What's the Deal with manuf. mixing up 440C/AUS8A?

[misque]

This is really starting to be a burr on my ass lately.
I've seen several companies (I'll not name names, so don't ask) advertise their newest knife offerings as having 440C for blade steel.
I get interested, put it on the "possible future buy list" and later I see or find out that the knife is actually AUS6A or AUS8A with 8A being the more common of the two.
WHAT?!

Is there some sort of mix-up here?

Are they unsure of the grade of cutlery steel they are using?

Are they trying to "beef up" their ad campaigns by using the name of a more popular and recognizable grade of cutlery steel?

Does the ad dept. have ANY idea of what steel the knife is being manufactured with?!

Well, for those of you in the advertising depts. of these companies let me briefly point out the elemental differences in these two grades of steel: (note: the values shown are percentage values with the greater bulk being Iron, of course)

----------440C -----AUS8A
Carbon ----0.95-1.2 ---0.7-0.75
Chromium --16.0-18.0 ---13.0-14.5
Manganese ---------1.0 ---0.5
Nickel - ----- -----0.49
Phosphorus --0.04 -----0.04
Silicon --------1.0 -----1.0
Sulphur ----0.03 -----0.03
Vanadium --- ------0.10-0.25

Obtained from Spyderco's Steel Alloy Chart found on their website.

Now, some of you are thinking "why is this guy getting his nose bent outta shape over this?"

Well, it's a matter of performance and principle.

As far as performance goes, 440C has more Carbon (and Manganese) and more Chromium. This translates to more hardenability and stain resistance, respectively.
The more Carbon, and to a lesser extent Manganese, the harder you can make a blade.
The more Chromium, the more it resists staining. As you can see, 440C has more of these elements in it's make-up.
Now, AUS8A has Vanadium and 440C doesn't. As you probably already know, Vanadium carbides are some of the harder carbides found in cutlery grade steel and go a long way in imparting a greater degree of wear resistance(read: edge retention)and resistance to shock impact in a blade.
Ok, so they may be roughly equal in the edge holding dept. Still, even though the overall differences may be minor in the greater scheme of things, don't try to sell me AUS8A in the guise of 440C. This really pisses me off to no end.
If it is actually AUS8A or 6A, THEN SAY SO!

Powering down the senseless rant mode now...

 

[mgeoffriau]

Chart reprinted here for more clarity.

------------ 440C ------- AUS8A ---- 
Carbon --- 0.95-1.2 ---- 0.7-0.75 -- 
Chromium - 16.0-18.0 --- 13.0-14.5 -
Manganese --- 1.0 -------- 0.5 -----
Nickel ------------------- 0.49 ----
Phosphorus -- 0.04 ------- 0.04 ----
Silicon ----- 1.0 -------- 1.0 -----
Sulphur ----- 0.03 ------- 0.03 ----
Vanadium --------------- 0.10-0.25 -

 

[misque]

My apologies for screwing up the steel chart. I'm not well versed in doing that on this Forum.

 

[Ron Andersen]

Hi Misque,

I'll pop in for our company. AUS steels are of Japanese origin, while 440 steels are U.S. made. SOG's knives are (for the most part) made in Seki, Japan. So, our knives have been AUS steels all along.

Why, then, would we label any as 440? It was a marketing decision. When we started doing it more than a decade ago, the thought was that consumers in the American marketplace might know and understand 440 labels better than the AUS labels. As a result, the "similar" 440 labels for the actual AUS steels were used. This may or may not have been the best decision. Maybe someone with more historical perspective than me can answer this better, but I think the AUS steels have more recently gained broader understanding. As a result, we are converting completely to AUS labeling for all our knives in marketing material. I do understand that there are technical differences between the 440 and AUS steels. The key word here is "similar."

In "SOG-speak," AUS6A and 440A were interchanged, while AUS8A and 440C were interchanged. Are these the most accurate comparisons? I'm sure there will be those with differing opinions.

I can certainly understand your inquiry about this and you most likely have not been alone with your thoughts. I can't speak for any other manufacturer and hope this has helped you out.

 

[mgeoffriau]

Doing charts and graphs is easier with the "code" tags:

{CODE} chart here {/CODE}

Just replace the {} with []. That makes it all equal length spaces, so it won't come out uneven or bunched up on the left margin.

 

[Alberta Ed]

Ron,
Appreciate the thoughtful explanation; such a response goes a long way to reinforce SOG's reputation.

 

[mgeoffriau]

Originally posted by Ron@SOG
In "SOG-speak," AUS6A and 440A were interchanged, while AUS8A and 440C were interchanged. Are these the most accurate comparisons? I'm sure there will be those with differing opinions.

I think that I recall the steel FAQ even stating that 440A and AUS6 as equivalent, and 440C and AUS8 as equivalent. I'd say that these comparisons are pretty fair, though it seems that a lot of people have a lower view of 440A (compared to AUS6) and a higher view of 440C (compared to AUS8). I don't know if there's anything behind that opinion or if it's unfounded.

 

[misque]

Thank you Ron for the timely response and honest explanation. As Alberta Ed said, "it goes a long way to reinforce SOG's reputation."

And Thank You mgeoffriau for the clarification of my comparison chart and for the info. So much information to absorb and seemingly so little time.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

misque :

This really pisses me off to no end.
If it is actually AUS8A or 6A, THEN SAY SO!

Well yes, anything else is a lie as it misrepresents the product (assuming it is intentional and not some kind of mixup of course). Consider this, if a company was willing to do this with the steel type for whatever reason (I would assume for better marketability) doesn't the possibility exist of doing similar regarding other aspects.

Now to get really particular, there are probably as large or larger variations between batches of 440A from different places than between 440A and AUS-6A. So in and of itself it is not that critical of a problem. Assuming you like the performance of one steel, you will not be turned off by the other, assuming quality work in the other critical areas.

But as a point of principle, it is a different matter. Consider the following, if it was not a manufacturer but a forum member selling you the knife and he said AUS-6A instead of 440A (or vice-versa) because he figured that you would want one over the other - how would you feel about that once you got the knife and it was not made from the steel you thought it was.

Note, there was a similar problem with a think some early blades from REKAT. I think there it was 1095 and ATS-34 that were involved. There was some back and forth on this issue as well. You might want to check the REKAT forums.


-Cliff

 

[Ron Andersen]

Hi Cliff,

...anything else is a lie as it misrepresents the product...

Our rationale was not to deceive or lie to the customer. Nor was it our thought to in essence say, "Let's call it the better of the two steels" (even if we were using the lesser). For you to get from my response that any manufacturer using this rationale is lying to the consumer, is a real stretch.

In reality, the motivation is trying to communicate "in the language" of the average consumer. It was simply and clearly for giving the average consumer information on their level (in a way they can understand). I don't know how often I've heard someone say, "What's SANDVIK 12C27? I've never heard of that kind of steel." The non-metallurgist consumer (like most people) may likely not buy a knife in that steel, thinking it was being made of some cheap, substitute steel, because they are not going to research the steel properties and compare it to steels they know. To be honest, the average consumer would not know what to look for when looking at a steel chart. This is not meant to demean the consumer, it's only to comprehend where their understanding is and to communicate on that level.

Here's a rough example meant to show the simplicity and sincerity of our motivation (yes, I understand like most, is not a perfect example). Most our knives are made in Japan. These knives are made under the Metric System measurements used there. We do not market our knives' specifications in the Metric System to U.S. customers, because many here do not understand grams and centimeters.

Cliff, you also need to understand that you are in an extreme, elite minority. You understand the functional differences between similar steels. You also spend a lot of time talking with custom knife makers, likely discussing things like, "What are those rivets made of that hold the knife together?" No one buying production-level knives talk about such things. These levels of in-depth discussion most do not have (and many do not need to know).

Consider this, if a company was willing to do this with the steel type for whatever reason (I would assume for better marketability) doesn't the possibility exist of doing similar regarding other aspects.

The words of a "conspiracy theorist." I can say with complete honesty, I know of no other part of our knives to which we've done this. Examples: We're not using something close to Micarta. We're not using something close to Kraton.

Again, this may not have been the best choice for us to have made, but it was done to help the consumer. We were not trying to lie to or deceive our customers. I certainly hope and think our customers can understand this.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Ron :

any manufacturer using this rationale is lying to the consumer, is a real stretch.

AUS-6A is not 440A, and therefore stamping 440A on blades made from AUS-6A is a lie as that is what the word means. You are representing the blade as being made of a different material than it actually is made from. And in fact as you note in the above you are doing it for the specific purpose of better marketability for those blades because people will respond much better to a 440A label than an AUS-6A one.

Now you could argue that the difference in steels is not significant and few people would be able to tell the difference, and I would agree for the above reasons. However some people can. For example Jeff Clark has commented before than he can get a better edge on AUS-8A than 440C. Personally I can't tell any difference between the quality of the edges I get between those steels (or pretty much any for that fact) - however I know from reading Jeff's posts that his standard for "sharp" is well above mine.

In any case, using such logic (they are really similar it doesn't matter) is *very* shaky ground indeed. I would bet very strongly that you could find a lot of people who would rate 440C and 440A blades very similar. I have recived lots of similiar comments from the people I have loaned knives out to - "that doesn't matter, they are both good steels" (I have in fact seen many more extreme statements). Does this mean you could sell them 440A blades but say they were 440C or vice versa? If not then why? They would never know the difference, and would not be displeased with the performance.

It comes down to a matter of principle, which is of course a personal thing. As noted in the above there is hardly univeral agreement on this, there was a widespread viewpoint presented in the REKAT thread.

We do not market our knives' specifications in the Metric System to U.S. customers, because many here do not understand grams and centimeters.

This is not the same thing at all. If I say a knife weighs 10 oz or 311 grams (or whatever inch/cm) this is giving the same information. Both quantities are identical.

-Cliff

 

[Danbo]

Gotta side with the Cliffster on this one. If the blade is AUS6, mark it AUS6. If it's 440A, mark it 440A. Its a matter of principle here.

 

[Samurai6]

AUS8=440C?

Whoa. Oh my. Oh, oh, oh my.

Well, I guess that all depends on heat treat, ay?

 

[Keith Montgomery]

I find it very interesting, looking at that chart, that AUS8 and 440C would be consider as equivalent. There are some pretty major differences in the makeup of those two steels. Maybe it was the closest comparison that could be found, but equivalent, I don't think so.

 

[Ron Andersen]

Cliff,

AUS-6A is not 440A, and therefore stamping 440A on blades made from AUS-6A is a lie as that is what the word means.

I'm not sure we ever have stamped the steel type as you have stated. We have, though, put it in marketing material. And you will notice I said that calling it a "lie" would be a "stretch" because we were assisting the customer, not trying to deceive them. Yes, some may certainly categorize it as deception. Again, this may not have been the best decision.

And in fact as you note in the above you are doing it for the specific purpose of better marketability for those blades because people will respond much better to a 440A label than an AUS-6A one.

I wouldn't necessarily say it was for "better marketability," but rather an easier understanding. But, I understand that this is splitting hairs.

In any case, using such logic (they are really similar it doesn't matter)...

I never said "it doesn't matter." In fact it does and this decision was not taken lightly.

Does this mean you could sell them 440A blades but say they were 440C or vice versa?

You completely missed our rationale! Maybe you didn't fully read it. It isn't an issue of comparing similar U.S. made steels, but rather comparing (at the time over a decade ago) a Japanese steel name that many did not know, with a U.S. steel name that many people did know.

[my example] This is not the same thing at all.

I knew you would take issue with this, that is why I called it a rough example. All examples have a breakdown point. The purpose of an example is to concentrate on the similarities, rather than the differences. I completely understand that in each weight and measurement system, there is "exact" correlation. If you read my clearly labeled rough example, you will see it was paralleling things clearly understood in Japan that would not clearly be understood here in the U.S.; thus the consideration of "clarifying" for broader understanding in the U.S. marketplace. But since AUS steels are better understood in the U.S. marketplace now, we have making the change. Because we made the change, people like Misque have raised this valid question.


Hi Keith,

Maybe it was the closest comparison that could be found, but equivalent, I don't think so.

Exactly! I agree.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Ron :

I'm not sure we ever have stamped the steel type as you have stated.

It makes no difference if you stamp it on the blade, put it on the box, or whatever.

calling it a "lie" would be a "stretch" because we were assisting the customer

First of all, the motives are not relevant as to if it was a lie or not. A false statement was represented as true - that is a lie. Second, in regards to motives, yes there are lots of grounds for lying, however this case in particular I don't think was one of them (personal judgement obviously) and in general I would regard it is a very dangerous road to travel. SOG could have simply done the work to explain what AUS-6/8A was and why they went with it. Yes, that would have cost much more time and money, but it could have been done. .

You completely missed our rationale!

No, I simply don't agree with it.

In fact I think the whole "assistance" argument is weak. Lets assume that I was such a consumer as you describe. I go into a store looking for a decent 440A class knife and pass on your AUS-6A one because I assume it is inferior. Does that mean I am not going to get a knife? No. It simply means that I am going to look somewhere else - your competition. Your assistance argument only holds if you are the only one making 440A/C knives or you clearly have the best product. It also assumes of course that AUS-6/8A is a fair match for 440A/C (in fact even if all this was true I would reject the argument on principle). What SOG did enabled the AUS knives to compete with those that were made out of 440A/C (a higher thought of grade) by simply <b>saying</b> that they used 440 A/C.

Now as to the right/wrong nature of that choice, as noted above this is a personal decision and opinions differ, as this thread and other similar ones have dictated.

-Cliff

 

[TheMartialWay]

Ron,

I like you, you have contributed quite a lot of wonderful info since your arrival here. SOG could not have picked a better representative. But I absolutely have to disagree with you. If something is not true, regardless of your intentions or reasons, it is a LIE. Not true=LIE It is a very simple concept. I understand that it was not meant to be decietful, but that is exactly what it was. If a jeweler diecide that people will not understand what cubic zirconia is, can he just tell people it is a diamond. It is very similar. The answer is absolutely not! You should have said; "the blade is made of a revolutionary new steel which is simmilar to 440A", or some such COMPARISON. Like I said earlier, Ron, none of this is aimed at YOU but what was said was a plain and simple honest to god LIE.

 

[Architect]

After suffering through the tedious "Recondo" break test thread, now we have another. Ron/Cliff impasse.

Ron, you would have been better off keeping quiet on this one. Any manupulation of the facts so that sales won't be disturbed is just snake oil. Face it. No amount of palaver can that sort of thing over. It is a question of honesty. Once you stamp a stamp in that metal, it had better be accurate. If you can't figure out how to educate your general customers, then don't FALSIFY INFORMATION (read "lie") to people who really might CARE about what they are buying.

 

[eccentrich]

Ok, my memory of the Steel FAQ was different, so I went back and reread it. And it claimed a rough equivalence between AUS-10 and 440C, and said AUS-8 was roughly equivalent to 440B (and yeah, AUS-6 to 440A). I believe this was mostly based on carbon content, though the variations in the other components would change the properties somewhat.

Maybe the confusion crept in because 440B isn't used much any more, and AUS-10 still doenn't appear all that much.

 

[Ron Andersen]

Hi Architect,

Ron, you would have been better off keeping quiet on this one.

You might be very right, but I do prefer to be proactive and straight with people. My initial response dealt with this issue from a heartfelt, candid, and compassionate position that was in the beginning, well received…until Cliff inserted the term "lie."


Cliff,

First of all, the motives are not relevant as to if it was a lie or not.

I thought someone as educated as you would have a better grasp of the English language. Here's Merriam-Webster's definition of "lie":

an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive

"Motive" IS a factor in understanding the word "lie." Notice the phrase: "With intent to deceive." There was no intent to deceive. I can't be clearer than that. Maybe a conspiracy theorist might think it was a massive deception to undermine the American public or our way of life. I just don't see it that way.

It was a practice many years ago from some manufacturers to use the labels of the American steel equivalent for their Japanese made knives. SOG did the same in the "spirit" of helping the consumer understand. I'm not here to say it was the best decision. In hindsight, there could have been a better way. But I am here now to assist in the conversion process for SOG. And with the exception of you (and maybe a couple/few others), this is easily being understood and isn't a really big thing.

Steel labeling is a vague procedure at best. In most, there are ranges that each element in a steel must fit within (like 13-14.5% chromium in the AUS steels), but few steels that use exact numbers (such as 1.15% carbon in BG-42). Two steels of the same name could noticeably differ because of varying amounts of a mixture of its elements. [Also of note: there are varying opinions on what those various element ranges should be.]

Lets assume that I was such a consumer as you describe.

Cliff, you are in a very small minority of SOG's consumer base. The average SOG consumer has at best just heard the names "440A" and "440C," but they have no valid understanding of their qualities or virtues, or could tell someone which is "better." Anyone buying our products who does know the differences and can insert AUS6 and AUS8 into the equation and simply discuss those four steels, are likely a fraction of a percent of people from SOG's consumer base (I don't know, I'd be surprised if one out of 1,000 could do this).

SOG could have simply done the work to explain what AUS-6/8A was and why they went with it. Yes, that would have cost much more time and money, but it could have been done.

This is great perception after the fact, but to glibly say "SOG could have simply…" is a excessive exaggeration of what really took place. There was nothing "simple" about building a company and trying to make the best choices. Every biography I've ever read of entrepreneurs and corporate executives show an historical perspective of controversial decisions (some were bad, some were risky, some were marginal).

In fact I think the whole "assistance" argument is weak.

One man's opinion (one I personally don't share). Also, in with the benefit of hindsight-based 20/20 "vision." It is very easy to cast blame, throwing around phrases like "SOG could have simply" and "[a certain] argument is weak." The position of interchanging very similar terms for the consumer's assistance makes a lot of sense; but not to someone who sees only in "black and white," to someone who is very highly educated/skilled in that particular field/industry, or to one who may have another agenda.


Hi Louis,

Thanks for your kind comments about my representation of SOG here in the forums (thanks to the others who shared his sentiment). I certainly try my best. And in this situation, I didn't make the original decision (that would have pre-dated my arrival at SOG by about 12 years), but I'm here now to assist in bringing clarification.

If a jeweler diecide that people will not understand what cubic zirconia is, can he just tell people it is a diamond. It is very similar.

I'm sorry, but I do respectfully disagree. The difference between a "cubic zirconia" and "diamond" is the difference between fake and real (or cheap and expensive). The difference between the AUS steels and the 440 steels are mostly just the country of manufacture and very slight metallurgical composition.

We often talk about comparing "apples for apples" and "apples and oranges." Comparing AUS steels to 440 steels is not "apples and oranges" (something differing greatly, but both fruit) but rather "Red Delicious and Braeburn" apples (both "red" apples with similar apple characteristics). So yes, it is fair to compare these steels as similar. Some "appletologist" (I just made this word up) may differ, saying he can tell these two apples apart in a blind taste test, but to the average apple eater, they're similar ("honey, just get the big, red, round apples" you can hear a wife say to her husband from across the produce isle).

You should have said; "the blade is made of a revolutionary new steel which is simmilar to 440A", or some such COMPARISON.

In hindsight, you are very likely right. But at the time, a really tough decision was required. It's not completely fair to use the "but others are doing it, so we should, too" but at the time, it made a lot of sense.


Not directed at anyone in particular: Rather than characterizing this very "gray" decision (many people could have gone either way) as "really dreadful and bad for the knife industry," is there any merit for making the "slight adjustment" in getting it more right now? We did make this transition to "more accurate" labeling without a public outcry. We did it on our own because we saw that the U.S. marketplace does now better understand AUS steels.

Again, did we originally make the right decision? I don't know…maybe "yes," maybe "no"…probably not (opinions on this will differ). But unless it is understood with the historical perspective, it's really unfair to call them "lies" and "deceit." That is so very far from the original intent!

I hope you all understand, like Louis (he said "Ron, none of this is aimed at YOU"), I'm just trying to clear the air and treat you all fairly by offering the truth candidly as I know it.


P.S. Maybe someone (Spark?) should send Cliff and me to separate corners until we can "play nicely?"