rust on Blackjack II 1-7 blades

[Cliff Stamp]

Too bad the authors of the thread here and at the other place didn't make the effort. A simple question, rather than an accusation would have surfaced the issue and shed light.

Yes and the same goes for those that respond, you can't just use that arguement one way. Yes the user(s) was at fault for spreading incorrect information, however who started it? What about the actual issue of the blades rusting in spite of care taken to prevent it alongside other blades of similar steels which didn't rust? Why is no attention focused on an actual problem being described and any attempts made to determine where the misinformation came from?

I don't think name-calling helps, but it is predictable when you accuse someone of making "junk" 'cause 1095 rusts -- without bothering to find out that they didn't make the item.

A company comes out with a line of knives in M2. You buy one and find that it isn't like the other M2 knives you own as steel is very coarse and has low edge stability, which would happen if it was overheated for example. You ask a maker and he confirms that the grain is way too coarse for M2. The vendor you bought it from then notes that yes it has caused several returns. You make a public and very harsh complaint about the heat treating of the M2. It turns out that the knives are not M2 but actually D2 and this was due to the company having a communication issue with the supplier. Would you think it fair for you to be critized in such a situation for not confirming your presupposition? Would you be accused of libel/slander?

But the "conclusion" was that BRKT made a defective product. There is no confirmation about that claim.

No he likely didn't contact Blackjack/Stewart, do you every time you buy a knife or do you just take the word of the person who sold it to you and constantly check to make sure the same person(s) run/work for a manufacturer? Stewart notes that he did work on the knives and did at one point own/run Blackjack so it is hardly unreasonable to understand why the issue could have been confused.

Again, you want the user to confirm details, fine, but they can't be blamed for not participating in such an enviroment as created in these two threads. They are hardly examples of how to respond to critism in order to encourage dialogue but rather examples primarily of how to act to prevent such public critism and encourage hype because all the demands for confirmation are one way.

-Cliff

 

[JD Mandrell]

Yes the user(s) was at fault for spreading incorrect information, however who started it?

That's his job to find out before he post misinformation here.

=Cliff Stamp] What about the actual issue of the blades rusting in spite of care taken to prevent it alongside other blades of similar steels which didn't rust? Why is no attention focused on an actual problem being described

Did he ask for any help determining these things...No, he jsut blasted away without doing his own homework.

A company comes out with a line of knives in M2. You buy one and find that it isn't like the other M2 knives you own as steel is very coarse and has low edge stability, which would happen if it was overheated for example. You ask a maker and he confirms that the grain is way too coarse for M2. The vendor you bought it from then notes that yes it has caused several returns.

Again, none of this has been actually proven.

You make a public and very harsh complaint about the heat treating of the M2. It turns out that the knives are not M2 but actually D2 and this was due to the company having a communication issue with the supplier. Would you think it fair for you to be critized in such a situation for not confirming your presupposition?

If you did it without making ANY effort to discuss it with the manufacturer, where you would have learned the actual steel BEFORE you posted false information, then yes you should be critized.

And note, in your own example, the "maker/expert" told you it was bad M2...not much of an expert/maker if he couldn't tell M2 from D2...not a good source to quote is it?

No he likely didn't contact Blackjack/Stewart,

There is no "likely" to it, he didn't.

Stewart notes that he did work on the knives and did at one point own/run Blackjack so it is hardly unreasonable to understand why the issue could have been confused.

Except that this person has had other recent dealing with Mike Stewart, so it's highly unlikely that he thought Mike Stewart still owned Blackjack.

They are hardly examples of how to respond to critism in order to encourage dialogue but rather examples primarily of how to act to prevent such public critism and encourage hype because all the demands for confirmation are one way.
-Cliff

Because as has been noted, this person has a track record of false statements.

The orginator of this thead has a proven track record at BF of making off the wall and inaccurate statements and walking away from them.

It's on him to either back up his statements or retract them.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Yes and the same goes for those that respond, you can't just use that arguement one way. Yes the user(s) was at fault for spreading incorrect information, however who started it? What about the actual issue of the blades rusting in spite of care taken to prevent it alongside other blades of similar steels which didn't rust? Why is no attention focused on an actual problem being described and any attempts made to determine where the misinformation came from?

When you kick in the door and throw in a grenade, some may miss the "Hello; how're you doin'?

As I understand it, no special care was taken. The carbon steel knives were left in the boxes in which Blackjack shipped them to wherever Whitie bought them. Whitie kept them in an air-conditioned space. At some point along the line, something that causes 1095 to rust got together with the 1095. Put wax over that something, and 1095 still rusts. This is not an OMG! thing to happen.

If it was the etching solution left on 1095 blades, they would have shown rust in minutes - not days or weeks.

A company comes out with a line of knives in M2. You buy one and find that it isn't like the other M2 knives you own as steel is very coarse and has low edge stability, which would happen if it was overheated for example. You ask a maker and he confirms that the grain is way too coarse for M2. The vendor you bought it from then notes that yes it has caused several returns. You make a public and very harsh complaint about the heat treating of the M2. It turns out that the knives are not M2 but actually D2 and this was due to the company having a communication issue with the supplier. Would you think it fair for you to be critized in such a situation for not confirming your presupposition? Would you be accused of libel/slander?

If I accused someone who did not make the blades of responsibility, I would expect to catch heat over it -- perhaps even after I apologized sincerely for my blunder.

But, in any case, the analogy is false because there is no claim that the 1095 here was anything other than typical 1095. The claim -- claimed hearsay from an unidentified "custom maker" -- is that etching solution somehow made the blades rust long after they were made - an inherently questionable, if not utterly fantastic, theory for how this 1095 came to rust.

No he likely didn't contact Blackjack/Stewart, do you every time you buy a knife or do you just take the word of the person who sold it to you and constantly check to make sure the same person(s) run/work for a manufacturer? Stewart notes that he did work on the knives and did at one point own/run Blackjack so it is hardly unreasonable to understand why the issue could have been confused.

If I am confused, I would HOPE I would try to gather facts before making public accusations. Here, we had "Fire; ready, aim." And, unless you have private sources, Whitie has not said anyone represented these blades as made by BRKT. So I have no idea what you are attempting to argue when you mention taking "the word of the person who sold it to you...." Was White told by someone that BRKT made the blades?

Again, you want the user to confirm details, fine, but they can't be blamed for not participating in such an enviroment as created in these two threads. They are hardly examples of how to respond to critism in order to encourage dialogue but rather examples primarily of how to act to prevent such public critism and encourage hype because all the demands for confirmation are one way.

Cliff, the "environment" created in "these two threads" was created by the authors of the threads, who chose to start off with untested and false accusations rather than to surface the issue. That is not the best way to open a dialogue. Not everyone is icy calm when unfairly dumped on.

And Cliff, you have not helped the atmosphere in this thread yourself. For example, despite pretty clear information that BRKT did not make the blades, you are still, today, demanding that BRKT, not Blackjack or Mr. Warner, "respond to criticism" about Blackjack's product. If you wanted Blackjack to "respond," you would join me in asking why no inquiry has been made to Blackjack. While a respectful question to Mr. Warner might make sense, it is long past time to get off BRKT's back and move on.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

When you kick in the door and throw in a grenade, some may miss the "Hello; how're you doin'?

Again Thomas, the responce isn't unreasonable given the experience of the user and the information they recieved from the vendor and a maker (other thread). Yes of course he could be making it all up, this is always in contention with internet related postings. Asking for some names for verification would be obviously understandable - of course you also do this about claims in the other extreme as well.

As I understand it, no special care was taken.

From the other thread :

"The two stags were purchased April 28/06 at the Novi Show. The other was purchased from an internet vendor the following week. All three were treated with Renaisance Wax and stored along side my Randalls, De Leons, and Effingham BJ’s. All three were returned to the vendors July5/06 in the pictured condition. The knives they were stored with remain in pristine condition."

Note the disparity in behavior. You would suppose as well that similar exists in this thread, or at least ask before presupposing ignorance on the part of the user, especially if it was your intent to engage in level conversation. You can not reasonably demanding behavior you are not willing to engage in yourself. You have multiple critisms of conclusions without lack of verification but then make the exact same condemnations yourself.

If it was the etching solution left on 1095 blades, they would have shown rust in minutes - not days or weeks.

At full strength yes. I have at times done soakings in various acids and other solutions to check for corrosion and induce a patina, mainly for comparative purposes, I find the artifical patinas distasteful in general. After the soaking you have to be very careful to remove or neutralize all the acids. You can get enhanced corrosion, but not at full strength if you don't take proper care.

Awhile back I did a very harsh soak on a Fallkniven blade in responce to a user query. After I cleaned it and resharpened it, a few weeks later I gave it to a friend. He gave it back to me very quickly and his complaints were very harsh, much more so than used here. It turns out I had not properly removed the soaking treatment and in the weeks after the edge had become weakened.

You could not see it by eye, but it was readily visible under magnification and thus it basically disintegrated in use and was difficult to sharpen because it kept breaking apart. I would hardly fault him for his conclusions and assuming his position his viewpoint was valid given the facts as presented to him. Had I responded similar to what was done here it would have enforced the perception of fault and encouraged said user to repeat the critisms.

He described a problem, critised the knife harshly and interjected some inferences about my lack of experience/knowledge because the knife didn't perform as claimed, wildly so. I could have returned said behavior but instead I assumed what he said was factual because this allows for a productive resolution. If he was lying then it will always go bad but at least this way you give the situation the ability to improve whereas if you are hostile in return it always goes wrong. This is simple operator logic.

After figuring out the problem and showing it to him under magnification, and explaining why the edge damage was corrosion based (it looks very different than chipping or deformation based failure). I resharpened it to remove all weakened metal and returned it to him. The performance was much different, he was much impressed and now is very favorable towards those knives. He is also in a much stronger position obviously in regards to similar in the future and I have learned that it takes more care than I thought to deal with such situations and that I should likely use a neutralizing agent instead of just repeated rinsing/cleaning.

Now yes, his origional responce was harsh and less than ideal because it presupposed fault. However had I returned such I would hardly be in a position to critize. Based on my responce and the outcome he is far more likely to question than conclude in such situations in the future which is of course the goal.

But, in any case, the analogy is false because there is no claim that the 1095 here was anything other than typical 1095.

The analogy isn't to the steel, but simply to applying blade for misinformation not at fault of the participant directly and to illustrate a point about demands on verification and specifically as to what steps the individuals are responsible for checking the information made to them.

If I am confused, I would HOPE I would try to gather facts before making public accusations. Here, we had "Fire; ready, aim."

Again this is simply false and goes on many presuppositions of ignorance on the uses part here and ignores several independent verifications in the other thread.

Was White told by someone that BRKT made the blades?

That would be a reasonable question to ask before infering that he was intentionally lying now would it not?

Cliff, the "environment" created in "these two threads" was created by the authors of the threads, who chose to start off with untested and false accusations rather than to surface the issue.

No, the enviroment is created by those who participate, not just those that origionate. "He started it!" isn't a valid excuse for behavior.

For example, despite pretty clear information that BRKT did not make the blades, you are still, today, demanding that BRKT, not Blackjack or Mr. Warner, "respond to criticism" about Blackjack's product.

No, my critism of said responce was towards the hostility and promotion of censorship. You have no ability obviously to defend a manufacturing process of which you are not involved in and are ignorant of. The most you or anyone could be responsible for would be to direct the user to the accordingly if such information was in your possession.

-Cliff

 

[JD Mandrell]

That would be a reasonable question to ask before infering that he was intentionally lying now would it not? -Cliff

Which I did in post #2 of this thread, note that "whitie" has never answered it.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Again Thomas, the responce isn't unreasonable given the experience of the user and the information they recieved from the vendor and a maker (other thread). Yes of course he could be making it all up, this is always in contention with internet related postings. Asking for some names for verification would be obviously understandable - of course you also do this about claims in the other extreme as well.

Cliff, we can debate what is reasonable when you incorrectly think BRKT somehow made defective blades. Maybe a public denunciation/warning. But, Cliff, we are a tad past that now. BRKT didn't make the blades.

From the other thread :

"The two stags were purchased April 28/06 at the Novi Show. The other was purchased from an internet vendor the following week. All three were treated with Renaisance Wax and stored along side my Randalls, De Leons, and Effingham BJ’s. All three were returned to the vendors July5/06 in the pictured condition. The knives they were stored with remain in pristine condition."

From THIS thread: "I leave them just the way they are shipped." We have two different buyers here, Cliff. THIS buyer leaves them in the cardboard sleeve.

Note the disparity in behavior.

Whatever do you mean, Cliff? The disparity between how Wideglide treated his two 1-7's knives and how White treated his eight knives? Certainly, Whitie had less "edge" to his thread, avoiding the "junk" label for Blackjack's product.

You would suppose as well that similar exists in this thread, or at least ask before presupposing ignorance on the part of the user, especially if it was your intent to engage in level conversation.

Cliff, I don't presuppose ignorance. Whitie was apparently misinformed about who made the blades. I don't know how to be more "level" about that.

You can not reasonably demanding behavior you are not willing to engage in yourself. You have multiple critisms of conclusions without lack of verification but then make the exact same condemnations yourself.

"criticisms": If "you" refers to me, please look at MY posts.

"behavior:" Cliff, you can check me on this. I may be having a senior moment, but IIRC, in all cases where I had a problem with a product, I contacted the vendor or, rarely, the maker. I have never started a thread criticising a product.

And Cliff, while it is interesting to find out what strong acid did to the Falkniven, did your unhappy "friend" start a thread at a major forum denouncing your work? Or did he complain to you personally? And what would your reaction have been if he was confused and you didn't give him the knife -- someone else did? Because he was your friend, you probably would have laughed and pointed out his error. Somehow, I don't think either thread author is a "friend" of BRKT, and the incorrect accusations were quite public.

Everyone reacts differently to what they feel is unfair criticism. Some are more calm than others, but an accusation that faslely attacks one's livlihood is more likely to draw a "hot" reaction. That may not be logic, but it is human experience. Ignore it as you choose, but ignoring it does not help communication.

The analogy isn't to the steel, but simply to applying blade for misinformation not at fault of the participant directly and to illustrate a point about demands on verification and specifically as to what steps the individuals are responsible for checking the information made to them.

Sorry, I don't understand at all. Really I do not.

Again this is simply false and goes on many presuppositions of ignorance on the uses part here and ignores several independent verifications in the other thread.

Cliff, if you think that BRKT is, in fact, responsible for this problem, please share the basis for that belief. I simply do not think that what I said is "false." The accusations were made without any apparent effort to verify who made the blades. I do not "presuppose" anything. So far as I see, they were wrong.

That would be a reasonable question to ask before infering that he was intentionally lying now would it not?

I never said Whitie was "intentionally lying." Who did?

No, the enviroment is created by those who participate, not just those that origionate. "He started it!" isn't a valid excuse for behavior.

Cliff, you are right that we are all responsible for our behavior. But starting out with attacks reduces that chances of calm discussion.

No, my criticism of said responce was towards the hostility and promotion of censorship.

Cliff, this is not a place where there is censorship that I can see. The mods here pretty much let people express their opinions and experiences.

Hostility? I don't know if Whitie is "hostile" so much as angry. I don't know if HE has a history with BRKT. Any hostility directed at Whitie here seems to be based on the facts, so far as we see, that an accusation was made, it proved to be false, and no apology has been forthcoming.

You have no ability obviously to defend a manufacturing process of which you are not involved in and are ignorant of. The most you or anyone could be responsible for would be to direct the user to the accordingly if such information was in your possession.
-Cliff

Again, I don't follow. Sorry.

 

[Keith Montgomery]

Cliff, I think the reason that people ask that negative comments be substantiated when they do not ask for the same thing when the comments are positive is that positive comments seem to get very little attention, while negative ones can lead to threads like this one. I would estimate that the average positive thread on G,B & U has 3 to 4 replies. The average negative thread would have many times more than that. If unchallenged, I would be willing to bet that the comments made by the original poster in this thread would stay with the people that read them far more vividly than any positive comments they have read about BRK&T.

 

[Scottz]

Cliff, do you have some personal reason for dragging this out and trying to make BRKT look bad? Because it sure seems like you have a personal vendetta going on here.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Cliff, I think the reason that people ask that negative comments be substantiated when they do not ask for the same thing when the comments are positive is that positive comments seem to get very little attention, while negative ones can lead to threads like this one.

I think this is a consequence of an underlying reason rather than the principle cause itself. The main reason most threads bloat is ad hominen discussion usually by extreme fans whol readily encourage hype/promotion with no demands on verification but will require extreme levels for any critism due simply to an obvious bias for a maker/manufacturer.

Cliff, we can debate what is reasonable when you incorrectly think BRKT somehow made defective blades. Maybe a public denunciation/warning.

Yes and that is exactly what happened and as noted was a reasonable conclusion given the facts presented. Once additional facts are made available it would then be reasonable to consider a change in viewpoint and a retraction if the data was contradictory to that from which the origional conclusions were drawn. However if said data is presented in a hostile manner and extended to ad hominem arguements it then ceases to be reasonable to expect any further dialogue.

I don't presuppose ignorance.

The main presuppositions here was the 1095 blades should have rusted and the user was at fault for the misinformation about the manufacturer. I can leave 1095 blades exposed here with no protectant for months with no rust because the enviroment isn't inherently corrosive. If therefore I bought a 1095 blade and it did rust quickly it would point to a problem of some sort obviously. However were there questions of this nature posted to the origional poster or was there an assumption made of ignorance on their part about the behavior of 1095. Similar with the source of the misinformation on who made the knives.

...did your unhappy "friend" start a thread at a major forum denouncing your work?

Isn't internet active. He likely made many comments to others though, and rather strongly. I was rather adamant disputing many claims he had been making such as those steels being hard to sharpen and fragile and being radically overpriced and then I give him a knife which behaves exactly as he argued to me it should. He was more than a little happy to deliver a powerful "I told you so." Had we been in public then it would have been delivered there, powerfully so.

That I knew him was not of significance to how I reacted, because as noted I would consider his viewpoint understandable given the information he had and his personality. Nor was the fact that the comments were semi-private and not vocalized on mass. My responce would have been near identical had the comments been made on Bladeforms, the only difference is that I would have been more level because as I knew him I could kid him about his ignorance .

Everyone reacts differently to what they feel is unfair criticism. Some are more calm than others, but an accusation that faslely attacks one's livlihood is more likely to draw a "hot" reaction. That may not be logic, but it is human experience. Ignore it as you choose, but ignoring it does not help communication.

I am not ignoring it. What I am saying is that criticism for behavior also duplicated by the accuser is hardly sensible. If a poster can't respond in a level manner to criticism then it is obviously not sensible to demand the origional poster do so to an apparent significant product failure. Speaking of monetary influence only on the makers/manufacturer is also biased as well. There is again no attempt made to obtain information or even consider the viewpoint of the user(s). The cost of these knives may be trival to some but may easily be a significant investement to those buying them and thus the time and effort in dealing with said problems also of consequence.

...if you think that BRKT is, in fact, responsible for this problem, please share the basis for that belief.

From Stewart's statement it is clear that they are not. My point was that due to his past connection with Blackjack, the fact that they do sell items as BRK&T products which are just modified items made by someone else, and the fact that they did work on these blades all make it reasonable to see where the user(s) could have been misinformed through no fault of their own. Thus before reaching a conclusion I would ask them how they obtained that information. There are reasons obviously beyond the immediate because there could be a vendor selling them as such which you would want to correct obviously.

In regards to responsibility, if you had no part in controlling the making, promotion or sale of an item it isn't reasonable to hold you directly responsible to resolve problems with its behavior. If for example a custom maker with your name sold me a knife and I gave it to someone and they then critized you for its behavior you obviously can't be held responsible. The most that could be expected would be for you, which would hold in general, to provide any assistance possible if it was within your means to do so and you were so inclined.

I simply do not think that what I said is "false." The accusations were made without any apparent effort to verify who made the blades.

You had no communication with the individuals and thus don't know where they got such information. Lots of posters will discuss knives, good or bad, based on information given to them by those that sold/gave them the blades. Very few if any call up the makers/manufacturers to confirm all details and it is never the case that it is demanded of them to do so. Thus such a viewpoint can not be taken here obviously in isolation and expected to be given any merit.

Consider, Turber's review of an ATAK which was critical in several respects. McClung countered with the staemtne that is was *not* a knife from his shop. You can debate McClung's proposal on the origion of said knife, however no where in that discussion did anyone criticize Turber before not verifying it was an actual ATAK from McClung *before* going public. Everyone assumed it was reasonable to proceed with what he was told when he obtained the knife.

The debate on it actually being a knife made from McClung or a stolen defect was never fully resolved. It lasted for some time with Turber and others challenging what McClung said as they did *NOT* accept his viewpoint on it being a stolen defect, and demanded proof. However this is actually a side issue to the point that it was not reasonable to demand Mike contact the maker directly in private before going public.

But starting out with attacks reduces that chances of calm discussion.

Yes and replying to them in the same form guarantees it won't. In regards to the comments about censorship and lying, this applies the the thread on Knifeforms not to here. Though in general heavy demands for verification on critism and not on praise tends to have a similar effect on information flow.

-Cliff

 

[JD Mandrell]

And the fact still remains, that false/incorrect statements have been made and no retractions has been made even after multiple request for proof.

"Whitie"....why have you not corrected your error?

I would think if this was all some mistake in which you were misinformed yourself, you would be in a hurry to redeem your error?????

 

[CDNWIDE]

I would like to address a number of issues since I am the original poster on KF’s.
- I don’t post under the same pen name as here which seems to be a source of some karmic revelation to some of you
- I can no longer post on KF’s which is no great loss if it can only be used as a product endorsement forum
- This all started in a thread on KF’s entitled “New Model 1-7’s” in which I related the basis of my experience
- Mike Stewart went to immediate personal attack mode by suggesting something inappropriate had taken place. It was a response more relevant to the schoolyard.
- Mike Stewart insisted I back up my claims with pictures. When I did so he accused me of purposely trying to enflame the issue. If he didn’t want to see them he shouldn’t have asked for them.
- I mentioned NO names
- I don’t subscribe to the theory that my first response should be to let the maker “make it right”. He has had plenty of opportunity to make it right before it leaves his door. I hold him to the same standard that I hold my own work. When you make my money than you can tell me how to spend it and what I should expect for it.
- Some have suggested I should expect 1095 to rust. I do. I just don’t expect it to in less than 90 days.
- Exception has been made to the term “rusty junk”. Well as the pictures show it is rusty. I believe than any product you purchase that has a significant depreciation within 90 days is JUNK.
- Mike Stewart has said he doesn’t have anything to do with the blades. He just assembles the knives. In that case, as the saying goes he “doesn’t have a dog in this fight”. He should put his little legs on his little desk and chill.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Well, Cliff, we have been told. No "dog in the fight." Were's that desk?

 

[CDNWIDE]

Strange that that's what you got from the post. The majority of this thread has been concerned with a person's ability to express dissatisfaction about a product and product expectation.

 

[whitie]

And the fact still remains, that false/incorrect statements have been made and no retractions has been made even after multiple request for proof.

"Whitie"....why have you not corrected your error?

I would think if this was all some mistake in which you were misinformed yourself, you would be in a hurry to redeem your error?????

Sorry, I didn't post about the rust on my BJII 1-7 to sit back and read the follow up posts. I'm still living under the cloud of my glaring error.

I wish I hadn't posted, not because of the Mike Stewart fan club reaction (fully expected and all too common IMHO), but because I think very highly of Ken Warner. Ken is an honest man and a true gentleman, and Ken is more of a knife authority than Mike Stewart will ever hope to become. To suggest that BRKT is not responsible for the rusted 1-7 blades, then you by default assume that Ken Warner is responsible. Personally, I find that rather hard to believe. Yes, I know, the MS fan club will disagree... believe what you want.

whitie

 

[Thomas Linton]

Whitie, the way it works in the sale of goods is that a seller makes warranties to the buyer -- at each step of the process -- unless those warranties are clearly disclaimed BEFORE sale. One warranty is that the goods meet ordinary reasonable expectations for goods of that type ("merchantability").

Whitie, if you truly respect Ken Warner and his expertise, what do you make of his decision to have so many models of knives made by BRKT? Ditto for A.G. There are others.

And do you expect to criticise Mr. Warner's product and have it escape him entirely? It is his product. Me, I'd wonder who made the blades? No curiousity there on anyone's part, apparently.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

And the fact still remains, that false/incorrect statements have been made and no retractions has been made ...

The level of irony of your last few posts has been so astounding that I am starting to believe you are actually posting in jest because your level of self-contradiction is extreme. You are the same person who continues to propogate misinformation, ignore published research, and any and all user data which don't agree with the viewpoint your are trying to support. You have no problem infering lack of ability on maker/users without ever discussing the details with them. See for example :

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3847619&postcount=3

When I pointed out that there is published work which shows this to be false, including a wealth of materials data, and cite the resources, along with references to many experienced user and maker reports, some of them which are over a dozen years old, you reply that not only have you not contacted those individuals with contradictory data before you heavily critize them stating they don't know how to sharpen knives correctly you do not intend to :

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3847847&postcount=6

You also belittle the work they do, refering to a PhD thesis by Landes who is a metallurgist and knife maker as "second hand info" from a person who lacks your level of sharpening skills, and similar for Verhoeven, not to mention Johnston who has one of the most extreme demands on sharpness I have ever heard of. You then still have the ability with a straight face to ask/demand for an apology here?

-Cliff

 

[Ken C.]

Sorry, I didn't post about the rust on my BJII 1-7 to sit back and read the follow up posts. I'm still living under the cloud of my glaring error.

I wish I hadn't posted, not because of the Mike Stewart fan club reaction (fully expected and all too common IMHO), but because I think very highly of Ken Warner. Ken is an honest man and a true gentleman, and Ken is more of a knife authority than Mike Stewart will ever hope to become. To suggest that BRKT is not responsible for the rusted 1-7 blades, then you by default assume that Ken Warner is responsible. Personally, I find that rather hard to believe. Yes, I know, the MS fan club will disagree... believe what you want.

whitie

This is complete BS. So because you think highly of Mr. warner you place blame on Mike Stewart for your rusty blades?!!! WTF is that about? Mike Stewart worked at Blackjack back in the day. To say he is not knowledgable sounds more like a personal attack. BRK&T is not responsible for your rusty blades!!! They only assembled the knives and then were shipped back to Blackjack you halfwit! I would like to know how you've come to the conclusion that BRK&T is responsible. You are one ignorant individual if you truly believe that. Did you bring any of this up to Ken Warner since you think so highly of him? What is his opinion on the matter? Or would you rather us call Mr. Warner and ask him to respond to this thread?

I am of the strong opinion that you are here for nothing more than a smear campaign against Mike Stewart and BRK&T. You needed a scapegoat because you can't possibly fathom that your knife hero could possibly let a less than quality knife leave his shop.

You are a troll of the highest order. Nothing more, nothing less.

And for all of you who think I'm wrong......too bad.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Some have suggested I should expect 1095 to rust. I do. I just don’t expect it to in less than 90 days.

It is possible for most low alloy carbon steels, even many stainless to see significant rust in various enviroments in that length of time. You just need a high temperature and humidity. What would be problematic would be if one set of knives of a similar alloy and finish rusted significant before another .

-Cliff

 

[JD Mandrell]

The level of irony of your last few posts has been so astounding that I am starting to believe you are actually posting in jest because your level of self-contradiction is extreme. You are the same person who continues to propogate misinformation, ignore published research, and any and all user data which don't agree with the viewpoint your are trying to support. You have no problem infering lack of ability on maker/users without ever discussing the details with them. See for example :

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3847619&postcount=3



-Cliff

What a complete load of BS, where did I ever attack a knife maker personally in that thread?

What I stated is, what I believe to be true...from my direct experience. Never did I attack or disredit ANYONE else.

This is nothing more than a VERY sad attempt to change the topic after digging yourself into a hole.

All I have ever done in this thread from my first post is simply ask for more information, which has never been recieved.

 

[JD Mandrell]

Sorry, I didn't post about the rust on my BJII 1-7 to sit back and read the follow up posts. I'm still living under the cloud of my glaring error.

I wish I hadn't posted, not because of the Mike Stewart fan club reaction (fully expected and all too common IMHO), but because I think very highly of Ken Warner. Ken is an honest man and a true gentleman, and Ken is more of a knife authority than Mike Stewart will ever hope to become. To suggest that BRKT is not responsible for the rusted 1-7 blades, then you by default assume that Ken Warner is responsible. Personally, I find that rather hard to believe. Yes, I know, the MS fan club will disagree... believe what you want.

whitie

Actually the first question I asked was were you sure who made them.

Notice that he still didn't provide the information or retract his error.