Is Case's CV really that much better than tru sharp

J

jhall18

Joined
Apr 14, 2014
Messages
55
I have never tried Case's CV steel but I have used their tru sharp and I can get it shaving sharp and it holds an edge a decent amount of time. I see everyone on here talk about how much they like the CV steel and don't see many good things about tru sharp. So does CV preform that much better than tru sharp or do you guys just like it for the patina it takes. Thanks
 
Interesting question. I haven't looked at CV too much. I've assumed it's a form of 1095. I'll be curious to see the responses generated.
 
A couple of notable things. Case runs CV a tad harder than trusharp. You can actually feel it on a stone a little bit, trusharp feels kind of gummy, CV doesnt. Although CV is a bit harder, they sharpen about the same because trusharp gets a wire edge pretty easily that has to be knocked off. CV will hold an edge a little longer too.

I tend to like easy sharpening stainless, and trusharp fits that bill (I like SAK steel too) so I am happy with it. The only real usage concern I have is that a trusharp edge will roll under certain conditions, and that is annoying.

The other bias is that a lot of people in this forum really prefer carbon steel for it's patina qualities if nothing else.
 
I have a number of CV and stainless Case models. I don't know that I prefer one over the other. Stainless requires less work (don't have to oil it - doesn't rust like one of my CV Peanuts). Then again, the CV steel does get a nice patina after time. I find that I can get a sharper edge on my stainless knives, but that may just be my experience.

One thing I've noticed with the knives I've been receiving lately, and it may be only my personal experience: I find that the stainless models tend to have better QC out of the box - better blade sharpness out of the box, better blade alignment, less likelihood of loose blades in the bolsters, etc. Again, this may be only my personal experience with a dozen or so knives over the past year.
 
I actually like both. The Trusharp will take a wicked edge. So will the CV. They are both very easy to get a nice edge on. They may not hold it as long as some other steels, but I don't use my pocket knives for very rough chores anyway. I have other junker knives for that. Given a choice I'd probably opt for the Trusharp, but I like both. Cases CV steel isn't 1095 carbon so while it will rust and patina, it's not quite as bad as pure 1095 is. One thing I've found is that I can easily sharpen a Case knife while I struggle to get a decent edge on a GEC or a Queen.
 
I can get both equally sharp. The Tru-Sharp takes a little more work to get the burr off. CV takes more work keeping it maintained (keeping dry, oiling when needed). I like and use both.

I believe there is a significant portion, if not the majority, of active posters on this forum who prefer carbon steels for both the formation of patina and the perception that it is more traditional (i.e. goes back further in time for use in pocket knives) than stainless.

From a daily carry and light use perspective I don't see enough of a difference in them to make it worth worrying about.
 
A caveat from me. Like I said, I like easy sharpening stainless. That means that I a) enjoy sharpening and b) am pretty good at it. But I don't really enjoy sharpening D2 for example. Takes too long.

I am also a pretty light user: the occasion where a knife will dull enough to affect it's usability while using it is rare for me. If my knife gets less than pretty sharp, I fix it up at the end of the day (for trusharp and cv, a few strokes on an aluminum oxide stick or maybe some stropping or both will usually do it).

I dont skin or clean game. I dont usually go on box destruction binges. I whittle casually (this would be where CV is preferable).

Therefore, I have little use for supersteels. Your mileage may vary.
 
I think Knarfeng did some tests on this and found the CV does actually do a little better. IIRC, his tests are done cutting rope and/or cardboard and examining the edge for damage/dulling under magnification. I'm still trying to decide on a CV stockman or Trapper to replace my dads old Parker Trapper.
 
This thread is likely to open up a can of worms.




My personal experience is that I can sharpen CV and Tru-Sharp easily and that they both hold a good edge.

A discussion on the virtues of CV vs. Tru-Sharp is kinda like beating a dead horse but I'm game.

 
Last edited:
me2 said:
I think Knarfeng did some tests on this and found the CV does actually do a little better. IIRC, his tests are done cutting rope and/or cardboard and examining the edge for damage/dulling under magnification. I'm still trying to decide on a CV stockman or Trapper to replace my dads old Parker Trapper.
Click to expand...

I recently purchased a CV Rancher Mini Trapper with Wharncliffe blade. It's a very nice knife. Not sure if you want the large Trapper - but I find this knife a good size for my hand.
 
I have some Case Tru Sharp that never really gets very sharp. Was told here that it's because the grind on some of those models is a little thicker (I'm sorry I forget what member here thoroughly explained to me). So it's fine on my smaller Case and models with a thinner edge but on my Russlock and a stainless Muskrat...it only gets utility sharp. Case CV is great and gets razor sharp on any knife I have, no problems. So now, I primarily look for CV when shopping for Case, no exceptions (I like patina too)!
 
Having had both and liked both, I cans ay that both are good cutlery steels. But, they are different creatures. You really can;t compare characteristics of a carbon steel at a higher RC to a milder stainless steel. It's apples and oranges. Buty I can tell you that true sharp does way better with a coarser edge on it than you would put on a CV blade.

I think I've lived long enough to finally draw some conclusions from all the mistakes I've made, and one is, don't get carried away sharpening a stainless blade in the milder steels like the true shape from Case, Whatever Victorinox uses in their SAK's, and other stales blades that may be in the mid 50's range. For them, I found out quite accidentally that the edge I got off ann old "carborunum" stone, what is now called a silica carbide stone, actually lasts very noticeably longer under "hard use" (yeah, I actually used that term, I'm going to self flog myself right after typing this) like slicing cardboard while breaking down boxes for the recycle bin. I can't explain in technical jargon, but I just noticed that the old toothy course edge off an old Norton economy stone or my old boy scout stone I found in the attic, does a better job on mild stainless blades in the RC55 range.

Try putting a bit courser edge on the true sharp, and you may get a surprise on how much longer it cuts before needing a touch up. Coffee mugs work well too, but don't use too fine a grit bottom.
 
jackknife said:
Having had both and liked both, I cans ay that both are good cutlery steels. But, they are different creatures. You really can;t compare characteristics of a carbon steel at a higher RC to a milder stainless steel. It's apples and oranges. Buty I can tell you that true sharp does way better with a coarser edge on it than you would put on a CV blade.

I think I've lived long enough to finally draw some conclusions from all the mistakes I've made, and one is, don't get carried away sharpening a stainless blade in the milder steels like the true shape from Case, Whatever Victorinox uses in their SAK's, and other stales blades that may be in the mid 50's range. For them, I found out quite accidentally that the edge I got off ann old "carborunum" stone, what is now called a silica carbide stone, actually lasts very noticeably longer under "hard use" (yeah, I actually used that term, I'm going to self flog myself right after typing this) like slicing cardboard while breaking down boxes for the recycle bin. I can't explain in technical jargon, but I just noticed that the old toothy course edge off an old Norton economy stone or my old boy scout stone I found in the attic, does a better job on mild stainless blades in the RC55 range.

Try putting a bit courser edge on the true sharp, and you may get a surprise on how much longer it cuts before needing a touch up. Coffee mugs work well too, but don't use too fine a grit bottom.
Click to expand...

+1 Esp. on SAKs, I think a medium grit diamond gives me better results than a finer grade...I like a more toothy edge on stainless as well. Unfortunately, it really doesn't help much on those two Case knives I mentioned. They need a thinner grind or something.
 
Last edited:
I'm not into the minutia of steel formulas at all. If it does what I want, I consider it a good knife no matter what kind of steel is in the blade. But I admit that I'm partial to Case's CV steel due to nostalgia and the memory of the knives used in my youth. I've had very little experience with TruSharp but I don't really see a dime's worth of difference between them in cutting ability and my regular daily uses. Both sharpen easily for me on any of several types of sharpeners and both hold edges well with the stuff I'm normally slicing and cutting. The CV blades on my Case knives look old and well used after slicing only a few apples for snacks and quartering a few limes to squeeze into my lagers and ales. The TruSharp blades look new and unused until they get scratched.
 
lboilgas said:
I have never tried Case's CV steel but I have used their tru sharp and I can get it shaving sharp and it holds an edge a decent amount of time. I see everyone on here talk about how much they like the CV steel and don't see many good things about tru sharp. So does CV preform that much better than tru sharp or do you guys just like it for the patina it takes. Thanks
Click to expand...

The one biggest difference I've seen, in more recent-generation knives from Case (let's say ~1990s and forward), is that I've noticed a wider variation in the behavior of the Tru-Sharp stainless, in terms of how some of them take a fine edge (or not), or how long they'll hold it. In the most-recent knives (post-2000), on the other hand, I've sometimes been amazed at the near identical appearance and behavior (in sharpening up) of the two steels. I like the '75 pattern stockman knives from Case, and I currently have recent versions in both steels that look essentially identical, in terms of how the steel sharpens, polishes, cuts and holds fine edges. The little bit of spotting seen on the CV blades is about the only thing that gives it away (aside from the 'CV' stamp). Generally speaking, the Tru-Sharp blades will always burr a little more when sharpening up, and require a little more TLC in cleaning those up. Once done, they otherwise look & behave very much like the CV blades.

Some of my older Tru-Sharp blades from Case have exhibited a wider variation in how they sharpen up; some don't seem to be nearly as fine-grained, or exhibit the same springy temper or edge-holding. All of these attributes are greatly affected by differences in heat treat, even if the steel is exactly the same composition.


David
 
Last edited:
Both are common run of the mill stuff for run of the mill knives. I like the CV better. Their low end knives are good users, just run of the mill. That said I have been pleased with my 39 year old yellow delrin slimline trapper. The Tru sharp slimline I had didn't sharpen like the CV nor hold and edge as well. I gave away my Tru Sharp model soon after buying it.
 
There have been some opinions here from people who's opinions I respect saying they are alike. Still, I'm far from an expert, but I like the CV better. They're both easy to sharpen but the CV seems to hold an edge better. Maybe it's because I'm a carbon steel guy.
 
Personal preference is for Case's CV steel. I just feel I can get it sharper, and I like watching it develop a patina/character as I use it. That said, one of my favorite Case knives, my medium jack, is in Tru-Sharp. Not quite as sharp as my yellow Peanut, but it still shaves arm hair easily and slices newspaper cleanly.
 
Having used and sharpened both, I couldn't tell much difference, other than the somewhat more difficult burr removal when sharpening, as noted in other posts. Both are OK and on par with the vast majority of edgeholding of knives of similar heritage, i.e. most traditional pocketknives
 
In my experience there's not much difference, other than their feel on the stones. MarkPinTx nailed my sentiments on the "gummy" feeling of softer (<57) stainless. I have found that bigger angles and lower grits help soft stainless, so 40° inclusive and 400 grit instead of 30° and 600 grit for CV. For 95% of what I use a pocket knife for, there is no practical difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top