I guess we're going to have to disagree here. If you look at most Japanese single bevel blades, there actually is supposed to be a slight convex to the bevels. Yanagibas and usubas, for example, are supposed to be sharpened with a slight hamaguriba (convex edge). The softer cladding allows you to more easily sharpen back into thicker sections and raise the shinogi line. In this, I guess our experiences are just different. I find it much more pleasant to thin tall laminated bevels on a stone vs monosteel and haven't noticed loading problems, etc.
It's important to emphasize, I'm talking about thinning, not merely sharpening. I have nothing against monosteel. Many chefs prefer it. But monosteel knives will eventually have to go back to the maker for thinning (and this is often done in Japan). A Japanese sushi chef is more likely to thin his laminated yanagiba as he sharpens; that's simply the sharpening culture over here.
There is a backlash, I think, against the hype of Japanese knives. We have gone from "ooh, they make their blades like samurai swords and that's why they're the bestest" to, "they blindly follow tradition, and there's no logical reason for the way they do things." Perhaps both assertions are wrong?
EDIT: I should add, that I agree with you about plastic deformation. Being able to easily straighten post-HT makes the knife maker's life easier, but it definitely doesn't make it a better knife. However, it's also not necessarily a problem for the knife user, if the blade geometry is done right.
As long as we both have reasons for our opinions, and are willing to explain them, I think it's not just ok, but good, to have differing views. I'm glad you took my response as a desire for constructive dialogue, as was it's intent.
In this public forum, it's really not important for us to agree, more that our views are laid out with details as to why, so that the less knowledgeable on-lookers can come to an informed decision themselves, as opposed to blindly reading "This or that is just better", and then going around repeating that without a foundation of reason, as their "opinion".
As to what we were originally discussing, what you're saying makes sense, and as you say, much of it is preference. Personally I'd just rather go to a more aggressive stone to thin out the bevel(honestly I think people that aren't makers are much too afraid to mess something up, by jumping to an appropriately coarse abrasive), or, back to the grinder, but obviously my view, and the area of focus for this area of the forum, is from an equipped "Knifemaker's" standpoint.
I'm also interested in the perceptions about Japanese knives/makers, and I agree, that neither extreme regarding their perception is fair/accurate. The reality, most likely, is somewhere in between. To be fair, there is huge deference to traditionalism in Japanese culture, and a resistance (in the modern base cultural default) by the mainstream Japanese to question that. I worry that many Japanese smiths, and (as I see very often) Western, Japanese Cutlery enthusiasts, and makers trying to emulate that style, don't understand the basis of these traditions, and defer to them with almost religious reverence.
There are outliers however, I've definitely seen some really innovative Japanese knifemakers in the last decade.
Anybody that knows me, will tell you, that I am not the type of person that thinks there's any one "right way" to do anything, and I try to be really open minded that not only, is my style, not universal, but we *NEED* all kinds of makers, and knives, in this field. I often look at a knife of another maker, where I don't personally enjoy the aesthetics, but it's important to be impartial, and evaluate based on skill, talent, and intent, regardless of whether I find the form itself to be "right". However, based on my overt individualism most likely, I can not tolerate, doing something a certain way, simply because someone was told, that it's the "way to do it", and because of reverence, that not only being repeated, but vehemently defended, without any basis.
I am, without any doubt, that most of the traditions in Japanese cutlery, came about from pragmatic necessity. I do have big doubts however, if many of them remain, for any reason other than traditionalism, and whether many of the smiths even know the reasons.
Western makers are just as guilty, and have failed to educate their customers also. I can not tell you how many makers and collectors, believe the Ricasso of a knife is simply an antiquated, aesthetic tradition, and think that traditional style makers are simply following that blindly. Nothing could be further from the truth, but even the people that are supposed to know why they use this construction method, don't understand why, because they're deferent to whatever "great maker" they learned from. The Ricasso however, is the foundation of a knife, in the most literal since. It's the index point for straight, parallel, and center. It exists for very good reason, and it amazes me that anybody who understands the slightest history of this craft, could think otherwise. The masters of previous centuries didn't do much, without a really good reason.
Of course, with all crafts and trades, there are always a large contingent of it's practitioners, that simply "learn" one thing, one way of doing something, and repeat it, into infinity (or they die.) It's understandable, sometimes you simply want things to be simple, and get consistent results, unfortunately, at least to me, nothing in this art is ever simple, and trying to force that, ultimately dilutes it, and proliferates misconceptions.
Ok well, we've fully derailed the OPs post. Tenebr0s, if you ever want to discuss knife philosophy or the East/West cultural divides further, please don't hesitate to email me.
javan.dempsey@gmail.com
