- May 20, 2012
Long shot but I’m looking for a DEK1. Ive been pretty inactive here with life and the baby and haven’t been able to catch a sale.
Ron LaBella, long time member & Head of Jerzee Devil, has passed away.
If you are a member of the Jerzee Devil forums, please pay your respects. His passing is a loss to the community.
I'm gonna pass these along to the next lucky CPK'er since we're not 100% on EDC1 fitment
Derrel, I'll take them if they'll fit EDC1, I presume? Thanks
I think it is fair to say that I am a big fan of this model given the fact that I have two EDC’s, four EDC 2’s, and extra handle sets for each.
This gives me a good cross-section to gather some objective data from. I’ll share that here as well as some observations and opinions that may help you determine if one version is preferable to the other for you.
Extra handle sets makes measuring thickness at the widest point of the palm swell very easy.
The EDC handle scales measure .365” at the widest point of the palm swell.
The EDC 2 handle scales measure .335” at the widest point of the palm swell.
...so the difference is .030” per handle scale between the two versions.
The difference in steel thickness measured at the spine right in front of the handle is .010” (i.e. .136” for the EDC vs. .146” for the EDC 2.)
Doing the math to determine maximum width for each version yields the following:
EDC .136” + .365” + .365” = .866” maximum handle width
EDC 2 .146” + .335” + .335” = .816” maximum handle width
Thus the nominal difference is .050”. Whether that is enough to make a significant difference in your decision one way or another is up to you.
For those of you OCD folks willing to play mix and match with handle sets to achieve minimum or maximum total thickness (as some folks have mentioned in posts above), your options are:
Thinnest overall would be the .136” EDC blade with EDC 2 scales (2X .335”) for a total width of .806”.
Thickest overall would be the .146” EDC 2 blade with EDC scales (2X .365”) for a total width of .876”.
Moving on to some blade measurements and observations, the higher tip on the EDC 2 yields a little more blade and cutting edge length. Measuring blade length from the top of the handle to the tip, the EDC 2 is 3.260” vs. 3.170” for the EDC. Cutting edge length measured with a string along the edge from the front of the sharpening choil to the tip shows similar advantage to the EDC 2 at 3.350” vs 3.170” for the EDC.
Another area of difference is the thickness behind the edge. This is difficult to measure and photograph with only two hands. Based on my samples, the EDC measures .020” vs. .025” on the EDC 2. The EDC 2 runs a little thicker than that behind the tip, which gives it a more reinforced feel.
Given the fact that each knife is hand sharpened, I would expect some +/- variation in the thickness behind the edge. Even so, I believe the EDC 2 will run a little thicker (.005”) on average than the EDC. Anecdotal evidence that seems to support this can be seen in the taller secondary edge grind you see on the EDC 2 compared to the EDC when shown together.
EDC over EDC2:
In the end, it comes down to personal preference to determine if any of these dimensional differences mean anything significant to you. Both versions will serve you well if the basic handle profile fits your hand (I will post more on this topic soon.)
I hate to end comparison threads without offering an opinion. For me personally, I prefer the EDC for its .010” thinner blade steel, .005” thinner behind the edge measurement, and .050” thicker handle width that feels better in the pocket of my palm. I also like the lower tip position for drilling and just poking things. Those small variations make the EDC feel and perform better to me for the way I use the knife.
Thanks for reading this far. I hope you find some of the information useful in understanding why you like one version over the other.