OK, let's normalize everything.
Compare 2 of the EXACT same blades, only difference being blade steel.
Is it still a valid statement that one can be more difficult to sharpen than the other?
FWIW, I have found that different steels respond differently to different abrasive types, and without any rhyme or reason that I can identify.
For my ordinary kitchen knives and non-wonder-steel knives, I use several different stone types, including Norton India (alum oxide), Norton Crystolon (silicon carbide), various Washita and Arkansas stones, diamond plates, ceramic stones, etc.
I don't know what hardnesses the steels are (other than "not super hard") but some steels seem to respond well (with good feedback, good sharpenability in a reasonable amount of time, etc.) to some stones, while not responding well to other stones. And it's not always the same stones. One particular stone might work well with one particular knife, but for a different knife, it might be a completely different stone. And I can't really figure out what's different in the steel to make it easy to sharpen on stone x versus difficult to sharpen on stone y.
Sometimes it will be the softer stone (AlOx) that seems to cut better...other times it will be the harder stone (SiC) that seems to cut better. Sometimes one type of stone won't seem to bite into a certain steel type (like trying to file quenched, hardened steel)...but a different stone (and not always a harder stone) will seem to bite into that particular steel just fine.
Last edited: