Marble's 52-100 vs. Marble's Alchemite MC

Joined
Jan 25, 2000
Messages
4,492
I am sure by now that we have all heard the reports concerning the changes at Marble’s. These include such topics as warranty issues, QC problems, reduction of handle options and perhaps the most noteworthy of all, the change from the widely accepted 52-100 to the new stain resistant mystery steel known as Alchemite MC.

As a long time Marble’s fan, I was obligated to voice my opinion of these recent changes to the powers that be. What I received back from them was a cordial reply that attempted to answer all my questions and put my fears to rest. I was still skeptical and told them so. They replied that I should not be so quick to judge the steel until I had a chance to use it. As a result, they agreed to send me a trial blade using the new steel for evaluation. That was very gracious of them and it did show me that they at least have confidence in the new steel. Which brings us to the meat of this review, comparing the Marble’s Plainsman in 52-100 to the new Plainsman in Alchemite MC.


While I am far from being an experienced knife tester, I did attempt to standardize the tests performed the best that I could. These are most likely not repeatable by anyone other than myself as everyone has their own style :D . The blades were sharpened in the same manner as I routinely sharpen my convex edges. I simply use a Styrofoam backer board and strop the blade with firm pressure from spine to edge using 400 grit and then 800 grit Silicon Carbide paper. I then finish by stropping on a leather strop loaded with chrome rouge. The edges were touched up in this manner preceding each test. Here are my results!

Edge Holding – cardboard slicing

The first test that I performed was the slicing of corrugated cardboard. I simply started with 12” wide sections, placed them edge up (overhanging my bench so as to not contact it when slicing) and counted the number of slices cut before the edge would no longer shave. I tried to judge each stroke so that the entire blade passed through before the cut was completed. The results were as follows;

52-100 96 cuts
Alchemite MC 75 cuts

Both knives sliced through the cardboard very easily with a slight edge going to the Alchemite MC model. I believe that this is a direct result of my 52-100 blade being made from 7/32” stock whereas the new blade was much thinner at 5/32”.

Edge Holding – ½” manila rope

After the blades were touched up, the next test was simple rope slicing on a slab of seasoned cherry. The profile of this blade made the rope cutting a little more difficult than some previous knives I have tested due to the long, gradual upswept blade. I kept slicing rope until the edge lost it’s bite and started to slide. It would not even scrape hair at this point. The results were as follows;

52-100 88 cuts
Alchemite MC 70 cuts

Both knives started out cutting very easily with the 52-100 blade seeming to be a little more aggressive on this medium.

Chopping – knotty, pine 2” x 2”

Next I attempted to test the edge retention when chopping through knots in a couple of 2” x 2”’s. The reason I used a 2” x 2” is the fact that these knives are small, light knives and I would have been quite a while whacking through a 4” x 4” :D Anyway, each knife eventually chopped it’s way through a knot approx. 2/3 the size of the wood. The knife edge was basically unaffected and remained razor sharp and with no rolling. This is not surprising given the light weight of these knives and the relatively low level of impact. The older model with the thicker bar stock proved to be a much better chopper but was still out of it’s element.

Stain Resistance – lime slicing

The next test was nothing more than to verify the increased stain resistance of the new steel. I sliced ½ a lime very thinly and then allowed the blade to sit for approx. 10 minutes or so. First up was the 52-100 blade. I routinely coat my carbon blades with Tuff-cloth and this blade was no exception. It passed this test with no obvious discoloration whatsoever. Surprisingly, the same could not be said for the new steel. The blade was heavily colored a very light shade of brown. It was not permanent however, as it cleaned up nicely with some Metal-Glo.

Edge quality

As far as sharpness goes, the 52-100 blade just seemed to take a more refined edge. Both sharpened up easily, but the new steel just didn’t seem to get to the next level of sharpness. They were pretty equal coming off the 800 grit paper, but I guess that the 52-100 just responded to the strop a little better.

Conclusion

After this brief and very unscientific comparison, it is my opinion that the new steel is not quite to the same level as the 52-100. While it still performed pretty well, it was surpassed in my testing by the 52-100. Judging from the figures it would appear that the 52-100 blade outcut the Alchemite blade by approx. 25%. Needless to say, I feel that the Marble’s 52-100 performs very well and can more than hold it's own against a majority of the factory offerings. In order to put my numbers for these two blades into perspective, I plan on testing the Fallkniven F1 this week to see how it stacks up to the Marble’s. I will update this thread and post my results when they are available. While I am not confident enough in my own test results to judge the new steel on my own, or for you to judge it, I have enlisted the services and expertise of another one of our Forumites. His results are sure to add a valuable perspective into the overall evaluation of this knife. While I focused on hard, fast numbers generated under planned testing, he will be sure to add findings resulting from real world use. The knife is enroute to him now and he will post his findings here as well. It should be interesting so stay tuned.
 
Thanks Blademan,

I was afeared that the new could not keep up with the proven. I have just recently gotten into Marble's knives and really like them. I have a Special Hunter with horn handle and a Trailcraft with maple handles. The Trailcraft is my small fixed blade EDC and has prefomed very well. I was hoping to get a larger Marble's knife but I will definately find one in 52100 if I do.

Thanks Dean
 
Just a thought for you guys that love the Marbles 52100 blades. Smoky Mt sent me a catalog yesterday with some closeouts on the older models with the 52100 blades. One particular knife listed was one with a kraton rubber handle for about $25! It seems to me that the rubber might be pretty easy to remove and replace with something like a nice wood or micarta or stag.
 
Has Marbles even said what hardness they are running their new surgical stainless as opposed to the 52100. It could be that you are simply seeing the effect of a lower RC. While 52100 can reach 60 RC easily, most stainless steels fall under it quite quickly when tempering. There are exceptions to this of course like ATS-34, BG-42 etc., however if Marbles was using these you would think they would just say so as they are well known.

In regards to repeatability, the easiest way to look at this is to simply do the cutting again, including a fresh sharpening. This will show you how much variability there are in the results, due to things like material consistency, speed of cutting, initial edge etc. . There is of course the possibility of a bias from the last result "forcing" a similar one again, but you can eliminate this with a few simple measures.

In any case, informative work. Have you shown this to Marbles and asked for some comments? In what way do they promote superior performance for the new steel?


In regards to the corrosion resistance comparison, so it was 52100 + Tuff-Cloth vs mystery steel with no coating?

-Cliff
 
Cliff,

I do not know what the Rc figures are for the steels. I would assume that it would be well under the 60 figure as I very much doubt that it is either of the 2 steels you mentioned. This blade sharpened much easier than the convex edge on my F1 which uses VG-10 at approx. 59 Rc. While there is more to ease of sharpening than hardness (alloy, edge geometry, etc.) I would be surprised if was as hard. I just don't see how they could sell a blade made from a premium steel (and related high quality heat treat), throw in a good bunch of hand finishing and then get it out the door for $80.00 on the street? They are complaining about not making money now.

You are correct in the simple "running again" of the cutting tests to validate the initial numbers. I avoided this initially because of any tendencies I had to match or better my initial numbers. Once I receive the knife back I do plan on testing them again. I will likely have forgot what the figures were from my initial testing and let the new numbers fall where they will.

Marble's has not promoted their new steel to be superior in any way to the 52-100 with the exception of increased stain resistance. I was not trying to disprove any claims of increased performance, only to see how much (if any) performance was lost in the quest for a more marketable product.

You are correct on the corrosion resistance. It was a treated blade vs. an untreated. The reason for this was that I simply wanted to compare the standard way that I care for a carbon blade to the standard way most of the people whom Marble's believes will buy these blades will care for their's.
 
First let me state that Jamie is being too humble about his experience. I have one of Jamie's knives and I can tell you that he is an accomplished maker, and from our email discussions I know he is very knowledgable about knife use and design. One slice with the thin convex edge he puts on a knife is enough to tell the user that Jamie know his stuff. Never mind his excellent micarta work and hand rubbed satin finishes :)
Your results are about what I expected, and to me 25% is a huge difference in steel performance for wear resistance. It is larger than the difference I have seen between 440C and Ats34 (about 10-15%) and 440C v. BG42 (about 20% and this was with an excellent Paul Bos heat treat.)
Marble's may be paying more for the new steel, but this is misleading as chromium is expensive relative to other alloying elements, but only adds in corrosion resistance and usually has a negative effect on impact resistance. The impact on wear qualities is greatly effected by what other alloying elements are present.
I really don't like the "mystery name" marketing ploy.

Take care,
Chad
 
If you are concerned about past results influencing new ones, there are lots of ways to prevent it. For example, just get a friend to do an unknown number of cuts before you do. You can also take the judgement out of the stopping point.

For example, tape a sheet of paper to a desk/chair/whatever, and use the ability to slice (or push) through the paper as a test of sharpness. Push cutting ability will be lost quite rapidly, but the slicing ability will stay for quite some time.

As for mystery, if the switch was indeed one that was functional, and gave definate gains over 52100, why don't they just outline it in a clear manner. The only reason that you go vague is that the facts don't support your argument.

-Cliff
 
Chad,

I feel that 20-25% is indeed a large margin if this ultimately proves to be the case. I remember a couple years ago when Ed Fowler tested a vintage Marble's knife against the new ones in 52-100. He said that the IMPROVEMENT was roughly +35%! I just would really hate to see performance go back the other way to such a large degree.

Cliff,

All good points, well taken. The last one in particular defines the "smoke & mirror" approach to introducing the new steel
 
Back
Top