The Bears' Den--Shirogorov Showcase

[Jsega51]

The thing that holds me up on Shiros is, having never seen one in person, I can't really tell what the finish is like. Does it wear well?

I’ve found that their common stonewash finish holds up great and hides wear pretty well. It’s not as “gritty” as the CRK stonewash, it’s closer to CRK’s glass blast finish if that helps. They have a new finish on some models that has fine satin “scratch” marks running all different directions which will absolutely hide the common pocket marks, I didn’t care for it at first but I like it now with their use of it on the inlay models, a full scale may not look as good.

Most marks on my Shiros have accumulated on the pocket clips but can attest that even those hold up nicely.

OK, possibly a couple dumb questions for the folks here, but this seems the best place to ask. I searched a bit and couldn’t find the answers.

Is there a way to figure out birthday of a Shiro based upon the serial number?

Also, what does “Zero” specifically mean relative to a particular model? Is it just a thicker blade?

I haven’t found any correlation of the serial numbers to a date for the knife so I think the only way to “date” one would be to examine the knife’s configuration to determine what generation it is since they make changes to blade stock, handle materials, blade jimping styles etc. As far as the “zero” name, it’s just their sort of plain jane variant utilizing a full Ti frame, no inlays (NL designation) or many embellishments.

 

[SpyderPhreak]

I haven’t found any correlation of the serial numbers to a date for the knife so I think the only way to “date” one would be to examine the knife’s configuration to determine what generation it is since they make changes to blade stock, handle materials, blade jimping styles etc. As far as the “zero” name, it’s just their sort of plain jane variant utilizing a full Ti frame, no inlays (NL designation) or many embellishments.

Thanks for this. Explains why I couldn’t find the information on the s/n’s anywhere. I see how the Zero designation makes sense, I appreciate it.

 

[Jsega51]

Thanks for this. Explains why I couldn’t find the information on the s/n’s anywhere. I see how the Zero designation makes sense, I appreciate it.

No problem! Another note on the “Zero” variant, they are usually only a “plain jane” model in looks, I don’t want to make it seem like they’re a budget model because the F95 Zero has M390, the multi-row bearings and detailed milling inside and out, definitely a more refined and premium offering.

 

[SpyderPhreak]

No problem! Another note on the “Zero” variant, they are usually only a “plain jane” model in looks, I don’t want to make it seem like they’re a budget model because the F95 Zero has M390, the multi-row bearings and detailed milling inside and out, definitely a more refined and premium offering.

Sometimes less is more. I actually have a F95 Zero inbound, and while it’s not flashy, I wouldn’t call it plain either.

I hadn’t noted the “Zero” moniker on any other model until recently, and thought it was exclusive to the F95.

 

[Jsega51]

Sometimes less is more. I actually have a F95 Zero inbound, and while it’s not flashy, I wouldn’t call it plain either.

Ohhhhhh yeah baby, I think you’re going to like it!

 

[SpyderPhreak]

Ohhhhhh yeah baby, I think you’re going to like it!

Hope so! Been watching for a good price on one, on and off, for the last ~4 years, since I got my NeOn NL. Can’t wait!

 

[Pompous]

I'm really late chipping in here but yeah I had a lot of trouble flipping the Astrum 1st Production. I was flipping it with the center of the palmar side of the 2nd digit and it wouldn't flip half the time. I spoke with the vendor (you know who) and they advised me to try flipping with the lateral (thumb side) aspect of the palmar surface of the 2nd digit and this works all the time except if I have recently applied lotion to my hands or if the knife has any residue on it. Really disappointing. This finding, for me, limits the use cases for the knife. I would not carry the knife in any application where one's hands/the knife are not pristine (hunting, camping, etc.) because it will not reliably flip.

Of course this level of fussiness is really annoying considering the price-point and when one advantage of a knife with a tab-lock is that it should flip without fail (no worries of finger pressure on the lockbar like with framelocks). Speaking of framelocks, my 4mm blade-stock F95's will flip no matter what.

So for me this limits the Astrum's carry options to dress/formal carry or safe queen status.
@rockman0

Late on my reply too but I ended up figuring out something that worked for me.

Basically I just slid the entire knife down into my palm - so the tail of the knife was hanging lower in my palm than is typical for a flipper. That lets me get a bit more preload on the tab itself, and also changes the angle of how my finger is pressing the tab - so the pressure is going more straight down (along the spine of the handles) vs toward the tip of the blade.

After spending a few days making a concious effort of doing that, it became a LOT more seamless for me and I loved carrying my Astrum as a primary carry until I recently picked up the CDX.

I'm still a bit torn on my Astrum - I haven't sold it because I do enjoy the knife, but unlikely to get much carry anymore compared to the CDX. We shall see.

 

[Bacchus]

Also, what does “Zero” specifically mean relative to a particular model? Is it just a thicker blade?

No problem! Another note on the “Zero” variant, they are usually only a “plain jane” model in looks, I don’t want to make it seem like they’re a budget model because the F95 Zero has M390, the multi-row bearings and detailed milling inside and out, definitely a more refined and premium offering.

They are top-tier production models indeed. Personally I call F95 Zero a "plain jane" for the lack of a better term. AFAIK NeON 3M was the first "Zero" edition (May 2019), followed by HatiON Zero (March 2020) and F95 Zero (January 2022).

F95 Zero (updated in June 2024) is literally a sibling of the recent F95 NL except for 2 rather debatable manufacturing stages, which makes the difference mostly aesthetic, and the price is almost on par with NL or Turtle.

Zero version is an excellent choice in case you:
(1) dislike inlays (I do, especially on the lock-side) and
(2) do not want the scales "factory pre-scratched"

It has obvious 3M features: a slim M390 blade, CPS × 2, MRBS, spacer and extensive milling on the inner side.

And easy to miss "why-would-they-do-it" features like milling inside the lanyard port and on the reverse (!) side of the pocket clip:

It also may have fine, fluted milling on the blade choil chamfers (AFAK this is not guaranteed for Zero, but it's common for Astrum and recent CD blades):

---

If I was looking for "true plain jane" production Shiro in terms of "bang for the buck", I'd try either Quantum Lefty or it's mirrored version for righties (it's just Quantum Ursus, w/o NL suffix)

For entry level price it packs slim and high ground Cromax PM (pretty stain resistant) blade, MRBS (18 bps) and internal milling (hence 118g only).

The later 2 features were not common for the initial Quantum Ursus (NL) release, which had single row bearings and 2 plain titanium slabs (125g).

 

[Bacchus]

This finding, for me, limits the use cases for the knife. I would not carry the knife in any application where one's hands/the knife are not pristine (hunting, camping, etc.) because it will not reliably flip.

...

So for me this limits the Astrum's carry options to dress/formal carry or safe queen status.

I did carry my Astrum FP a lot, but it would not be my choice for hunting or camping anyway. Not sure about Stellar, which feels more robust. 111 Outdoor could be the right choice, if it was not so rare. Forthcoming 111 Aquatic might be a viable alternative — not a cheap one, but neither is Astrum.

IMHO Astrum fits the niche of a full-sized gentlemen folder (CRK Mnandi on steroids), pretty fidgetable, very comfortable to carry for the blade length and functional enough for city-style EDC.

 

[SpyderPhreak]

They are top-tier production models indeed. Personally I call F95 Zero a "plain jane" for the lack of a better term. AFAIK Neon 3M was the first "Zero" edition (May 2019), followed by Hation Zero (March 2020) and F95 Zero (January 2022).

F95 Zero (updated in June 2024) is literally a sibling of the recent F95 NL except for 2 rather debatable manufacturing stages, which makes the difference mostly aesthetic, and the price is almost on par with NL or Turtle.

Zero version is an excellent choice in case you:
(1) dislike inlays (I do, especially on the lock-side) and
(2) do not want the scales "factory pre-scratched"

It has obvious 3M features: a slim M390 blade, CPS × 2, MRBS, spacer and extensive milling on the inner side.

And easy to miss "why-would-they-do-it" features like milling inside the lanyard port and on the reverse (!) side of the pocket clip:

It also may have fine, fluted milling on the blade choil chamfers (AFAK this is not guaranteed for Zero, but it's common for Astrum and recent CD blades):

---

If I was looking for "true plain jane" production Shiro in terms of "bang for the buck", I'd try either Quantum Lefty or it's mirrored version for righties (it's just Quantum Ursus, w/o NL suffix)

For entry level price it packs slim and high ground Cromax PM (pretty stain resistant) blade, MRBS (18 bps) and internal milling (hence 118g only).

The later 2 features were not common for the initial Quantum Ursus (NL) release, which had single row bearings and 2 plain titanium slabs (125g).

Thanks for the info! I know my inbound F95 Zero was made sometime before January 2023, so I guess it’s a 2022 model! That definitely narrows down the birthday some.

And easy to miss "why-would-they-do-it" features like milling inside the lanyard port and on the reverse (!) side of the pocket clip:

It also may have fine, fluted milling on the blade choil chamfers (AFAK this is not guaranteed for Zero, but it's common for Astrum and recent CD blades):

Those milling lines are not “features”. They’re leftover from the manufacturing process. Since these are fully milled Ti pieces, a mill cutter bit has touched EVERY surface! Those lines are leftover “coarse” milling passes, and if I were guessing, it seems a cost cutting measure if those surface used to be smooth on older knives.

This coarse line texture would have had to have been smoothed out by a second or third process in the past to leave a smooth surface, so I don’t see the visible milling lines as any sort of an “upgrade” over previous smooth surfaces.

TLDR; visible lines = cheap, fast, likely only one machining process. Smooth = expensive, more time, several machining processes.

 

[Bacchus]

visible lines = cheap, fast, likely only one machining process. Smooth = expensive, more time, several machining processes.

Well, I tend to agree that it might be true — in general for large scale (and probably outsourced) production.

But I seriously doubt that same rules always/fully apply to premium in-house products, which mid-tech knives are.

Let me put it this way — why is the very basic entry level $650 Ursus model so smooth without "leftovers", while the ~$2000 Custom Division model is literally covered with them?

I see no reason (for the maker) to waste money on smoothing out the surface of the basic knife, if he has "to cut corners" with the flagship product. The table price for most CDs & collabs is lower than buyers are willing to pay, isn't it logical to increase the price a bit to make "proper" surface (if $2000 is not enough to arrange 2nd-3rd CNC pass)?

 

[Jsega51]

I think there’s also something to be said about how those milled areas are laid out as well. It has to be quite a programming process to mill all those different directions while also milling in a tapered fashion so everything blends together and looks intentional and necessary for the aesthetic of the knife. I never thought about it possibly being a cost saving measure because of that I guess, taking one of these knives apart really shows off the little things that have to take a crap ton of time to implement.

 

[Ilikesharpstuff]

There's good arguments for both sides. While the point can be made that it takes more steps to further finish the surfaces after milling therefore leaving milling marks is cost cutting, there's also the blatantly obvious...knife guys seem to love any and all instances of milling being visible and sometimes textured. Yes, these parts are intricately 3D machined and every surface has been milled, BUT, it is an extremely popular aesthetic in the market to mill with intent and leave tool marks/scallops/texture that compliment the lines of the knife and add grip and/or visual appeal. Perceived value also increases..."wow, look at all that milling". Again, yes, knives with titanium scales have all been milled, but milling for pattern or texture is generally more desirable than something just milled flat and chamfered. CRK scales are milled and finished smooth with no tool marks...imagine how much more they'd cost with intricate milling like so many Shiros have. There's also time and money associated with figuring out what stepover will leave the desired pattern, what size end mill needs to be run to give the proper definition without being too radiused or too square, and when to change the tool so that such minute features don't disappear as the tool wears out...like I speculated when it was brought up that some of the first production Astrums seemed to have slight variances in the milled patterns on the show scale. When the "leftover" mill scallops and tool patterns become part of the design, it's no longer as simple as not taking the steps to smooth them out. They have to be there and they have to look good.

 

[severedthumbs]

TLDR; visible lines = cheap, fast, likely only one machining process. Smooth = expensive, more time, several machining processes.

100% incorrect.

 

[SpyderPhreak]

Well, I tend to agree that it might be true — in general for large scale (and probably outsourced) production.

But I seriously doubt that same rules always/fully apply to premium in-house products, which mid-tech knives are.

Let me put it this way — why is the very basic entry level $650 Ursus model so smooth without "leftovers", while the ~$2000 Custom Division model is literally covered with them?

I see no reason (for the maker) to waste money on smoothing out the surface of the basic knife, if he has "to cut corners" with the flagship product. The table price for most CDs & collabs is lower than buyers are willing to pay, isn't it logical to increase the price a bit to make "proper" surface (if $2000 is not enough to arrange 2nd-3rd CNC pass)?

I’m sure in the instance you are showing here, the milled lines are intentional, and are like that for visual stimulation/aesthetics. However, let’s make all those surfaces smooth instead. That would cost more, due to more machine time for a finer, smooth finish. The finished knife above “looks cool”, but it would guaranteed cost more if all surfaces/facets were finished in the same manner as the central, raised surface is.

100% incorrect.

Nope. Taken at face value, my statement is 100% correct. It is always more expensive (and takes longer) to create a finer, smoother finish. Period. It’s like that for aerospace machining (I’m in aerospace, so have a bit of an idea of what I’m saying here), it’s like that for any machining.

The question that started this is, why are previously smooth surfaces now showing mill lines? It is because they are not spending as much machine time on those surfaces. That’s just how it works. My response was only to address that specifically, I was in no way talking about the entirety of the knife, but it still applies. Why this change? It has to be to save time and/or money.

I think there’s also something to be said about how those milled areas are laid out as well. It has to be quite a programming process to mill all those different directions while also milling in a tapered fashion so everything blends together and looks intentional and necessary for the aesthetic of the knife. I never thought about it possibly being a cost saving measure because of that I guess, taking one of these knives apart really shows off the little things that have to take a crap ton of time to implement.

It’s not really that big of a deal. The majority of the work is done in the 3D CAD program by the design engineer, and then it’s converted to the CAM program for the machine to follow. There’s not a ton of human interaction to program the machine for the tool paths, etc. Assuming they’re using any semi-modern machining centers anyway. Which they almost have to be based on the knives.

 

[ChazzyP]

^^What an interesting discussion--almost entirely thoughtful and respectful as well. After seeing such an involved discourse and tight pics of new, high-end knives, someone putting up theirs of older, more basic Bears would seem out of place, but that's what I intended before I came over. I did carry my UL yesterday after seeing B Bacchus 's response regarding the NeOn origins of Zero's as mine was the more "budget" version precursor of those. I didn't mind the S30V and do prefer the open back construction. Today had me carrying my basic (probably Gen2) Turtle--a favorite M390 work knife with SRBS, no internal milling, and lots of wear to show the love.

 

[Bacchus]

The question that started this is, why are previously smooth surfaces now showing mill lines? It is because they are not spending as much machine time on those surfaces. That’s just how it works. My response was only to address that specifically, I was in no way talking about the entirety of the knife, but it still applies. Why this change? It has to be to save time and/or money.

I see your point regarding the technical aspects of CNC machining.

Not sure that it's always cheaper to put any kind of desired pattern on a surface than to make it smooth, but anyway I was trying to argue with the deduction, that the one and only (or the main) reason / motivation to stop making something smooth is mere cost saving. It seems a little extreme to me.

If the knifemaker intentionally achieves less boring and aesthetically more pleasant result at the same or lower cost — I have no reason to complain. Nor do I have a reason to conclude that the design was changed "just to cut costs", especially if it's not one of the entry level models, which usually suffer from cost reduction.

---

P.S. I posted a long and emotional counterexample about "chaotic satin" feature at first, but then removed it, since I noticed the thread owner's hint ("almost entirely")

 

[Ilikesharpstuff]

I’m sure in the instance you are showing here, the milled lines are intentional, and are like that for visual stimulation/aesthetics. However, let’s make all those surfaces smooth instead. That would cost more, due to more machine time for a finer, smooth finish. The finished knife above “looks cool”, but it would guaranteed cost more if all surfaces/facets were finished in the same manner as the central, raised surface is.


Nope. Taken at face value, my statement is 100% correct. It is always more expensive (and takes longer) to create a finer, smoother finish. Period. It’s like that for aerospace machining (I’m in aerospace, so have a bit of an idea of what I’m saying here), it’s like that for any machining.

The question that started this is, why are previously smooth surfaces now showing mill lines? It is because they are not spending as much machine time on those surfaces. That’s just how it works. My response was only to address that specifically, I was in no way talking about the entirety of the knife, but it still applies. Why this change? It has to be to save time and/or money.


It’s not really that big of a deal. The majority of the work is done in the 3D CAD program by the design engineer, and then it’s converted to the CAM program for the machine to follow. There’s not a ton of human interaction to program the machine for the tool paths, etc. Assuming they’re using any semi-modern machining centers anyway. Which they almost have to be based on the knives.

It's not as black and white as you're making it out to be. The surfaces with visible milling were semi-finished smooth before they were milled for texture/aesthetics/etc. They likely could have been finished with a larger tool at a larger stepover if not for needing the fine lines milled in afterwards. All of those smooth surfaces still showed milling lines off the machine that were blasted and tumbled away. Previously smooth surfaces that now show mill lines, especially in the example we're discussing, could just be a change to the final blasting/tumbling/surface finishing process outside of the machine. You could still argue that it saved them time and money, but you can also argue that people like it and the general public do not view visible milling patterns as a cost cutting measure. If you could make your product cheaper to manufacture and more desirable to the end user it would be a no brainer.

Regarding your last statement, I don't know what software you aerospace guys are running, but there is most definitely intentional and in-depth human interaction in programming toolpaths after the design is created. When I'm programming a part I decide and control what size cutter I will use, what direction my cutter will move and in what shape and pattern, what scallop height it will leave, where it will start and end...everything, and there's a rhyme and reason behind each and every choice. CNC programmers are typically the highest-paid employees in a shop besides management and that's because of how valuable it is to have someone proficient in using a computer to control a machine precisely and accurately. Without having actually tried it, I'm pretty certain I could write faster toolpaths using fewer cutters on the knife B Bacchus posted above to make the entire thing "smooth" versus as it is, assuming both will be tumbled/blasted/etc. after coming off the machine.

 

[scorpnsnake]

Laymans take.

There are milling lines that are imperfections, then there are those that are extremely attractive. Surely all machines, software, materials and operators are not equal in this capability.

Either way, I sure hope they keep on doing what they do, how they do it.

 

[Bacchus]

I did carry my UL yesterday after seeing B Bacchus 's response regarding the NeOn origins of Zero's as mine was the more "budget" version precursor of those. I didn't mind the S30V and do prefer the open back construction.

ChazzyP , may I ask if your NeON is labeled as "Lite" on the box?

It seems that the lanyard is attached to the front-scale, I though that Lite version had a back-spacer. Is it milled inside the same way as on the picture below?

---

I was a little confused when they released a nudist NeON a half year ago and re-assigned the same "Lite" suffix to it: