Is forging still worth it?

[Ed Schempp]

Forging has the advantage to the knifemaker of widing the scope of parameters around the construction of knives. The limit of the size of bar is gone, forging allows for moving material where it is needed. It allows more people to use less technological methods to accomplish some very fine blades. The more people that you have experimenting the more you learn. Pattern welded steel requires forging, and some of the coolest stuff has yet to be done. Powdered steels have allowed us to play with alloying and carbonizing and nitriding. Forging allows the individual artist to have more control over more varibles. Forging allows for beautiful pattern welded steel baldes and San Mai high preformance cores. Forging allows for the intergration of shaping and heat treating at the same time. Forging allows for the connection to history and many cultures. Clay pack water quenches are done all over the world. There are many parallels between working hot steel and the development of the human spirit, Forging allows for a greater connection and involvement between the maker and the knife. When you buy a forged blade, you get more of the makers soul...Take Care...Ed

 

[Kohai999]

You managed to mix science and art in one post without making an arguable statement. I need to learn about economy of process from you. I have seen it in your writing, and in your cutting. I hope sometime soon to see it in your forging, personally.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[Cliff Stamp]

The costs of belts is also irrelevant. Look at the price of high end forged knives, it is just silly to say that forging saves money due to belts or steel. The makers time is many times over more costly and that is much higher on forging than stock removal, compare water jet blanking or similar to forging to shape. High end knives are subject to cost based on the market, $1000 forged knives don't actually take 10x as much money to make as $100 ones. Scientific American is also not a peer reviewed materials journal.

Note as well that no one in the above actually tried to deal with the science in the arguement I listed, there is a reason for that. Believe what you want, it doesn't change the facts. Nice of you to belive someone in what they are selling, yeah that is a great source of unbiased info. Go ask Bill Gates about Windows vs Linux someday.

By the way, if you ask around, actually widen the scope of information, you will find lots of makers who will say the same things I said. Many of them are actual materials engineers as well and have actual read the journals I referenced, and hell even wrote for a number of them, some are still working in the field.

For those who think otherwise you should drop the editors of those journals a line and let them know the authors should publish retractions to the text books used in the field and the articles in the magazines. Would not want more people to be mislead like I am. Of course if you do so, you have to have an actual scientific arguement to dispute it. You just can't say, "You are wrong, I don't believe you, neener, neener, neener.".

-Cliff

 

[Josh Muller]

I have no intention of setting myself up for debate with Cliff, or anybody else. What you CAN do and what you do are two different things. It is also the manner in which you do it, and why.

For instance: from Scientific American,The Mystery of Damascus Blades; January 2001; by John D. Verhoeven; 6 page(s). Dr. Verhoeven IS a metallurgist, and HAS published a work regarded well by the Scientific Community concerning the above subject. One of his students, Ed Severson(sp?) went to work for Crucible shortly after graduation from college, and was key in the development of the CPM steels, unless my memory is failing me. He has since moved on to Uddleholm.

Cliff COULD tear that article and the inferences apart(for all I know, he has done so), but has he made Wootz, and then run studies on it? Pendray did, and he worked with Verhoeven for the article.

See, it is all speculation on the part of the bystanders, unless they have specific training in the areas of concern. Developing tests, and destroying knives can be objective or subjective, depending on what you are trying to learn. I never said that Cliff was not smart. I do not know him, or what his specific disciplines are. I do know that he does not make knives for a living, otherwise I would have seen some for sale somewhere.

That makes ALL the difference in my book. What you do for a living. I have no doubt that a veteranarian COULD do brain surgery on a human being based upon skill sets, but I would not want my brain surgery done by a veteranarian, only by a neurosurgeon. Does this make sense?

That is why although Cliff may be smart, and have developed some creative testing protocols for knives, I will accept what Goddard, Fowler and Verhoeven have to say on subjects concerning blades and metallurgy over what he has to say ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

execution is not the same as discussion. one of the reasons english is required to get a degree in science is so that said scientist can explain his findings to his peers and those outside of his field.

i wouldnt want the veteranarian to operate on me, but if he had done more reading on the subject of brain sugery then the surgeon himself, and has an easier or better way of explaining/discussing the issues regarding brain surgery - i will accept his arguments just as readily as the brain surgeons if they are stated clearly and logically. likewise, the veteranarian may have a much wider knowledge of the human brain through the study of animals and the available texts regarding it.

i trust cliffs opinions becuase they are a logical progression of what i see presented to me, wether he's experienced or not. researchers are often the ones who are qouted and read moreso then the scientists who performed the tests because the researchers are able to connect the findings to more sources though study. again, i trust cliff for his ability to do this and transfer it into an intelligent explanation.

 

[Kohai999]

I know Wayne and Ed, they have never really tried to sell me anything. I trust them, because I know them. I know their character and I know their work. Do you know Cliff? Have you ever met him, and looked in his eyes?

I said that Cliff was wrong about expenses, ie. the cost of belts. I didn't say he was wrong about what happens to steel during forging, because I have not researched it enough to speak intelligently about the subject.

"The costs of belts is also irrelevant. Look at the price of high end forged knives, it is just silly to say that forging saves money due to belts or steel. The makers time is many times over more costly and that is much higher on forging than stock removal, compare water jet blanking or similar to forging to shape. High end knives are subject to cost based on the market, $1000 forged knives don't actually take 10x as much money to make as $100 ones."

It is all in what the maker wants to get for their time, what they feel it is worth on an hourly basis. That is a fact. The cost of belts, bandsaw blades or carbide drill bits is hardly irrelevant. To say so shows a lack of knowledge as to what these things cost, or to not be personally paying for them.

"Scientific American is also not a peer reviewed materials journal."

While it is not a peer reviewed materials journal (sorry, just my lack of knowledge here, but that sounds like a circle jerk) Scientific American is a respected publication, and the information propagated in the Wootz article, to the best of my knowledge had never been (in the modern day) publicly presented. It seemed like a good point to make.


As far as research goes, Kinsey could tell me a whole lot about sex, but I have enjoyed coming, as it were, to my own conclusions via field research.

Cliff may be right about many of his statements. This is what I know-based on experience, and knowing knifemakers for 20+ years:

1. The equipment to set up a fully equipped shop for forging is considerably more expensive than for stock removal. Wayne Goddard wrote a book on the $50.00 knife shop, which I did not read, and that, I suppose is doable, but, the forge, anvil, hand hammers, hydraulic press/power hammer are all required for most professional forgers IN addition to the usual grinder/buffer/bandsaw/drillpress/milling machine.

2. Most knifemakers that I know that do stock removal cut out the blanks with a bandsaw. It takes about 2 hours to cut a 6" full tang knife out of 1/4" steel. Most forgers will already be setting bevels on a finished blank in that time. Water cutting and laser cutting are more for your "mid-tech"/semi-custom makers, people that have a number of patterns they use, and like to run the blanks in batches. Most of the makers that I do business with are more one-at-time.

3. The learning curve in forging is steep, and it takes a long time to develop mastery of the forge. You can learn to stock remove fairly quickly. The time that it has taken them to get to a certain point of proficiency, and subsequent results of product is why some forgers can get away with charging $1,000 or more for a performance blade.

Again Seth, trust who you want to with help making your decisions for you. FWIW, I generally tend to follow students of the Meier/Fogg school of knifemaking on the forging side, and the Loveless/Cronk school with regards to stock removal.

I tend to use knives like HI Khukuris, Dozier pieces and factory knives like Benchmade for my daily chores. I would not know about the performance in the field of many of the knives in my collection, because I won't use them. That is not why I got them. I got them because I appreciate the artistry and craft involved in making them, and to purposefully destroy them would be emotionally (and fiscally) upsetting.

Which Wilson of Wilson Knives are being referred to: George, James, Mike, Ron, Ryan, Philip, or R.W.? I tried to use the search feature, but I could not narrow the parameters down.

If it is Ryan, I like his knife designs quite a bit, and have handled some of them, I do not like bead blast finishes or the coatings offered. I may try to pick up one in satin finish, and try out some of my own tests.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[knife saber]

Sorry to jump in, but I have an engineering degree (meaningless, but it makes me feel good to say it) and a mild interest in metallurgy. Regarding the Scientific American article referenced above, I have read it, and fail to see any points made in that article which are in conflict with Mr. Stamp's comments above. The SciAm article was restricted to the recreation of wootz, and glosses over the forging process except to emphasize the importance of temperature control for grain formation - hammering is mentioned only in the context of shaping and crack prevention. This seems to dovetail with Mr. Stamp's remarks regarding relevant factors in grain formation/refinement.

As to the distinction between peer-reviewed journals and non-reviewed journals, it is an extremely important one - a far cry from a "circle jerk" (though I confess I don't actually know what that means). Peer review is the only way that journals can prevent misguided, poorly supported, or straight-out-ass-backwards information from reaching the public. Editors can only do so much when the content of an article lies outside their own training. Peer review allows for a much tighter control over the quality of science presented in those article. I read Scientific American, Popular Science, and other popular interest science magazines for fun - but I never completely trust their science until I find corroborating evidence in real journals.

Also to comment on the "people who CAN do vs. those who DO" argument above - I have found that those who are considered tops in their fields are often not fully cognizant of the science behind what they do. Cooks, for example, generally (but with more exceptions nowadays) don't know why, on a molecular level, their techniques make things taste good and why MY cooking makes things taste bad. Musical instrument makers use experience and intuition to build fine violins, but couldn't say exactly how (scientifically speaking) materials, shapes, and acoustic waves interact to make beautiful sounds. Science makes it perfectly possible to say, "THIS is what makes the whole process works" thus allowing anyone who can follow directions to reproduce the great-tasting cake, or superb violin, etc., etc.

The whole point of science is to trust objectively gathered data over the impressions and perceptions of people. Reproducibilty of results is the heart of scientific inquiry. When you come right down to it, that's a cold-hearted and often offensive way to live. For those people who value the appeal of "old world craftsmanship" and the human touch, it must seem an outright sin for some guy with an electron microscope to tell you that what your artisans are telling you is wrong. Character and humanity play no role in science - the whole point of an objective examination of anything is to remove the human from the equation.

All that said, my favorite knife is my forged Hayes hawkbill. *runs away*

 

[Keith Montgomery]

This another of those subjects that always seems to cause the debate to get heated.

At the end of the day it is the level headed and knowledgeable posts that are put forth by some that will educate those that are willing to consider what is being said, even if it goes against what they believe.

It might just be that because of my personal bias that I want to believe that forging makes a better knife. Maybe all the articles that I have read that state that this is indeed the case are written by people that feel the same way I do, or that have a personal stake in the debate. Whatever the case may be, at the end of the day I am still going to prefer forged blades, even if all that can be said is that forging makes a blade that is no better than the stock removal method is used. There is just something about someone pounding steel with a hammer that appeals to the artisan in me I guess.

 

[sodak]

There is just something about someone pounding steel with a hammer that appeals to the artisan in me I guess.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I agree with you.

It's quite possible that there is no significant difference, the science, from what I've seen, is quite complex. I would like to know what the "correct" answer is. I think that what a lot of people miss is that even if someone could prove that stock removal is just as good as forged steel, I would still buy some forged blades, all things being equal. I want to know the answer, but it won't change my behavior. Unless of course, forged steel was being heavily hyped and over priced, but that's a different matter altogether.

 

[galadduin]

Forging does not add carbon. It will however remove carbon. How much depends on the skill of the smith.

In a charcoal forge and with an experienced bladesmith you are wrong, but for most of situations, yes with modern methods and gas forges etc. decarburization is a fact. A rich charcoal forge (the classic way of forging) carburize the steel, infact the steel in old times made by carburizing iron in a forge or smelthing and folding and forge welding (just like making damascus) numerous times. The modern steel wont benefit from forging process but some of the common steels can be aus-forged. That means you forge a steel (say D2) bar to the shape you want at normal forging tempratures. Than at the end of the forging process you forge bevels of the blade at lower tempratures (below critical). Then normalise and then harden the knife. It is called aus-forging and I forge most of my knives this way. The knife made this way and properly heat treated, will perform lot more than the stock removal knife. But with all these modern steel you wont notice difference if you dont test the knife in exteme conditions. In real life many of us wont cut a thick rope couple hundered times with a knife without sharpening it a bit.

Best wishes,
Emre KIPMEN.

 

[Josh Muller]

"The costs of belts is also irrelevant. Look at the price of high end forged knives, it is just silly to say that forging saves money due to belts or steel. The makers time is many times over more costly and that is much higher on forging than stock removal, compare water jet blanking or similar to forging to shape. High end knives are subject to cost based on the market, $1000 forged knives don't actually take 10x as much money to make as $100 ones."

It is all in what the maker wants to get for their time, what they feel it is worth on an hourly basis. That is a fact. The cost of belts, bandsaw blades or carbide drill bits is hardly irrelevant. To say so shows a lack of knowledge as to what these things cost, or to not be personally paying for them.

if the maker uses 100$ in belts to make 10 knives, and each one of those knives sells for 1000$, he has used 100$ of 10,000$. 1% - that is why i think cliff states that it is irrelivent to the end cost of the knife. i beleive that high end equipement is a much, much higher cost, something that you will be paying off for a long time compared to belts - but that goes for both stock removal and foring. mill machines can be (and are) just as expensive as power hammers. and a lot of the expensive equipement is shared - such as heat treat ovens and grinders.

"Scientific American is also not a peer reviewed materials journal."

While it is not a peer reviewed materials journal (sorry, just my lack of knowledge here, but that sounds like a circle jerk) Scientific American is a respected publication, and the information propagated in the Wootz article, to the best of my knowledge had never been (in the modern day) publicly presented. It seemed like a good point to make.

answered wonderfully by saber. non peer review = almost anything goes as far as what you want to pass off as truth (on a scientific level - even if its very easily debunked through testing). peer review = people working in the feild and actively studying are your editors, so your much less likely to get away with complete misinformation.

Cliff may be right about many of his statements. This is what I know-based on experience, and knowing knifemakers for 20+ years:

1. The equipment to set up a fully equipped shop for forging is considerably more expensive than for stock removal. Wayne Goddard wrote a book on the $50.00 knife shop, which I did not read, and that, I suppose is doable, but, the forge, anvil, hand hammers, hydraulic press/power hammer are all required for most professional forgers IN addition to the usual grinder/buffer/bandsaw/drillpress/milling machine.

depends on what you want to do with your stock removal. if your doing things like airkat is doing, im not sure that a fully set up forging shop is all that more expensive. youd have to come up with a list of equipment for it, and im pretty sure you could regulate the difference by the models you choose.

 

[Josh Muller]

At the end of the day it is the level headed and knowledgeable posts that are put forth by some that will educate those that are willing to consider what is being said, even if it goes against what they believe.

wich is why i like cliff.

 

[Kohai999]

"depends on what you want to do with your stock removal. if your doing things like airkat is doing, im not sure that a fully set up forging shop is all that more expensive. youd have to come up with a list of equipment for it, and im pretty sure you could regulate the difference by the models you choose."

I was generalizing. There are extremes at both levels, I was using specific makers in mind. A guy like R.J. Martin has a CNC mill, those can run upwards of $100,000. Most makers in general do not have them. I was thinking of more of a guy like Larry Fuegen who has this to say about his philosophy from his website:

"I do not use any computer operated tools, milling machine or metal lathes, and only the basic tools are in my shop: a drill press, band saw, 2 belt grinders, and one buffer. Small hand tools are made as needed for special applications."

"These limitations created by the tools I do have force me to be more creative in how I approach the actual design and crafting of my work. It necessitates coming up with an idea that will work both with the tools and the abilities I have. This process forces me to be creative in my designs and fabrication techniques. It helps separate my work from the makers who rely only on their tools and I believe it creates a truly handmade item. I enjoy working with a collector to make something we can both be proud of."

That "low-tech" approach is used by most of the knifemakers that I know, and whose knives I own. I appreciate knives more that are made one-at-a-time, than those that are produced in batches, even though I own both types.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[LJK]

Hey Charlie Cheesewang:
Looks like you'll be needing more popcorn and soda.

 

[jedi_pimp]

You guys should really try a Fowler blade. They even have handles made from sheep from the Ranch where Fowler lives and works. Pretty cool.

He makes his knives by forging them, he knows 52100 better than anyone I think. If he could make his knives perform the same way by using the easier stock removal method, he probably would. It gets hot forging, especially in the summer. I saw a demonstartion at the 4H fair once. You would have to have some pretty strong arms too, to beat down all that metal.

Stock removal looks pretty easy in comparison, as you are just letting the machine grind away steel. I think that is why stock removal knifemakers usually have bigger bellys than forgers. At least from what I have seen at knife shows.

I also noticed that the guys who forge knives ususually bring their wife and kids to shows, and often have home cooked meals in insulated packs. Stock removal guys are usually there by themselves, and eat crappy fast food. Also, forgers usually wear cool hats like stetsons or akubra hats, and stock removal knifemakers wear baseball caps.

From all this I deduct that forging knives leads to a better product and a happier lifestyle.

 

[Kohai999]

Not all stock removal guys wear baseball caps. Phil Boguszewski wears a jaunty fedora.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[Josh Muller]

You guys should really try a Fowler blade. They even have handles made from sheep from the Ranch where Fowler lives and works. Pretty cool.

He makes his knives by forging them, he knows 52100 better than anyone I think. If he could make his knives perform the same way by using the easier stock removal method, he probably would.

for that, id like to see a comparitive test between swamp rat and fowler, both of wich use 52100. from what cliff has said, im pretty sure he's done such comparisons, with swamp rat coming ahead.

swamp rats stock removal methods are far from easy. you have a machine to do it for you, but you have to have a good 3 textbooks worth of technical knowledge to make them work - and their heat treat is again, far, far from easy.

 

[HJK]

As a matter of artistic expression and tradition, forging is a something with deep meaning and of great beauty for many people. In terms of raw "performance", all the science in the world is interesting, but rigorous experiment aka performance testing is the real proof. The Japanese changes their forging traditions when their blades didn't quite stand up to the test of the Mongols, so real world testing does have some value too. Masamune et al had their reputations and their "schools" for a reason: performance.

I would love to see rigorous test results and real world comparison tests, even though the latter will tend to the anecdotal and unrigorous.
But all that notwithstanding, I will still love and admire and seek out amazing forged blades. For the craft, the history, the beauty and yes, the performance.

 

[HJK]

PS
I'd like to see the test that shows a swamp rat "beat" a Fowler. Smashing and chopping to failure isn't the only or even best measure of performance. Is it? There are many folks here much more expert than me. I'll defer to them.

 

[Alpha Knife Supply]

for that, id like to see a comparitive test between swamp rat and fowler, both of wich use 52100. from what cliff has said, im pretty sure he's done such comparisons, with swamp rat coming ahead.

What do you want to learn from the test? If stock removal or forging makes a better performing knife? The only constant is the blade steel, and even that is variable because the knives would be from two different batches of steel. To do a valid test the variable must be minimized. Two knives from the same bar of steel that are heat treated the same. Two different knife models from two different knifemakers will not tell you anything.

 

[Alpha Knife Supply]

Forging has the advantage to the knifemaker of widing the scope of parameters around the construction of knives. The limit of the size of bar is gone, forging allows for moving material where it is needed. It allows more people to use less technological methods to accomplish some very fine blades. The more people that you have experimenting the more you learn. Pattern welded steel requires forging, and some of the coolest stuff has yet to be done. Powdered steels have allowed us to play with alloying and carbonizing and nitriding. Forging allows the individual artist to have more control over more varibles. Forging allows for beautiful pattern welded steel baldes and San Mai high preformance cores. Forging allows for the intergration of shaping and heat treating at the same time. Forging allows for the connection to history and many cultures. Clay pack water quenches are done all over the world. There are many parallels between working hot steel and the development of the human spirit, Forging allows for a greater connection and involvement between the maker and the knife. When you buy a forged blade, you get more of the makers soul...Take Care...Ed

Many of the points you wrote are why I'm fascinated with forging.

Forging is my favorite art form.