Old steel vs new steel why the attitude.

D

Dean51

Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
922
At the age of 64, I grew up on knives with 1095, and I learned how to sharpen free hand.
For 50 years I've carried traditionals and no doubt always will carry traditionals.

These days my steel of choice is 440C, CPM154 or D2. I want/need a knife that cuts longer and requires fewer touch ups.
In spite of the fact I use a KME diamond system (fancy gizmo) to sharpen and a strop to touch up with in between sharpenings. The result is I spend much less time sharpening than I used to with 1095 and I don't need to keep a stone available anymore.

Knives have evolved a lot in the last 50 years, even more so in the last 400 years. Go back to the mid 1600's and the original single blade Barlow. It was designed to be usable and cheap to produce and it sure didn't come with fancy stag or bone handles. In those days, steel or maybe it was iron was made in a Bloomery. At best it was impure and varied greatly from batch to batch.

1095 is a super steel compared to the original steel used on the barlow in the mid 1600's. 1095 did not change the fact a Barlow is a Barlow. Neither does D2 or CPM154 change a thing, in my opinion anyway.

Every Barlow since has been a modern interpretation of the original. Wood, stag and bone handles collected from around the world. Was not part of the original design concept. Even when the second blade was added it was still a barlow. Clip point, spear point, one blade, two blades, it is still a barlow.

Yet I keep reading comments like..........
“I wonder what kind of day in day out tasks people who want the 'super' or newer steels are planning on subjecting their knives to??
“What are super steel users planning on doing with their knives?”

I don't understand these kind of statements but for me the answer is, nothing you should not do with a slip joint. Maybe I just do more of it.

My new favorite comment.....
“What you have to realize is, the whole super steel thing is a huge con.”

If the whole super steel thing is a huge con, then by the same logic, the whole argument that all you need is 1095 is a huge con.
Just because a person can get by with 1095, does that mean they have to?

My Question is why do some people who like traditionals, seem to hate any steel that is not 1095?
 
My Question is why do some people who like traditionals, seem to hate any steel that is not 1095?
Click to expand...
Answer is, it patinas. GEC uses 1095, folks like to discuss the GEC knives and they like patina. A very traditional thing and a throw back to the old days. Nothing wrong with that at all. I read every post in this forum and I feel pretty comfortable in saying it's more a preference for steels that patina, then it is for the type of steel. O1, W2, 5160, 1084 etc all get mentioned.

Personally, I'm one year older then you and I use newer stainless steels. Don't need the newest, latest, greatest steel. Well done 440C is fine with me as are the others you mentioned. I don't care for patina, I like an edge that lasts longer then I'll get from simple carbon steel and I don't want to worry about rust.

There's room on the porch for lovers of both old and new blade steel, as long as we are discussing traditional knives it's all good.

As to attitude; those who get too righteous get reminded that we're all friends here discussing our love for traditional knives in a respectful, reasonable way. :)
 
Last edited:
I like a nice patina, it makes my knife different than everyone else's. I do not like shiny blades, matte type finish is fine, but anything that shines bothers my aesthetics.
 
Hate is perhaps too strong a word. But I don't doubt that there is a large contingent of folks here who favor 1095. People will have different reasons, but I suspect that a large part of it is that people who are drawn to "traditionals" are not necessarily the same folks who are drawn to the latest and greatest.
 
Dean51 said:
...My Question is why do some people who like traditionals, seem to hate any steel that is not 1095?
Click to expand...
As Gary said - they like the look of a patina.

I personally do not. I prefer a clean-looking, polished blade. I own both carbon and stainless knives. If my carbon knives start to develop a patina I will use a metal polish to remove it and restore their shine.

I tend to be somewhat steel agnostic. My daily cutting needs are not particularly demanding, so anything will work. Victorinox stainless, Case CV and Tru-sharp, Buck 420HC, Rough Rider 440A, GEC 1095 and 440C, Queen D2, Canal Street 440C. All of them work for my needs.

I don't own anything in CPM154 but would be interested in giving it a try if it were in an affordable knife and I liked the pattern and handle material.
 
Gary is a year older than you. I am ~a year younger. Like you and Gary, I started with non-stainless blades, then switched to stainless in the 60's. And while I own and often carry non-stainless blades today, I prefer 440C or D2 blades. I won't carry a knife just because of what blade steel. The design and workmanship of the knife as a whole has to speak to me.

Now, that being said, on to your actual question, "why do so many folks prefer non-stainless." While I don't actually fit into that category myself, I have hung out here for 8-9 years and I do have some sense of what I have read in that time. Here are the most common responses that spring to mind...
  • Ease of sharpening. They can sharpen it easily and do not require fancy sharpening equipment. The bottom of a coffee cup will suffice.
  • non-stainless holds a razor edge longer than 440C, D2 or other carbide-loaded alloys. (True statement, by the way.)
  • Patina. To me it's just corrosion, but a lot of folks prefer the aesthetics of a blade with patina. It's a personal preference.
  • a non-stainless blade feels more traditional to them, because that is what they remember their father or grandfather using.
  • some folks like what they like, without having a specific reason for liking it. And there's nothing wrong with that, either.
 
I'm a couple of years older than the OP, and I prefer the tool steels, such as 1095 or 0-1 for collecting, and prefer a stainless steel (any will do) for my users. I'm just lazy that way, do not want to deal with the maintenance required of non-stainless steels, and do not particularly care for the overall appearance of patina on what would otherwise be a new knife. I kinda' liken patina to those wide white walls on tires from days long gone...imagine a perfectly Simonized hand wax job on your '57 Chevy Nomad, only to have those white walls scuffed black and tattered 'cause the other half just can't park; not a pretty picture, and that's how I view patina. To be sure, I have a couple of Case knives and a Bullnose that are users, and the patina is there, but they don't get sheltered in my safe like my collectible knives do.:)
 
I have and use knives with both stainless and carbon steels. I like both, but the pluses for carbon steel are the ease in sharpening and the fact they can take a very fine edge.
 
I like 1095 because of the patina, but I do like the newer steels. The problem for me is that they always want to use 440c, I can't explain it but when I hear 440c it sounds cheap. If they used 154cm or higher I would have alot more slipjoints with those steels.

I like the patina because it helps with glare from the sun when I'm cutting something
 
I personally don't have a problem with modern "super" steels. I understand the desire to have traditionals as close as possible to the historical "older" versions, but I personally would like to see more of an adaptation and integration of new and older. Why not use D2, Cpm 154 and a different shield other than what is "supposed" to be on that certain pattern?

The covers on the other hand are a different story. ;)
 
After a long conversation with a very successful Cutler about the properties of D2 Steel as it relates to Factory Production Blades, I no longer have any desire to obtain production knives with this type of blade steel.
 
Why not?

Myself, I like D2 on a pocket knife, well a single-blade one at least. I've found it stays sharp very well and imparts no flavour on foodstuffs- I like to cut food with my pocket-knives. Patina is OK provided it's even and maintained, generally I prefer Sandvik or 440C type stainless.
 
Mostly because what the tang annealing process, because of the properties of the D2, can do to the heat treat of the blade in a Factory production setting.
 
I think it's more the right steel for the job. I have an older Wenger Swiss Army knife, and though I'm not sure what steel it is. I like how flexible it is as I've used it for everything from emergency car repairs to a glorified box cutter. So for me on a pocket knife, super steels like D2 and CPM 154 seem like over kill to me. But on my larger knives like my Kabar, I want D2 because I know I'm going to be pounding on it while I'm camping.

I also have a couple antique knives with 1095 ish type steel. I have to admit I like the feeling it gives. It just feels solid to me. There's just something about the texture and smell of old tool steel that I find appealing.
 
Northwoods made an Indian River Jack in CPM 154. I have two 2014 models and a 2015 model all in CPM 154. They recently shifted production to CPM S35VN, which may or may not be better. I will probably give it a try.

I suggested they produce something in a super steel like S90V, M390, S110V or if they want to stay non-stainless, something like K390 or 10V. They said that the manufacturers don't have the equipment or ability to produce something in that type of steel.
 
Funny thing is, I never had a clue what kind of steel I was using until I started buying non-traditionals. At best I knew when one had stainless. My early knives were all traditional folders (mostly Buck or Old Timer, back in the 70's and 80's). It wasn't until I bought my first non-traditional (an early Spyderco) that I started seeing things like 440 on knives and realized there were multiple types of stainless steel. And it wasn't until I started buying GECs that I ever even heard of 1095.

Now I own knives in a number of steels, both stainless and not, and like both just fine. And while I appreciate a nice patina, I can also enjoy the beauty and practicality of a stainless.
 
Last edited:
knarfeng said:
Gary is a year older than you. I am ~a year younger. Like you and Gary, I started with non-stainless blades, then switched to stainless in the 60's. And while I own and often carry non-stainless blades today, I prefer 440C or D2 blades. I won't carry a knife just because of what blade steel. The design and workmanship of the knife as a whole has to speak to me.

Now, that being said, on to your actual question, "why do so many folks prefer non-stainless." While I don't actually fit into that category myself, I have hung out here for 8-9 years and I do have some sense of what I have read in that time. Here are the most common responses that spring to mind...
  • Ease of sharpening. They can sharpen it easily and do not require fancy sharpening equipment. The bottom of a coffee cup will suffice.
  • non-stainless holds a razor edge longer than 440C, D2 or other carbide-loaded alloys. (True statement, by the way.)
  • Patina. To me it's just corrosion, but a lot of folks prefer the aesthetics of a blade with patina. It's a personal preference.
  • a non-stainless blade feels more traditional to them, because that is what they remember their father or grandfather using.
  • some folks like what they like, without having a specific reason for liking it. And there's nothing wrong with that, either.
Click to expand...

At least I'm not the oldest dog around,

Like you I won't buy just because of blade steel. The whole package has to be right, pattern, steel, handles, workmanship. Everything, I want it all.

You're right about the razor edge on 440C & D2 but the longer lived working edge is what I am looking for and so far I couldn't be happier.
 
I have and use both carbon/tool steels and stainless steels. I agree whole-heartedly with the OP about the newer steels needing less sharpening, a very real advantage when in the field, so my hard use outdoor knives are in 3V, 10V, S90V and S110V. But for daily pocket knives, anything from 56 HRc 420 up through 61 HRc ATS-34, D2, CPM154 and S35VN work beautifully, including the "standard" 1095. For my own use carbon or stainless makes little difference, but for a knife I use in public, stainless blades appear "cleaner" and more acceptable, so I usually carry stainless when out. Older, worn and patina stained carbon knives are a treasure I reserve for around the house. I will note that although it does seem like the predominance of forumites prefer carbon, this year's forum knife is in 440C stainless, and was very well received.
 
KBA said:
I personally don't have a problem with modern "super" steels. I understand the desire to have traditionals as close as possible to the historical "older" versions, but I personally would like to see more of an adaptation and integration of new and older. Why not use D2, Cpm 154 and a different shield other than what is "supposed" to be on that certain pattern?

The covers on the other hand are a different story. ;)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to see traditionals loose their historical flavor but a wider selection an of old and new blend would be nice.
On second thought that would cost me $$$$$
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top