Tim the Wizard
Street Samurai
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2012
- Messages
- 3,787
A friend tells me 5/32" is the best. The truth is out there :kiwi-fruit:
RE: Spine Width
Thinking out loud here, slightly off topic, and not responding to any one poster. Spine width does not necessarily equate to ease of the initial cut nor ease of slicing. More important are two factors: 1. the width of the face of the blade which terminates behind the secondary edge (read: back bevel). 2. The acuity of the primary edge or cutting bevel.
Two edge bevels, equally thin, should cut the same initially regardless of the thickness of the spine. If a long slicing motion is desired as when cutting into a thick soft object, only then does the secondary edge and eventually the face of the blade contribute to the cut, with thicker knives producing a wedge in thick media. Therefore, one would not expect a difference when slicing paracord or rope, but would notice a difference when slicing an apple. Furthermore, the wedge may be considered desirable if the knife is used to split wood. One may also see the utility of a thick knife, in so much as the thickness adds to weight, on a knife like the Camp Nessie or the Camp Knife that could be used for light chopping. It occurs to me that a thin Nessmuk is such a good slicer because the profile is very wide, permitting a very fine distal taper to the edge. Combined with a sufficiently acute primary bevel, it will cut through most media without any impingement from the spine.
I would also argue, from a collector's perspective, the aesthetic of the knife is changed based on the initial thickness of the steel. This can improve the appeal of the collection by preventing homogeneity.
More important than all of this is how the knife feels in hand. Weight and thickness definitely contribute to everyone being able to find a knife eventually that is a good fit.
Andy, best of luck my friend. Keep making and hope the world catches on.
RE: Spine Width
Thinking out loud here, slightly off topic, and not responding to any one poster. Spine width does not necessarily equate to ease of the initial cut nor ease of slicing. More important are two factors: 1. the width of the face of the blade which terminates behind the secondary edge (read: back bevel). 2. The acuity of the primary edge or cutting bevel.
Two edge bevels, equally thin, should cut the same initially regardless of the thickness of the spine. If a long slicing motion is desired as when cutting into a thick soft object, only then does the secondary edge and eventually the face of the blade contribute to the cut, with thicker knives producing a wedge in thick media. Therefore, one would not expect a difference when slicing paracord or rope, but would notice a difference when slicing an apple. Furthermore, the wedge may be considered desirable if the knife is used to split wood. One may also see the utility of a thick knife, in so much as the thickness adds to weight, on a knife like the Camp Nessie or the Camp Knife that could be used for light chopping. It occurs to me that a thin Nessmuk is such a good slicer because the profile is very wide, permitting a very fine distal taper to the edge. Combined with a sufficiently acute primary bevel, it will cut through most media without any impingement from the spine.
I would also argue, from a collector's perspective, the aesthetic of the knife is changed based on the initial thickness of the steel. This can improve the appeal of the collection by preventing homogeneity.
More important than all of this is how the knife feels in hand. Weight and thickness definitely contribute to everyone being able to find a knife eventually that is a good fit.
Andy, best of luck my friend. Keep making and hope the world catches on.
Last edited: