is correct, then Fura and Eefengrow, along with Kolour, Y-Start, and Komoran are not even made of the steel they claim to be made of.

I see one Ganzo model that fails the steel analysis as well.

Another question: how in the world do you sharpen Spyderco's Maxamet, if it is 69 HRC?
 
Last edited:
redsquid2 said:
If the analysis is correct, then Fura and Eefengrow, along with Kolour, Y-Start, and Komoran are not even made of the steel they claim to be made of.
Click to expand...

I can't speak to the validity of the data sheet or comment on the maxamet question, the above portion I quoted does not surprise me if it's true in the slightest however.
 
Hackenslash said:
If the companies in question are willing to steal other people's designs, how could you expect them to be honest about the materials used to commit theft?
Click to expand...

Aside from them stealing designs, not knowing the materials they use puts me off. But people will, unfortunately, continue to purchase them even if you try to convince them otherwise.

Ganzo apparently makes good cheap knives, but they are thieves. I don't like thieves.
 
I bought a Eafengrow css-333 D2 in 2017 for re-ht purpose. Finally re-ht this blade last month. First re-ht, it heated/austenite at 1850F 30 minutes soak, then cryo quenched = FAILED where at quench hardness below 50rc. While D2, psf27, D6 blades in the same ht batch hardened accordingly. At this point, I suspected (and mentioned in a bf thread) this steel isn't D2 but a low end stainless steel. Second re-ht 1975F 30 minutes soaks + cryo = 62rc working hardness. Corrosion test exhibits similar to aeb-l. Anyway, make sense that this blade steel is 8Cr13Mov. Which has similar outcome as Enlan Bee EL-01A 8Cr13Mov blade I re-hted using 1975F aust temperature and soak.
 
As far as I know, this data sheet is the project of LuvThemKnives and a few other folks who started doing independent testing. I'm very glad that they did because answers are better than questions, especially when it comes to lesser-known companies. It opens a window on the industry and helps to promote higher standards.

Eafengrow is pretty notorious, mostly because they sell on Amazon. They are an unscrupulous rebrander. In essence, they buy blank knives from mystery companies and stamp them with their company logo plus whatever steel identity they think will help them to sell. A notable exception is that they also import the otherwise decent CH knives (with accurate stamps). While that's cool, I can't bring myself to patronize Eafengrow. If I want a CH knife, I'll just buy it through other global marketplaces and wait for the overseas shipping.

The one Ganzo knife in question is an older model and it could be a case of temporary substitution, supply chain issues, etc. Notice that their more recent D2 knives have all tested accurately. Ganzo takes a lot of heat for copying designs or design elements. The thing we tend to forget is that Chinese manufacturing has different realities. As far as I know, Ganzo got their start manufacturing knives for other companies that were outsourcing to China. (As Kevin Cleary put it in his defense of Ganzo, some of the people attacking them might have a Ganzo-made knife in their pocket and not know it.) Over time, it seems like they've been trying to stand up and be a legitimate company. Now they've got several original designs. Their D2 is real D2, albeit "Chinese D2". In my experience, they make a decent product for the price tag.
 
gazz98 said:
@Larrin

I don't know much about steel. But I know Larrin knows about steel.

redsquid2 redsquid2 Do you know who/what company generated that datasheet?
Click to expand...

I can't remember where I got the spreadsheet, don't see any claim on it from a company. Sorry.
 
I am, frankly, skeptical of the source, not because of their methodology, but because they've been willing to extrapolate ridiculous conclusions from insufficient data, but I have very little trouble believing those particular companies aren't using the materials they claim to. That said, that's an example of my bias and, given that this was the source of the claims against Lionsteel that proved to be utterly false, I wouldn't draw any hard conclusions from this whatsoever.
 
This data set comes from a good friend who does Rockwell testing and PMI testing as part of his job every day. He also now has a Rockwell tester at home thanks to some donations. Both machines have been professionally calibrated and certified. I'd respectfully disagree with Insipid Moniker Insipid Moniker about the Lionsteel issue. Brad from Peter's Heat Treat verified the Rockwell results, but also got some spots that were harder. Something was definitely wrong with that M390, as no steel should have that much variation in hardness. Albeit, some conclusions were hastily made about Lionsteel in general that should not have been. The knives that have been tested have come from many people including myself, LTK, SuperSteel Steve, Outpost 76, @Alchemy1 , and many others. I trust the HRC results in that spreadsheet 100% since the person doing the testing has been professionally trained.

Regarding 69 HRC Maxamet...I have 2. One is 69.2 and the other is 68.9. Both sharpen absolutely beautifully on diamond stones. Just because it's hard doesn't mean that it's impossible to sharpen. Just have to use the correct tools for the job.

Edit: You can see the results from the test at Peter's in that spreadsheet. The 2 Lionsteel slip joints have a (Peter's) next to the HRC.
 
I'm pretty sure redsquid2 redsquid2 got that spreadsheet link from me in another thread.

I mentioned it like five posts up. Even if my post was a TLDR, that was literally the first sentence. :(

As far as any criticism for the guys doing the testing, this was a grass-roots thing on the part of volunteers within the gear community. They're doing something new here. I think it's a pretty big deal. I'm sure it has been a learning process. I think their continued work stands to benefit the community at large so let's be supportive.
 
tomhosang said:
This data set comes from a good friend who does Rockwell testing and PMI testing as part of his job every day. He also now has a Rockwell tester at home thanks to some donations. Both machines have been professionally calibrated and certified. I'd respectfully disagree with Insipid Moniker Insipid Moniker about the Lionsteel issue. Brad from Peter's Heat Treat verified the Rockwell results, but also got some spots that were harder. Something was definitely wrong with that M390, as no steel should have that much variation in hardness. Albeit, some conclusions were hastily made about Lionsteel in general that should not have been. The knives that have been tested have come from many people including myself, LTK, SuperSteel Steve, Outpost 76, @Alchemy1 , and many others. I trust the HRC results in that spreadsheet 100% since the person doing the testing has been professionally trained.

Regarding 69 HRC Maxamet...I have 2. One is 69.2 and the other is 68.9. Both sharpen absolutely beautifully on diamond stones. Just because it's hard doesn't mean that it's impossible to sharpen. Just have to use the correct tools for the job.

Edit: You can see the results from the test at Peter's in that spreadsheet. The 2 Lionsteel slip joints have a (Peter's) next to the HRC.
Click to expand...
Well, that's quite a bit better than "I don't know where it came from or who did it but here is a bunch of information for us to discuss".

Care to put a name on this?
 
redsquid2 said:
I recently discovered the spreadsheet linked below, which claims to show independent hardness test results, as well as steel analysis. Can anyone vouch for the accuracy of the data?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OepNr_D4lqbdTFqdqWl1rmAd4bOzPzJe6J0iEWrdJGU/edit#gid=0

If the analysis is correct, then Fura and Eefengrow, along with Kolour, Y-Start, and Komoran are not even made of the steel they claim to be made of.

I see one Ganzo model that fails the steel analysis as well.

Another question: how in the world do you sharpen Spyderco's Maxamet, if it is 69 HRC?
Click to expand...

Also: If you toss something up, it'll come back down. I hear from a reputable source that if you add two to two you end up with four!

Snark aside, those brands have long been suspected of lying about the materials used. Even anecdotally the performance just didn't correlate. I've owned an Eafengrow before and while it was nicely manufactured, the edge holding was worse than anything I've experienced. I had an edge roll cutting some cotton string...

That's not to say that every knife manufactured in China is a fraud. The M390 I had from Reate seemed to perform better than any m390 I've had from domestic and European manufacturers. (I haven't had any m390 from Spyderco.)
 
craytab said:
Well, that's quite a bit better than "I don't know where it came from or who did it but here is a bunch of information for us to discuss".

Care to put a name on this?
Click to expand...

His name is Kurt. If you watch my videos or any of the guys I mentioned above, we talk about him quite a bit. Kurt is a phenomenal guy who is doing all of this for free just so the knife community has data points on what they're buying. He also is now doing videos of him testing the knives when he gets them in. You can find him under the YouTube name of JCoolG19. I believe it started with offering to test a knife or two to compare some cut test data points and see how they related to HRC, and now it's blown up to him testing dozens and dozens of knives. That spreadsheet is probably less than 25% of everything that's been HRC tested.
 
tomhosang said:
His name is Kurt. If you watch my videos or any of the guys I mentioned above, we talk about him quite a bit. Kurt is a phenomenal guy who is doing all of this for free just so the knife community has data points on what they're buying. He also is now doing videos of him testing the knives when he gets them in. You can find him under the YouTube name of JCoolG19. I believe it started with offering to test a knife or two to compare some cut test data points and see how they related to HRC, and now it's blown up to him testing dozens and dozens of knives. That spreadsheet is probably less than 25% of everything that's been HRC tested.
Click to expand...
Excellent! Thank you for the information.
 
Last edited:
Chronovore said:
I'm pretty sure redsquid2 redsquid2 got that spreadsheet link from me in another thread.

I mentioned it like five posts up. Even if my post was a TLDR, that was literally the first sentence. :(

As far as any criticism for the guys doing the testing, this was a grass-roots thing on the part of volunteers within the gear community. They're doing something new here. I think it's a pretty big deal. I'm sure it has been a learning process. I think their continued work stands to benefit the community at large so let's be supportive.
Click to expand...
Doing something with the intention to benefit the community is commendable. Spreading false information about respected dealers and manufacturers extrapolated from said information is not and, for me at least, immediately kills any desire to support the project in any way shape or form lest they throw another dealer or manufacturer under the bus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top