stainless upkeep versus carbon: Super Blue edition

[goodeyesniper]

So, I got my first bit of "patina" on my SB Delica. and it's on the highly stainless 420j1 steel, not on the easily corrosive carbon core... go figure

kinda makes me wonder why people like soft stainless aesthetically over a simply pure carbon blade, as it's nearly impossible to avoid those scratches compared to the ease in avoiding rust. I prefer the look of nice patina over a bunch of scratches any day.

That said, all my knives are users, and my most used spyderco isn't stainless and it shows. about to take the Delica camping, and I'm sure it will have more love marks afterwards.

oh, and I'm aware this steel is laminated to keep production costs low, not to avoid patina. just saying

 

[Cynic2701]

On an EDC blade I can see the advantages of cladding in stainless to help keep corrosion at bay. Super blue can rust in minutes if you leave water/blood/acid on the blade--I've had enough Super Blue (SB Caly 3.5 and a few kitchen knives) to encounter this personally.

I'm not convinced by the argument that it is cheaper to clad a knife steel in another steel. The cost of a billet of 3 mm Super Blue vs 1 mm Super blue would not be that enormous, and I'm pretty sure the cost of cladding would actually make the stainless clad Super Blue billet more expensive.

Personally I like a good patina. What I don't like is worrying about rust in the pivot and areas that I can't see or access easily. The stainless cladding helps with a lot of it. I plan on picking up a SB Stretch when they come out due to the cladding--I got rid of a SB Caly 3.5, though I would likely have kept it had it been clad.

I don't mind scratches on my knife. I think it just encourages me to actually use it, rather than keep it pristine and in a box somewhere.