- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
- Messages
- 2,826
Just looked over my new Cold Steel catalog and was surprised by how many of their folders were using the beefier Tri-Ad lock system. Prices were up dramatically, and it made me wonder how many people would spend the extra money on folder strength viz blade quality (and by "quality" I mean blade composition, not heat treat, etc.) Many people turn their noses up at AUS-8 and VG-1, but they keep the prices down and are decent performers, in my view.
There were four things Cold Steel could have done: 1) nothing, just continue with their present line; 2) improve their construction; 3) improve their steel to VG-10 or S30V; or 4) both (construction and steel).
The lockback design, in the opinion of many, is strong enough for most purposes. Likewise, the steel quality is more than adequate for the price. But boosting the strength of the knife construction and the prices of the knives is, to me, just the wrong way to go.
Three of the things I like about CS knives are their prices, their strength and their blade quality (and this time I do mean heat treat, etc.) I don't want to spend over a hundred bucks for a folder, and CS had many great knives that came in below that. Even their 4-inch 440A knives could be worked to blister-popping sharpness in seconds -- and they stayed sharper than many of my other knives. (I had several Boker Magnum 440A knives that weren't sharp out of the box, much less could they be sharpened later.)
All in all, I've found CS's steels to be very good. Their AUS-8 is about the best AUS-8 around, and their prices were pretty reasonable, too. In other words, their knives were a great balance between cost and quality.
The question now is, has Cold Steel gone too far? In your knife, which is more important, blade steel or strength in construction? And is the boost in strength in CS's knives worth the boost in price? Is CS's choice of steels adequate?
My own take is that I wanted a selection of folders that weren't quite as expensive as Spyderco's. And I liked the extra blade length CS offered.
What do you think? The present administration has taken the position that inflation is pretty much "zero." My knife catalogs don't really reflct that. How about yours?
There were four things Cold Steel could have done: 1) nothing, just continue with their present line; 2) improve their construction; 3) improve their steel to VG-10 or S30V; or 4) both (construction and steel).
The lockback design, in the opinion of many, is strong enough for most purposes. Likewise, the steel quality is more than adequate for the price. But boosting the strength of the knife construction and the prices of the knives is, to me, just the wrong way to go.
Three of the things I like about CS knives are their prices, their strength and their blade quality (and this time I do mean heat treat, etc.) I don't want to spend over a hundred bucks for a folder, and CS had many great knives that came in below that. Even their 4-inch 440A knives could be worked to blister-popping sharpness in seconds -- and they stayed sharper than many of my other knives. (I had several Boker Magnum 440A knives that weren't sharp out of the box, much less could they be sharpened later.)
All in all, I've found CS's steels to be very good. Their AUS-8 is about the best AUS-8 around, and their prices were pretty reasonable, too. In other words, their knives were a great balance between cost and quality.
The question now is, has Cold Steel gone too far? In your knife, which is more important, blade steel or strength in construction? And is the boost in strength in CS's knives worth the boost in price? Is CS's choice of steels adequate?
My own take is that I wanted a selection of folders that weren't quite as expensive as Spyderco's. And I liked the extra blade length CS offered.
What do you think? The present administration has taken the position that inflation is pretty much "zero." My knife catalogs don't really reflct that. How about yours?
