- Joined
- Sep 22, 2002
- Messages
- 400
I've only heard bad things about Ritter Steel. I've never actually held one, so this is all second-hand info: Mediocre steel, very poor balance, with thick edges to substitute for proper geometry. Not to mention misleading advertising copy. An example: "Genuine functional reverse-blade sword." That particular piece was stomach turning. The only smith I know of who's actually made a backwards katana is Rick Barrett, and from what I can gather, he did it for kicks.
Also, if you look at their Japanese blades, and take a fairly quick glance, it becomes obvious that whatever those are, they're not Japanese blade designs.
The Cold Steel swords aren't great, but they're head and shoulders above the Ritter Steel stuff. Geometry that better replicates historical shapes, with fittings and mounts that are more traditional, and therefore superior (this isn't a matter of opinion - the question was directed towards katanas, in which construction is a huge part of what makes the katana distinctly a katana) The polish is *blah* on them - a satin finish on the low end, and a satin/mirror finish on the high end.
Neither Ritter Steel nor Cold Steel heat treat their blades in the traditional manner, so, at their heart, neither can be said to make blades in the Japanese fashion. But the Cold Steel blades make an attempt (a not bad attempt) to replicate the functionality of the katana, which makes them (and Paul Chen/Hanwei, but that ground's already been covered) the most well known makers of entry level blades. There are other sword factories (as opposed to smiths), but many of them "share facilities." One well-known OEM is the Fred Chen (no relation to Paul Chen) operation in China, which makes Japanese-style blades for many companies.
(Sorry if the post came across as a rant, Japanese swords are near and dear to my heart. Well, all swords in general, but the Japanese variety seem to be most vulnerable to rip-off artists claiming that their goods are "functional")
Also, if you look at their Japanese blades, and take a fairly quick glance, it becomes obvious that whatever those are, they're not Japanese blade designs.
The Cold Steel swords aren't great, but they're head and shoulders above the Ritter Steel stuff. Geometry that better replicates historical shapes, with fittings and mounts that are more traditional, and therefore superior (this isn't a matter of opinion - the question was directed towards katanas, in which construction is a huge part of what makes the katana distinctly a katana) The polish is *blah* on them - a satin finish on the low end, and a satin/mirror finish on the high end.
Neither Ritter Steel nor Cold Steel heat treat their blades in the traditional manner, so, at their heart, neither can be said to make blades in the Japanese fashion. But the Cold Steel blades make an attempt (a not bad attempt) to replicate the functionality of the katana, which makes them (and Paul Chen/Hanwei, but that ground's already been covered) the most well known makers of entry level blades. There are other sword factories (as opposed to smiths), but many of them "share facilities." One well-known OEM is the Fred Chen (no relation to Paul Chen) operation in China, which makes Japanese-style blades for many companies.
(Sorry if the post came across as a rant, Japanese swords are near and dear to my heart. Well, all swords in general, but the Japanese variety seem to be most vulnerable to rip-off artists claiming that their goods are "functional")
. 
