Same thickness stock and level of edge refinement? Then the one with the thinnest cross section will be the best slicer.
Unless the very edge is rounded of flat....then it needs to be sharpened.
I prefer a flat grind with a convex edge bevel.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Mike Stewart: Convexed blades with convexed edges hold an edge much longer!
- Thread starter LeatherStrop
- Start date
Same thickness stock and level of edge refinement? Then the one with the thinnest cross section will be the best slicer.
Unless the very edge is rounded of flat....then it needs to be sharpened.
I prefer a flat grind with a convex edge bevel.
- Joined
- May 12, 2015
- Messages
- 1,759
Well apparently convex doesn't cut as well. Since all Chris Reeve knives are convex ground by all means send your CRK's to me and I will personally see to it that they are disposed of in a proper manner. I offer this as a public service, just PM me and I'll give you an address to send them to me.
ridnovir
Gold Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,473
WoW if this thread does not prove that that a knife nut should by recognized by some psych board as a verifiable disorder, - I do not know what would 
Just imagine some uninitiated Joe stumbles on this thread by accident, - his brains will be fried by page 4
For what is worth, I like convex blades because they look sexier without that secondary bevel IMHO
and convex edges are either to maintain in my personal experience so ...
I put a convex edge on all of my knives
But
If you prefer a V edge for the same reason I won't hold it against you
Just imagine some uninitiated Joe stumbles on this thread by accident, - his brains will be fried by page 4
For what is worth, I like convex blades because they look sexier without that secondary bevel IMHO
and convex edges are either to maintain in my personal experience so ...
I put a convex edge on all of my knives
But
If you prefer a V edge for the same reason I won't hold it against you
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2013
- Messages
- 4,162
What happens if I take a convex edge and turn it into a V edge, then decide to make it convex and then V again? What will we end up with?
(All without bringing the apex close to the spine)
Wouldn't every transformation make the edge thinner, no matter if from V to convex or from convex to V?
(All without bringing the apex close to the spine)
Wouldn't every transformation make the edge thinner, no matter if from V to convex or from convex to V?
What happens if I take a convex edge and turn it into a V edge, then decide to make it convex and then V again? What will we end up with?
(All without bringing the apex close to the spine)
Wouldn't every transformation make the edge thinner, no matter if from V to convex or from convex to V?
You would have to make the entire blade from edge to spine thinner. Just draw yourself a picture.
Not sure what that has to do with the "more steel behind the edge" claim....
This is close to how I see it. The only remaining question is how far up from the apex we're talking about in terms of the thin cross section.
IMO, slicing ability (veggies, paper tests) is about the thinness at the back bevel level, not the final apex bevel. This is why I find B, C and D (above) more the same... they have the same cross section at the back bevel level.
I'll concede that full pure V 15 DPS edge will very slightly out-slice a 15/20 convex or compound edge with a 15 DPS back bevel and 20 DPS apex angle, but I find a pure 15 DPS V edge to be too frail for my liking. I find that a 15/20 convex or compound to have nearly all of the slicing ability with a more durable (albeit, less sharp) apex.
My taste is similar to yours. I prefer a thin flatish convex grind with a convex edge. That pretty much limits my top pick to a single manufacturer as flatish convex blades are hard to find. Other than that, I like full flat grind blades with a convex edge (as you do). I can only cope with a hollow grind blade once I flatten the crap out of them to remove the sharp shoulder of the hollow. And yes, I convex those edges too.
These days I prefer convex edges on my (larger) knives. Why? Well, I have been trying to perfect my technique on the Worksharp KO and specifically the blade grinding attachment. By its nature it makes convex edges so that's what I have on most of my knives. I can touch them up w/ 3m sandpaper very easily as well. I do have an Edgepro and also many different freehand benchstones also but have been on a WS kick as of late. For me, convex wins the "ease of maintaining" category.
Are the edges I get from the WS better than a V edge of the same angle? Who knows? I sure don't. What I do know is that they work well for me. I have nothing against V edges either. As a matter of fact, I like them better on folders and on blades under 4 inches. They may or may not perform better than their convex counterparts, but to my eye, they *look* better on small blades as opposed to convex. I'm talking pure aesthetics here--no math or science, just an honest opinion.
I have knives w/ both kinds of edges and I like both just fine. I do not have enough experience (raw data) to say for sure which is better. The two edges both work for their intended purposes and that's okay by me.
Are the edges I get from the WS better than a V edge of the same angle? Who knows? I sure don't. What I do know is that they work well for me. I have nothing against V edges either. As a matter of fact, I like them better on folders and on blades under 4 inches. They may or may not perform better than their convex counterparts, but to my eye, they *look* better on small blades as opposed to convex. I'm talking pure aesthetics here--no math or science, just an honest opinion.
I have knives w/ both kinds of edges and I like both just fine. I do not have enough experience (raw data) to say for sure which is better. The two edges both work for their intended purposes and that's okay by me.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2013
- Messages
- 4,162
It could mean both are right. Depending on what you start with the other kind of edge will be thinner/have less metal behind the edge.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2013
- Messages
- 4,162
It could mean both are right. Depending on what you start with, the other kind of edge will be thinner/have less metal behind the edge.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 27,422
Yes, but that's because you're changing the edge angle each time you reprofile. It's just like saying thinner edges have less steel behind them. You have to make an apples to apples comparison to get an answer to the question at hand.
And if the blade steel in one was replaced with butter then it would have inferior edge holding capabilities.
If you want to throw away so many initial conditions that you are comparing apples to Beethoven and that makes you feel better about which grind has more steel behind the edge, that is fine.
But for a given edge angle, a flat grind has more metal behind the edge than a convex.
Nailed it! And that's why I hope you will be buying my new line of "marcinek-ground" knives that takes your arguments to their logical "next level"! Here si a cross section of the grind!
I was going to square off the spine for firesteels, but you convinced me that that cannot be done.
Again, it all depends where and how you measure "angle".
Chiral is on the right track, imo. It's not the mathematical apex angle.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 25,913
Using the logic that there's no measurable angle for a convex would then have to be equally applied to flat grinds and all manner of other objects. All flat ground blades actually have a small degree of convexity or concavity depending on how they were ground (or even both, due to grinding marks) and therefore have no quantifiable angle either. So neither one has any angle at all, nor does anything else in reality. Angles are a figment of our imaginations and engineers and mathematicians should discontinue using them because they are unrealistic. 
Clearly this is not the case. Using that three point system of approximation, it is actually very clearly seen that the convex is exterior to the imposed triangle, and so cannot possibly actually be approaching the apex at that angle. And that brings us back to the point that in order for the convex to actually be approaching the apex at an equal angle you'd have to have less material at the shoulder.
Use the shortcut calculation at a different depth and you'll have a very different result. Using this method you're basically just showing the same situation as where the bevel shoulder is being held constant, under which a convex will be thicker...but also have a greater edge angle compared to a flat of equal shoulder width. But the problems with that approach have already been addressed.
Clearly this is not the case. Using that three point system of approximation, it is actually very clearly seen that the convex is exterior to the imposed triangle, and so cannot possibly actually be approaching the apex at that angle. And that brings us back to the point that in order for the convex to actually be approaching the apex at an equal angle you'd have to have less material at the shoulder.
Use the shortcut calculation at a different depth and you'll have a very different result. Using this method you're basically just showing the same situation as where the bevel shoulder is being held constant, under which a convex will be thicker...but also have a greater edge angle compared to a flat of equal shoulder width. But the problems with that approach have already been addressed.
Well, I suppose if you just decide to make up definitions for things like "angle" then you can come to any conclusion you want.
I leave you and Chiral to it.
The asymmetrical edge is the best of both worlds for an asymmetric cut to which it is suited. I'll give a concrete example.
A right handed chef wants to cut paper-thin round slices from a carrot. This is an asymmetric cutting task because the bulk of the carrot (to the left of the blade) is much more rigid and therefore resistant to deformation than the extremely thin disc of carrot being removed (to the right of the blade). In this case, a chisel grind with the bevel only on the right is ideal.
The flat left side does not need to displace the rigid carrot mass at all. The very thin disc of carrot on the right has almost no bending strength, so it moves easily aside (by bending) as the cut proceeds. If the bevel is straight, the disc will tend to ride up the bevel, stuck to the blade by the moisture from its severed cells. By convexing the apex of the bevel (only on the right side - remember, the left side is flat), the disc is forced out away from the blade so that it doesn't stick to the side of the knife.
Well apparently convex doesn't cut as well. Since all Chris Reeve knives are convex ground by all means send your CRK's to me and I will personally see to it that they are disposed of in a proper manner. I offer this as a public service, just PM me and I'll give you an address to send them to me.
I was under the impression from photographs that Chris Reeve knives are hollow ground.
They are, except for the edge grind, apparently.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2013
- Messages
- 4,162
As a user (we are not in the maker forum) my situation is that I have a given edge geometry and then I've to decide if I want to keep its edge or transform it into the other kind.
That I don't want to sacrifice blade width is only natural. So in that scenario I'll always end up with less metal behind the edge than before the regrind, no matter what I started with V or convex.
How is that Apple to oranges? I've even more constrictions than if I'd chose whatever I wanted from an unground stock. If at all I'm deciding if to quarter or dice the apple while you are deciding which fruits you want to begin with.
:')