I vaguely remember this test. It would be interesting to read it again. I have the Blade Magazine 1973-1997 DVD. Do you think the article was 1997 or earlier?
If the test was indeed performed under these strict guidelines, that does seem like the best way to get accurate results on the steel itself.
I think it probably was before 1997. I've never heard of another test making generic blades specifically for the test, so I am kind of surprised that just because it is 20+ years old it has completely vanished from memory (I do kick myself for not having kept it, but do you keep everything, or do you hope instead it can be found later?)... It should pop up some day, given it was in either one of the two most mainstream of knife mags of the period... To me the fact that 440C did so overwhelmingly well was a complete shock at the time... There was a huge deal made of ATS34 at the time, and I kind of never recovered my interest in "new" steels after that, especially after even the two early Crucible steels were badly beaten...
As for newer steels having more than 18% chrome,
I did say I did not keep up with the newer steels...: That they exceed 440C in edge-holding is still unknown, even if I know more chrome is better UP to 18%, because I would not know if a curve of diminishing returns kicks in above 18%... Maybe 20% is better: I never said otherwise, or that newer steels were not better: I said a proper test was not made of those...
Only a test with purpose-made generic blades would do that...
And since I sometimes notice edge-holding performance differences between two of my sharpenings on the
same knife (wire edge carefully excluded), I wonder how many would recognize correctly the relative performance of different steels in a blind test?
Gaston