News from Cliff Stamp

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cliff's reviews led me to Bladeforums and the beginning of my love affair with high quality, hard use knives. Whatever his biases and shortcomings may be, I owe him a debt of gratitude.

Thanks for your update, Will. It's welcome news to me as well.
 
Sword and Shield said:
You neglect to mention the multiple times he altered the grinds of "test" blades, and then reported the findings as fact.

You can use all the technical language you want, but when your base assumptions are wrong, it's nothing but hot air.
Click to expand...

Alterations which you and I only knew about because he told us about them in the first place in text and pictures, so I'm still---after all these years---at a loss to understand where the controversy comes from. His primary interest was in alloy comparisons, not in whose name was on a blade, and as he wanted to draw comparisons, he would set edge angles to be equivalent (or at least MORE equivalent) and then run them against each other through various cutting media. Makes a whole lot more sense than running one alloy against another with different geometries and then trying to extract some sort of meaningful data. It's because of that type of lack of understanding that alloys like ATS-34 and S30V gain reputations for being "hard use" because a manufacturer makes saber-ground, 1/4" thick fixed blades out of them with edge geometries like cold chisels. Hell, at that geometry, aluminum is pretty tough.

Don't get me wrong, he could be abrasive at times, I had a few run-ins with him myself over the years and by the time he was banned it didn't come as much of a surprise to me, but as an engineer it was remarkably refreshing to see an ATTEMPT at qualitative analysis versus the typical "tests" that often appear on knife sites (and I won't even bother going into the drivel printed in knife magazines) which leave so much information unaccounted for as to be absolutely meaningless:

"I cut up this cardboard box, and then sliced these carrots (insert picture of knife next to a partially disassembled carrot) and then ate my steak with it, and when I was done the blade didn't explode and it was still kinda sharp. Here's a cool shot of it sticking out of a stump next to a compass. Hence, I think it's a good knife with awesome steel."

................thanks dude.
 
t1mpani said:
Alterations which you and I only knew about because he told us about them in the first place in text and pictures, so I'm still---after all these years---at a loss to understand where the controversy comes from. His primary interest was in alloy comparisons, not in whose name was on a blade, and as he wanted to draw comparisons, he would set edge angles to be equivalent (or at least MORE equivalent) and then run them against each other through various cutting media. Makes a whole lot more sense than running one alloy against another with different geometries and then trying to extract some sort of meaningful data. It's because of that type of lack of understanding that alloys like ATS-34 and S30V gain reputations for being "hard use" because a manufacturer makes saber-ground, 1/4" thick fixed blades out of them with edge geometries like cold chisels. Hell, at that geometry, aluminum is pretty tough.

Don't get me wrong, he could be abrasive at times, I had a few run-ins with him myself over the years and by the time he was banned it didn't come as much of a surprise to me, but as an engineer it was remarkably refreshing to see an ATTEMPT at qualitative analysis versus the typical "tests" that often appear on knife sites (and I won't even bother going into the drivel printed in knife magazines) which leave so much information unaccounted for as to be absolutely meaningless:

"I cut up this cardboard box, and then sliced these carrots (insert picture of knife next to a partially disassembled carrot) and then ate my steak with it, and when I was done the blade didn't explode and it was still kinda sharp. Here's a cool shot of it sticking out of a stump next to a compass. Hence, I think it's a good knife with awesome steel."

................thanks dude.
Click to expand...

Seconded several times over.

also of interest, he has a youtube channel now. I only found out when he randomly subscribed to my channel, which has very few videos on it.
http://www.youtube.com/user/CliffStamp
 
youtube link saved--thanks, LVC :thumbup:

Edited to Add: Link has now been copied to original post in this thread, to make it easier to find.
 
Last edited:
No-one is perfect, this is the internet, and I do like it when people go against the grain. Overall I think Cliff was a benefit to Bladeforums, it's nice to see that he's still going at it.
 
Sword and Shield said:
You neglect to mention the multiple times he altered the grinds of "test" blades, and then reported the findings as fact.

You can use all the technical language you want, but when your base assumptions are wrong, it's nothing but hot air.
Click to expand...


But he told you that he altered the grind, right? And, typically, he would do that after trying the original geometry and finding it lacking for his purposes. He made no base assumptions. He would just use a knife, really use it, and then report the findings. How is that not factual?
 
Alter the grind and it ceases to be the knife you started with. If he wished to study grinds or steels, get them ground to spec- don't change what's out there then declare one a winner based on those "tests".
 
Sword and Shield said:
Alter the grind and it ceases to be the knife you started with. If he wished to study grinds or steels, get them ground to spec- don't change what's out there then declare one a winner based on those "tests".
Click to expand...

I wasn't here when Cliff was around, but I still don't see the issue with altering the grinds if he was studying steels and trying to get them on equal ground, which is what I understand happened. I don't see an issue with altering grinds period, either... isn't that the beauty of having your own knife? Even if he was studying grinds... as in comparing different grinds across different steels.

Unless he passed them off as the knife he started with? Or these were supposed to be tests on knives straight from the store at factory specs?
 
Last edited:
Sword and Shield said:
Alter the grind and it ceases to be the knife you started with. If he wished to study grinds or steels, get them ground to spec- don't change what's out there then declare one a winner based on those "tests".
Click to expand...

Manufacturing repeatability is a science. It allows one manufacturer in china to produce a physically identical item as a manufacturer in texas. The equipement is identical, the environment is controlled for heat and humidity, the materials are from the same source, the bits are the same brand. There is no difference between the two items. If one manufacturer calls it (a) and the other calls it (b) - they are, physically, both (a).

If cliff had a knife maker grind a steel to his specifications, allowing that the knifes temper not be modified, he would get product (a). If he uses the same manufacturers techniques on his own time, he gets product (a). You have to account for variables like difference in geometry, sending it to a maker to be ground to spec will not change the results of his tests, which attempt to limit variables like geometry. They would have the same results, because he would be using the same knife, regardless of who ground it after it was heat treated. If the argument is that the knife maker would change the heat treatment to accomodate for a much thinner steel - you've added a variable that actually, physically, has given you a different product. It would make the idea of testing the given model of knife from a manufacturer against another null and void. You're now testing something completely different, and more to the point a one off that no one else is going to get when the purchase the stock model.

I'm not trying to give cliff the huge benefit of the doubt that he would actually be using identical machinery or be in a 70 degree humidity controlled room, I only intend to point out a flawed argument I've heard several times regarding modifying knives to test the qualities of the steel itself, which is very different than testing the qualities of the "knife", which is steel+manufacturers geometry.
 
If you approach Cliff Stamp's reviews with an enquiring mind and do some tests of your own you find that there are quite a few helpful bit's of information there.

I used to puzzle over why he would wrap handles on knives with tape to a very large almost oversized grip ... then after chopping down a few dead trees to do my own "learning" curve and discovering numbness and hand fatigue ... I learned that for me a smooth grip is better than a pattern and retention of grip is better achieved with a large grip ... and if you need to retain a grip go for a material which is tactile in the hand. This lead me to Res C and my preference for the Busse Basic line of knives ... and on other blades such as the Zilla's to the TTKZ grip which gives a good "locked in" feel and is sufficiently large enough to work with a knife like that chopping wood for as long as your strength will last.

I never progressed to "taping" the handles as he did but I could see where the practicality of what he did came from.

His reviews to me were motivated from a practical stand point ... if you are chopping wood and realise after a lot of experience what sort of edge geometry works best ... alter your knife accordingly ... frankly I see nothing wrong in doing that. If a maker supplies a thick edge to a knife because for certain hard use it might need it ( i.e. Busse ) there is nothing wrong in altering the edge profile to suit your personal use so it works well at your given tasks. Particularly when you say you have done this in the review ...

Anyway ... whichever way you want to look at things ... his reviews are well worth a read ... and thanks for posting the links Will :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
You can still read his reviews and get whatever benefit there is in them for you. Objective testing is the Holy Grail.

For me, he needed to be teamed with someone with a better command of the language and social norms. I found him obtuse at times, and in terms of attack language, he gave as good as he got.

As for opinions that he belongs on this private forum, when you piss all over the owner of a forum, it is naive to assume you will still be welcome. Cliff's comments about the owner were unsubstantiated and well beyond the "line."
 
Sword and Shield said:
Alter the grind and it ceases to be the knife you started with. If he wished to study grinds or steels, get them ground to spec- don't change what's out there then declare one a winner based on those "tests".
Click to expand...
Sword that makes no sense!?! That would again testing the knife, not the alloy. Edge geometry has to be same on different knives of same alloy to have a control for which to draw credible conclusion about the performance of that particular alloy. Not just what that one company did with that one knife.
 
Sword and Shield said:
You neglect to mention the multiple times he altered the grinds of "test" blades, and then reported the findings as fact.

You can use all the technical language you want, but when your base assumptions are wrong, it's nothing but hot air.
Click to expand...


Did he experiment with several different grinds to see which worked the best? Or would he alter the grind of a blade to make it appear less desirable in a case study comparing knives?

The first possibility indicates that he was applying his background in physics to perform a scientific experiment, where one variable is altered (grind) to see how it affects other variables (cutting ability, strength, edge retention, etc.). The second possibility indicates that he was cheating the results, and his research is invalid.

I have read many of Cliff's articles and postings over the years (under a long-lost user name), and they always seemed scientifically valid to me, even when I owned the knife he was criticizing. His conclusions were based on measurable data, and his experiments were repeatable. These are necessary criteria for quality research, as it allows others in the community to provide evidence for or against his results by performing the same experiment.

Despite being a lowly adjunct professor, I am a professor of physics, and as such, I am pretty good at spotting BS experiments. I have not yet seen one from Cliff, though I have been out of the loop here for several years. I am interested to see which experiments you are referencing in your post.
 
t1mpani said:
Alterations which you and I only knew about because he told us about them in the first place in text and pictures, so I'm still---after all these years---at a loss to understand where the controversy comes from. His primary interest was in alloy comparisons, not in whose name was on a blade, and as he wanted to draw comparisons, he would set edge angles to be equivalent (or at least MORE equivalent) and then run them against each other through various cutting media. Makes a whole lot more sense than running one alloy against another with different geometries and then trying to extract some sort of meaningful data. It's because of that type of lack of understanding that alloys like ATS-34 and S30V gain reputations for being "hard use" because a manufacturer makes saber-ground, 1/4" thick fixed blades out of them with edge geometries like cold chisels. Hell, at that geometry, aluminum is pretty tough.

Don't get me wrong, he could be abrasive at times, I had a few run-ins with him myself over the years and by the time he was banned it didn't come as much of a surprise to me, but as an engineer it was remarkably refreshing to see an ATTEMPT at qualitative analysis versus the typical "tests" that often appear on knife sites (and I won't even bother going into the drivel printed in knife magazines) which leave so much information unaccounted for as to be absolutely meaningless:

"I cut up this cardboard box, and then sliced these carrots (insert picture of knife next to a partially disassembled carrot) and then ate my steak with it, and when I was done the blade didn't explode and it was still kinda sharp. Here's a cool shot of it sticking out of a stump next to a compass. Hence, I think it's a good knife with awesome steel."

................thanks dude.
Click to expand...
I have some issues with Cliff also, but he was a definite breath of fresh air. He did a lot of pioneering work, and there are a couple of knifemakers on this forum that can probably thank a large part of their popularity to him, and I'm not necessarily talking Busse.
 
Sword, basically it comes down to this; if I were to compare AUS8 at a 40 degree included angle, and CPM 3V at a twenty degree included angle, and wailed on some hardwood for a while, I could likely come away with data which would make somebody conclude that AUS8 was the tougher steel. The differences are less extreme when the geometry differential is less extreme, but it's unfair difference all the same. If I am wrong, please point out an example, but I do not ever remember him doing a "I wouldn't buy this knife because..." type of review to favor one brand over another. He seemed more interested in how different steels behaved at different hardnesses, and thinned them to his preferred geometry to make comparisons more meaningful. Since he informed us of these changes, again I can't see the problem.

When edges are thicker, they will always be more durable, no matter the steel. When edges are thinner, they will always cut better, no matter the steel. The interesting thing is when steel can achieve a long lasting edge--through a variety of uses--while at an excellent cutting geometry; and when steel does fail, how does it fail? Like I said, his methods weren't flawless, nor his results unquestionable, but his efforts to gain insight were far, far less amateurish and more defendable than the vast majority. Sadly, like many of the scientific bent, his people skills were not the best, and he could be unpleasant when provoked. Of course, many went out of their way to provoke him, too.

Oh well, people come and go, such is foruming.
 
Will,
Thank's for the link. Cliff was before my time but have read some of his review's. I can always seperate myself from conflict and find something beneficial with the review's. It is the same with Noss, I find the destruction test useful although many other's like to complain about this and that and call the test useless, that is there opinion which they are entitled. Personally, I will probably never do the thing's I see done however, it is useful to know a knife's failure point and what I can expect from a design, steel and handle material being used. I see it as a guide, and a guide that brought me here in the first place and for that, I am very grateful. I look forward to seeing more review's in the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top