Ed :
All 52100 is not the same.
Pretty much none of any steel you buy is the same. It will vary from one manufacturer to another, even if you ask for the exact same thing. Even if you buy from the same guy over and over you still get variances. However the magnitude of the differences are not larger than the inherent difference in 52100 to say M2.
This is trivial as if this wasn't the case *by defination* it then isn't 52100 any more. Logically then the differences in the behavior of the steels (M2 to 52100 for example) are going to be larger in magnitude than the differences in the variances among the 52100. The only way to argue against this is on the basis that the elements that a steel is made up of don't have an influnce on the property of the steel.
You discuss forged vs stock removal like they were two concise
discriptions
I discussed specific elements of each, which were well defined. Of course there are variations, you can stock removal by knapping for example instead of grinding. This doesn't mean you still can't make generalizations. For example forging is more flexible in shape constraints of the base material than stock removal, which doesn't lend itself to much beyond bar stock.
You talk about spring back vs soft back as if it were a simple construct.
Again, I discussed specific aspects of each. All soft backs are for example softer than all spring backs by defination. It doesn't matter if the soft back is produced by a careful heat treat, or you rub a lab and a genie pops out and does it for you. By defination, it is softer. This lower hardness has direct implications. No, of course not all soft backs are the same. This was never said.
Mike :
Cliff, you must be the most patient man in the world.
Marion Poff asked me a long time ago how come I never got upset on the forums even when some of the posts got really out of hand. It is really simple, see beyond the words and understand the reasoning behind them. If an insult has no validity then it can't bother you.
When the question was asked I knew I had two basic answers, one was a simple "No". The other option would be to explain why I don't have an interest in one of Ed's knives. To share information I have learned on steels and geometry while explaining where my perspective came from.
I knew when I did this it was very likely that the chestnut arguement would surface (you have not used the knife!). This is common on the forums. As I noted in the above, it always goes one way, you don't see any problems with praise, even though the reasoning is exactly the same.
I also knew no arguement would be made against the actual statements. Many of them of course I didn't come up with; some are general principles of materials, others well known properties of knife performance, some of which can be shown to be true by simple logic.
Not all makers are of course like this, Busse for example posts up designs from time to time, and you can see in old posts my responses to them, which are not always glowingly positive. One of the most surprising responces to a post of this kind came when a Reeve dealer asked me if I had reviewed one of his knives. I responded similar to the above saying I had little interest, I went much further saying I thought the knives were actually nonfunctional for a few reasons. The guy responds by saying that he thought I was wrong and sends out one so I can check it. I check it and he was right, they were not as bad as I thought (the handle checkering specifically).
If when I handle one of Ed's or Bill's blades, I find that the soft back is actually stronger than a fully hardened or spring one, or that the 60 RC edge is stronger and more wear resistanct than CPM-10V at 64/65 RC, or tougher than S7, or more corrosion resistant than 420HC, or that somehow his tapers make the blade stiffer, or his geometry cuts differently than another blade ground exactly the same, or that prying is actually efficient with a pry bar bent in a U, then I'll make a post here clarifying that.
And then I'll spend some time with some of the guys in Engineering trying to figure out how any of that is possible as there is a lot of fundamental principles of materials and basic physics being ignored there. It is unlikely - but possible. It is also possible that Jerry will start drinking a decent beer, that isn't very likely either though.
-Cliff
After reading posts in this thread I cann't help but think that Cliff's bias will have input whether subconscious or not.