Just how expensive are premium steels?

[Swedge]

10% of msrp isn't much, once you account for all the markups prior to that. 10% street price comes to even less, of course.

I have no issue with the cost being for all practical purposes equivalent. But for savings of less than a buck or two, which I consider of little import, I don't expect people to act like they are getting some great deal.

But now you're mixing apples and oranges. 10% of street price isn't "less than a buck or two," is it? Allow me to play devil's advocate here (I deal with a lot of people on the internet, and some of it rubs off ).

If one online dealer is selling a knife is $100 and another online dealer is selling it for $90, and all other things being equal (shipping cost, reliability of the dealer, availability, return policy, etc.), almost everyone would choose the cheaper dealer. For the dealers, it's very significant.

And for manufacturers, their cost has a direct bearing on their price to dealers (or distributors, depending on the industry). Although no one else can offer their knife (since they have the trademark on their brand), there are often substitutes for their knife in the form of other brands that consumers see as equal.

When you are a manufacturer, unless you have a monopoly because of a patent or something like that, costs matter.

 

[orthogonal1]

First time I've seen savings minimalized.

Well if you take the Tyrade, and let's say we saved you 10% by going CB with it, that would fetch you a free bottle of decent scotch. In my book that's a great deal.

See, CB's can be your friend. It's all in one's perspective I guess.

Is there a tangible savings? I still don't have any idea whether there is any tangible savings in this "composite" blade usage. "Can be a 30% savings" is a nice discussion point, great for the boardroom perhaps, but "can" does not equate to "there is".

But let's run with the strictly hypothetical 10% savings to the consumer. A Tyrade ti seems to go for about $180, which means with a 10% savings it would have cost $200. Even when I drank liquor in the '80's, $20 would wouldn't get a decent scotch . In this day, $20 may be a day of food and drink, a movie, or 8 gallons of gas perhaps.

But lets say that the cost to make the knife is roughly 30% street price, approx $54. The monetary savings must be pretty small per unit to manufacture, else we would see these knives significantly under pricing the competition with full metal blades.

I'd gladly pay for a full CPM-D2 blade - oops, I did. A Military, which cost less problaby due to the scale/handle material.

Are you indicating that the majority of the Tyrade's cost is in the blade and not shown to some appreciable extent in the ti?

A substantive savings would get me a Tyrade for essentially the same cost of the same high-end steel Military.

Based upon your various writings, all I see is various comments alluding to a savings, discussions of a potential savings. I have yet to see or read about any appreciable savings, merely that there is some "savings".

I expect somewhere down the road for such appreciable savings to occur, but at this time the "savings" isn't enough to brag about or worry about IMO.

 

[orthogonal1]

But now you're mixing apples and oranges. 10% of street price isn't "less than a buck or two," is it? Allow me to play devil's advocate here (I deal with a lot of people on the internet, and some of it rubs off ).

If one online dealer is selling a knife is $100 and another online dealer is selling it for $90, and all other things being equal (shipping cost, reliability of the dealer, availability, return policy, etc.), almost everyone would choose the cheaper dealer. For the dealers, it's very significant.

And for manufacturers, their cost has a direct bearing on their price to dealers (or distributors, depending on the industry). Although no one else can offer their knife (since they have the trademark on their brand), there are often substitutes for their knife in the form of other brands that consumers see as equal.

When you are a manufacturer, unless you have a monopoly because of a patent or something like that, costs matter.

I have been under the impression that Kershaw is the assignee of a patent for these "composite" blades. So, one could say that Kershaw has a "monopoly" as far as the U.S. goes on the "composite" blade.

The discussion is not over competing products, it is over the same product wherein the comparison is between a full metal blade versus a "composite" blade. How much is the savings between the two and is the "savings" a tangible amount. Pure Granny Smith to Granny Smith, just from different sides of the orchard.

The competition is any competing product, in this case other "higher end" knives. Spyderco is probably the closest to Kershaw as far as the use of a variety of high performance steels goes, though Spyderco is handicapped due to production facilities - they farm out a fair amount, which appears to cost more these days. Whatever happened to Henry Ford's idea?

Final selling price also takes into affect what a company thinks it can charge - maybe Kershaw is seeing an 80% reduction in cost and simply marks up more since it can - and still sell the product. Be obscure as to actual savings per unit can be advantageous. In the knife market, basically a luxury item with lots of competition, I suspect profit margins are lowered more often than raised, though.

Hopefully many of us have taken basic micro-economics, macro-economics, manufacturing cost analysis, and other such tedious courses - so basic marketing is well understood since I believe they also still teach this subject in high school. And we all understand that some people will go to extremes to save a dime.

When I see Kershaw offer one of these "composite" bladed knives having a ZDP189 edge for $40, then I'll know that this technology has truely saved me money in comparison to the competition, assuming no one else is offering a clad ZDP189 blade for the same amount, anyway. That is tangible savings.

Show me the beef.

 

[Swedge]

The discussion is not over competing products, it is over the same product wherein the comparison is between a full metal blade versus a "composite" blade.

How much is the savings between the two and is the "savings" a tangible amount.

I agree that this is the point. I was only responding to your suggestion that a 10% cost savings was insignificant.

As you well know, cost and price are two different concepts, and frankly, as a purchaser, I don't care how much it cost the mfr. (or dealer). I only care about the price. If they are making a 1000% markup over their cost and I am satisfied with the price, more power to them.

I accept Thomas W's assertion "there is no doubt that CB's do in fact save monies vs. solid blades." In addition to the cost savings, there is also the aesthetic element to the CB, of course.

Maybe the cost savings of a CB over a full blade of premium steel don't amount to much to the consumer. It is helpful to me to know that there are savings. I realize my OP was overly ambitious in trying to find out how much of a savings there might be.