Question for Cliff Stamp re: Ed Fowler's knives...

[Cliff Stamp]

The review has been completed :

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/pronghorn.html

A comment on the bending, and the lack of hardness in general. The performance seen with this Pronghorn was significantly below expected which is why the review was delayed. The work was checked, rechecked and check again for various ways, the cutting on rope for example was checked on multiple rolls of hemp, then two more ropes bought on two occasions from two different shipments. The hardness was checked on a file, using a RC tester and just by bending. They all consistently showed the same thing, very soft steel, easy to bend or impact.

I mentioned this to Ed as soon as the problems started as it was clear to me that this could not possibly be the intended behavior of the knife and wished to halt the review as I had no desire to illustrate the behavior of what I assumed was a defect of some kind. I also made it clear that this review could actually be pretty much totally scrapped if the knife was determined to be a flaw (or just reduced to a footnote in a review of a functional sample). I very much wanted to get this knife checked out. He declined to have any part in the process or even to discuss the expected performance.

I also video taped some of the bending and prying work as quite frankly even though I did it, it still is very hard to believe, how it bend with the wood impacts for example. I then repeated on tape the same work with another knife (thinner) to clearify the difference and illustrate it is a still and not geometry issue. I will be sending a copy back to Gabe, but not making it publically available, unless Ed feels that the blade should actually be performing like it did.

-Cliff

 

[nhamilto40]

An excellent review. Really shows the truth behind this maker's marketing fluff.

Thanks.

What where the results from the hardness testing?

Typos?

A light sharpening

After the blunting through the rope cutting, the Pronghorn was lightly stropped on CrO loaded leather, four passes per side. It responded strongly, and the poly slicing ability increased from 0.75 to 1.00 cm. The thread cutting also took a large jump from 140 to 230 g. Checking the edge under magnification, the stropping raised the edge finish significantly.

 

[Bladeandbarrel]

would like to see an RC Hardness taken to back up your assertions, Cliff.

 

[blademan 13]

WOW!!! Assuming Cliff's testing can be verified and his conclusions correct, IMO, one of two things is happening here;

1. This knife is not representative of Ed's work. Downside to this being that even if it is not, it shouldn't have been allowed to leave the shop and raises consistency questions.

2. This knife is representative of Ed's work. Downside to this being that I would be quite upset at dropping a large chunk of cash and not getting my moneys worth performance wise.

Either way I would like to thank the owner for allowing the testing to be done on this blade. Certainly raises a few questions in my head and I guess that is why we are here in the first place.

BTW, sure would like to see some pics of the bends and what it took to get them.

 

[rdangerer]

This is certainly an unexpected result from the testing.

from Cliff's review:
This Pronghorn, while sold as unused, is several years old, and was inspected by customs, thus the initial state of the edge could be significantly difference than when freshly made.

Originally posted by blademan 13
...IMO, one of two things is happening here;

...or 3)
if there was actually a prior owner (before Gabe), the owner did something to the blade, involving heat and inadvertent or purposeful "tempering" to a hardness lower than what Ed produced. I suppose such a thing could have been done to the WHOLE blade, and not just the edge, without "burning" the sheep horn handle, but you'd have to try pretty hard... i.e. it wouldn't be inadvertent.

Cliff, was there any indication of prior sharpening, e.g., maybe on a grinding wheel? Any heat discoloration indications?

Unfortunately, it appears that Ed did not wish to communicate much with Cliff during testing, so unless Gabe can find out something from the prior owner (if there was one) and/or the dealer, we're left to guess around here ... unless Ed decides to post and help clear the smoke in a productive manner.

Cliff, would appreciate it if you would post the HRc readings you obtained for clarity (I'd suggest posting those in the review and, if you have time, just for clarity of meaning and intent, cleaning up the numerous semantical and maybe that one data typo). Might also comment on the prep the lab techs went through to obtain the Rc readings on convex edge.

sidebar
I (RDA) recently had some hardness readings done on circular, 1/2" OD high alloy instrumentation tubing, and the lab techs have some well known, fairly standard correction factors they can apply to compensate for convexity in lieu of a special anvil or "squashing" a semi circular half of a tube which could produce work hardening

 

[Cliff Stamp]

hamilto40 :

After sharpening the thread was 140 - 230 g, the poly was 0.75 - 1.00 cm. Before it was 190-350 g and 1.20 - 1.30 cm respectively. I'll recheck the notes later this evening as the wording is indeed not perfectly clear.

rdangerer :

...if there was actually a prior owner (before Gabe), the owner did something to the blade

No it was bought new.

... was there any indication of prior sharpening, e.g., maybe on a
grinding wheel? Any heat discoloration indications?

No. However all of that could be polished off. Heat dicoloration doesn't go all the way through the steel and regions of blade can be effected that are significantly away from the burnt region. I ground an axe awhile ago and burned the very tip (a few mm) and later when chopping a huge amount of it bent, it was dead soft.

Of course I could have modified the blade. I am not sure how you could heat up the blade to effect the temper and soften it as much as this one has been, without effecting the handle, maybe if you kept the handle in a coolant. Of course I could have taken the handle off and put it back on.

I always could even had the blade removed and substituted with a mild steel one (some forging marks and other surface characterists I could not duplicate myself but I could have got another knowledgable maker to do it, I have a very close friend who forges knives), or in fact this might not even be a Pronghorn if might be a fake substituted by Gabe, I or the dealer.

It might even be a Pronghorn blank reject that was stolen from Ed's shop and finished by another maker and sold as a Pronghorn. The video also could be totally made up, a digital creation of Lucas Arts. I do have a friend who is working on the new Shrek movie. It could be just really high end animation.

Or it could be a non-spring tempered spine with a shallow edge quench where something went wrong and the hardness was significantly lower than expected.

it appears that Ed did not wish to communicate much with Cliff during testing

No not at all. It was an unfortunate situation as I really did not want to work with the knife past a certain point as it was obvious something was really wrong and the makers input to clearify the problem was desired. This has happened before no one who is sane thinks that they put out a 100% perfect product every time so you will encouter flaws from time to time. Even if you do everything right there still could be major problems in the steel. As Ed noted this was before he started working with stock 52100, this was a ball bearing knife and thus the fault could easily be in the steel. Similar for example to the L6 that Ray Kirk heat treated which for whatever reason came out very soft, almost 10 HRC points below where it should have been.

Regarding the video, I can appreciate the desire to see it, I certainly would, like I said I would not believe it had I not seen it (this is an exaggeration, there are a number of posters I would believe without first hand witness). However consider the following, once the video is made public it can easily be stripped of content from the review which does not strike me as productive. This happens quite frequently with the images in the reviews (I have seen some really misleading emails passes on to me by friends of this nature) which is why in threads like these you get "informed" comments implying that all I do is whack up concrete blocks. Once the images are stripped from the reviews they tell a very different picture. Plus you can easily supply your own testing.

In regards to the HRC testing, hardness testing on knives (outside of the flats) is very difficult. Recently I spent quite a bit of time trying to nail down how to do a HRC test accurately on a knife blade with a non-parallel grind. The answers I got varies from it is impossible (minor variations can be +/- 5 points), to it has only a minor effect (+/- 1 HRC) considering the angle and curvature of most knife blades. Of course you could just plane flat on this blade with a file and test it.

I also watched the HRC readings done on the Pronghorn and they were taken at various points along the blade and it had a very slight effect on the reading (+/- 1), there were a few that were off (too low), as the clamping was off, but these were easy to tell by feel (I guess you have to do it for awhile) and you can see the readings indent was smeared. This is why I didn't want to release the numbers, and secondly they were done as a favor to me, and considering the nonsense posted in the above thread bringing a friend into this is hardly sensible. This is why I never asked Phil to do it, even though he has offered in the past.

What I planned to do was do some Rockwell tests myself (I was supposed to have a tester last week) and I was going to test on a calibrated surface on perpendicular and both angled planed to determine the influence such small variations could make. Phil Wilson also offered to make a few test blocks so we could look at these things as well as check the readings as compared to his testor which is also calibrated off a reference block. This didn't work out for several reasons. If progress is made there I'll make an update.

-Cliff

 

[rdangerer]

Right, might as well get some of the conspiracy theories out in the open to save people some time and typing.

Several of my custom folders have little Rockwell hardness tester dimples near the blade tang area. Don't be pissed if a custom has a dimple... it means the maker is testing post-heat treat.

 

[frank k]

Cliff, if you can find some one who has one, a scleroscope hardness tester might work better than a Rockwell tester in this case. You will need a technician with experience with the scleroscope to do the test for you and you will need to take several measurements and average them, but the test is basically non-destructive to the finish.



- Frank

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I have looked at the Leebs scale, which is similar (a bit more energetic ~2 ft.lbs) , it uses the rebound veolcity not the height (but they are obviously the same thing). It also has similar problems with Rockwell testers on knives due to the complex shape (relatively speaking of course).

Rob, yes, maybe it was the same person who stole the reject blank from McClung with the hidden tang notch, and sold it to a dealer which eventually got it into Turbers hand where it didn't do so well in a review.

-Cliff

 

[2knife]

Cliff,
I bought a Pronghorn about a month ago, the guy said he got it from Ed in 1987. It is forged 52100, like the knife you've been reviewing. The knife you've got may be three years old or could be 16 yrs. old. However old it is, I still don't think you can accurately get a picture of Ed's present knives using his older blades. He's made a lot of improvements in the many years he's been making knives. Maybe he doesn't comment or talk to you about your tests and procedures because he doesn't respect you. I found your first posts in this thread to be highly biased on presumption...you did the same thing on that Richtig thread recently.

Ed Fowler is a master craftsman. He tests and tests and makes knives to be used. His reputation is well-earned and I hardly see you having the last word about the qualitly of his knives. Many makers out there ONLY go for the artsy-fartsy wow effect, and still have the right to call them knives. On the other hand, he doesn't. If he made fluff, he wouldn't have the reputation he has. I was talking to an old friend tonight who has been a leader in this industry for many years. He told me the only writer at Blade Magazine who is worth a damn is Ed Fowler. He went on a rant about art-knives, the movement in this industry towards the ART and away from functional using knives and how Ed Fowler has always had the using knife as his goal. It's a shame that people can be so well known and respected, even on these forums for just making a knife that is a decoration. Ed Fowler has always striven to produce the best cutting, strongest blade possible. I don't question this about him.
David

 

[ColoradoDave]

The (relative) silence is practically deafening ... and not just on this thread, but the "Liquid Metal is here" thread as well.

Honestly, I don't believe I've ever been too surprised by any of Cliff's test results before. But the pronghorn, here, yes; quite surprised indeed.

Gabe, as the owner of this/these knives, any comments?

 

[c.m. arrington]

*yawn* What were you saying Dave ?

 

[mikemck]

I'm no longer surprised that the majority of ppl cannot or will not think for themselves, and also try to claim that everyone else can't either.
Cliff obviously needs to shorten up the reviews until they consist of "buy [this knife], you won't be disappointed", which is what quite a few ppl say around here when the countless "tell me what to buy" threads come up.
Someone gets to have someone else tell them what to buy, and others get to feel like experts and render their opinion on something they really know next to nothing about beyond personal bias. Everyone's happy, so why not.

Cliff's reviews mean nothing to me, good or bad. They are interesting up to a point, but I don't fool myself into thinking that the numbers and testing have any meaningful information for me. I have no idea what kind of stresses I am subjecting my knives to, except in the most general way, and therefore the reviews are pointless for me, even if I were doing the same exact stuff with my knives.
For instance, I chipped out a Blackjack Small just by cutting plastic banding. I would have considered such cutting very light and non-stressful, but apparently it's not.
Along the same lines, I know personally that chopping a concrete block is not that tough, although it seems impressive to quite a few ppl.

Furthermore, some of you people just flat lie, and it's obvious.
Claiming that Cliff never admits he's wrong is a lie, and anyone with half a brain knows your lying, so what's the point?
Claiming that all Cliff does is chop up concrete is also obviously a lie, and yet ppl just keep on like if they say it enough it will somehow become true.

I would like to think that most of you will calm down and see what you wrote for what it is, but I doubt you will because you do it time & time again. That's okay though, because I do see it for what it is, and that's what matters to me.

I will say a think quite a bit of Cliff for how he responds to the scorn and vitriole from the pile on crowd, and the useless comments and diatribe from the peanut gallery.

 

[rdangerer]

Originally posted by 2knife
This knife was likely a consignment. If the top of his signature were parallel to the spine it would indicate that the knife was made 2000-present. But, it's clear from the picture that this is a pre-2000 made knife. I think this switch in signatures also corresponded closely to the time he switched to using the virgin 52100 steel also, but we'd have to find out from Ed if he used it on any knives with his old signature style.
David

Gabe, would you mind trying to find out how old this knife is, and if it indeed had a prior owner?

 

[rdangerer]

Originally posted by 2knife
Cliff,
However old it is, I still don't think you can accurately get a picture of Ed's present knives using his older blades. He's made a lot of improvements in the many years he's been making knives. I found your first posts in this thread to be highly biased on presumption...you did the same thing on that Richtig thread recently.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=266502&highlight=richtig

Originally posted by 2knife
His reputation is well-earned and I hardly see you having the last word about the qualitly of his knives. David

The last word? Hardly. He tested one of Ed's knives.

Originally posted by 2knife
Ed Fowler has always striven to produce the best cutting, strongest blade possible.

That's why the surprise at these test results.

Originally posted by 2knife
I don't question this about him.

Many don't. Hence, interest in independent tests.

My opinion now: I was disappointed by these test results. I don't know what to attribute the very mediocre performance to. One bad example of QC, or... ? We can only hope Ed will post to provide some understanding.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Dave :

...I've ever been too surprised by any of Cliff's test results before. But the pronghorn, here, yes; quite surprised indeed.

Not as surprised as I was, which is why I had to tape it. In short I assumed the knife would cut well on shallow materials based on the geometry (I watched him make one in his video), I also assumed it would be slightly ahead in edge holding compare to the other forged 52100 knives I have used (Caffrey, Kirk), on most mateials as the spec'ed edge of 60 HRC is slightly harder. I also felt that there might be come issues with chipping at a hardness of that level on harder work which I have seen on the Swamp Rats when overstressed which are also ~60 HRC and of a very similar steel.

In regards to raw strength, initially I expected it to be easy to bend given the quoted thickness (1/8"), when I saw it was ~1/4", I expected it to be much stronger. However I could not find out how hard the spine was (I checked on annealed 52100 and got references from ~15 to ~30 HRC depending on the exact process), obviously on the lower end of the scale knives become really easy to bend (strength is ~proportional to HRC), I have even bent very thick khukuris (3/8") by hand when the spines are dead soft and the edges shallow quenched and fairly soft (~45-55 HRC).

The handle I assumed would be ergonomic (I didn't realize it was not symmetrical), but limited in grip versatility as are all grips which are so highly shape specific. Mission had a nice commentary on this when they designed the MPK comparing it to the grip on the ATAK which was found to be problematic over a wide range of users.

2knife :

Maybe he doesn't comment or talk to you about your tests and procedures because he doesn't respect you.

Actually it was quite the otherwise until the thread on the Busse forum awhile back which was obviously compounded by this thread. Before that, we had exchanged emails in the past and he has complemented me on my work with knives and my understanding of his goals for the same. But yes, that would be a reasonable conclusion based on the comments in the above. Still it would have been reasonable behavior for him to outline the tests for Gabe's sake as without them I had no means to restrict the work from useage which could have bent or other wise damaged the knife. If you read the initial posts this to be how the scope of work was defined, as proposed by Gabe, it wasn't carried out as Ed refused to provide any information along those lines.

I found your first posts in this thread to be highly biased on presumption...you did the same thing on that Richtig thread recently.

Yes they were based on presumption (meaning acceptance or belief based on reasonable evidence). While I had not used a Pronghorn when this thread was started, I had used a number of other 52100 blades (both harder and softer), and many ground as Fowler does (both thicker and thinner). I made comments on Fowlers work on the presumption that the work I had done with such knives allowed such an opinion.

This is only not a sound arguement if Fowler claims that his blades are so superior to the ones I have used (other ABS Mastersmiths) that they are in such a higher class that such comparions can not be made (or the opposite obviously) [or the fact that his geometry produces a different cutting ability than another blade of the exact same geometry made by someone else because of some kind of mystical aspect that only he induces].

In the Richtig thread I was commenting on the testing used, because I have done it with many knives. Specifically there is a lot of showman hype in such testing and very little real functionality being described. In addition some tests are fairly vague as the required information isn't present. As I noted, the blades could have been of very high quality, however this isn't indicated by the tests I have seen described.

[left out of the above was of course a copy of the tape will be mailed to Ed]

-Cliff

 

[Gabe Newell]

This is what I have been told about the provenance of the Pronghorn.

The knife was made for a collector at NWKnives. It was made "relatively recently." It had never been used to cut anything or sharpened.

So I don't know much of substance other than that it was previously owned.

 

[ColoradoDave]

Cliff -

Not as surprised as I was, which is why I had to tape it.

No doubt. While I've personally never bent a blade in normal use, I have straightened several that had been bent by others, and know first-hand that even ~5/32nds inch tool steel, if adequately hardened and heat treated, requires some significant force to bend enough to have it take a set -- a great deal more force than the activities described in your review which resulted in this Pronghorn being bent.

It's hard for me to believe that this particular example of Mr. Fowler's work is anything but an unfortunate fluke. I truly hope Ed gets involved in trying to determine what happened here, because I think that's what a craftsman of his caliber would want to do. Sometimes, #### just happens, even to the best of us ... and it's the very best of the best who will follow through, and make things right.

BTW ... I just re-read that bizarre "Pronghorn vs. Truck" thread from several months ago on the Busse forum which Cliff mentioned, and for the life of me, I can't see what caused all the acrimony, unless it was some inflammatory e-mail flying around behind the scenes. Whatever the case, life is too short to harbor much ill will, especially over stuff that's posted to the internet, where the author's intent can so easily be misinterpreted; even more so, when the people involved share some deep, common interests.

 

[burke531]

Gaben,

I can tell you without a doubt that this knife was made at least five years agoand probably longer than that. I know this because I have been hanging around with Ed for that long and that is when he changed the way that his signature is oriented on the blade. I can also tell by the shape of the blade that this is one of his older knives. At the time that we switched from used bearings to the new steel from Rex we were only getting about two hundred and fifty cuts on a piece of hemp rope wich falls right in line with what Cliff found in his test. And I have found from my own dealings with NWKC that what they tell you may not be the way that it is.

I seriously doubt that we will see any more of Ed on these forums for a while as he has come to the conclusion that his time is better spent making knives to pay for the new shop. I hope to be posting pictures in a new thread soon.

 

[Coonskinner]

Any of you guys that want to get rid of these hyped-up, inferior Pronghorns, or other Ed Fowler pieces, especially Bowies, shoot me an e-mail. I'll be glad to help you out.