Why do people like 1095 for pricier knives?

[RX-79G]

This means zero.

It's steel, it can fail.

Whether is was used beyond it's limits or there was a manufacturing issue with these examples, it happens to everything we make, not just knife steels.

Out of context pictures with no story behind them do not account for a negative, especially when you take into account how many knives out there are made using 1095.

Of course it means zero. I posted them as satire because someone was insisting that one broken Becker was meaningful. Neither brand has a breakage problem.

 

[KingMC]

Of course it means zero. I posted them as satire because someone was insisting that one broken Becker was meaningful. Neither brand has a breakage problem.

Yes, both ESEE and Becker make good knives with their own respective steels. ESEE is a really good example of a company that uses primarily 1095 and is known by just about everyone to make tough knives with it.

 

[RX-79G]

Yes, both ESEE and Becker make good knives with their own respective steels. ESEE is a really good example of a company that uses primarily 1095 and is known by just about everyone to make tough knives with it.

They are tough knives, due to their design. They could be ever so slightly tougher OR hold an edge better with the selection of a better steel. Some folks might appreciate that very slight advance in edge performance considering what they paid, and other people might not.

 

[KingMC]

They are tough knives, due to their design. They could be ever so slightly tougher OR hold an edge better with the selection of a better steel. Some folks might appreciate that very slight advance in edge performance considering what they paid, and other people might not.

I'm not the owner of ESEE but I'm pretty sure they know exactly what they're doing, I'm sure they've already weighed the options many times on upgrading steel and yet they have stuck with 1095 because it works for them. They have one of the best warranties in the business, they believe 1095 is tough enough that they will replace any knife of theirs that breaks. They think their 1095 is tough, I can't disagree with that.

Would their knives be better with O1? No doubt.
Would their knives be more expensive with O1? Most definitely.
Would more people pay more money to buy an ESEE knife in O1? I have no idea, but I'm sure ESEE does.

 

[craytab]

They are tough knives, due to their design. They could be ever so slightly tougher OR hold an edge better with the selection of a better steel. Some folks might appreciate that very slight advance in edge performance considering what they paid, and other people might not.

Of course that would obviously come with added cost and/or less extras.

 

[RX-79G]

Of course that would obviously come with added cost and/or less extras.

Yup, as discussed earlier it would add maybe $2 to $5 per knife, or well less than 5% of purchase cost. I won't tell anyone what to think about that, but my experience is that if people thing a product is worth buying at $110, they will still buy it at $115 - especially if value has been added.

 

[farmer ted]

The Becker isn't as nice otherwise, but very similar, while being cheaper and of better steel.

The Enzos are about the same price, have very nicely made sheaths, beautifully fitted and nicely shaped micarta or wood handles, polished blades and better steel.


If Enzo and Becker can offer what they do at prices similar or less to Tops or ESEE, than there is room in the pricing of Tops or ESEE for something other than the world's least expensive hypereutectoid steel. IMO.


One of the best examples is the 1095 Ritter MK2, which is a Becker variation with similar sheath and plastic Becker handles + some brass weights for $125. Now that is easy to compare to the cheaper Beckers since you get pretty much the same for an additional $35 and lower steel.

The points you noted are exactly the reasons why I buy other brands, they offer more value. I'm guessing people pay for ESEE because of the brand and warranty. I don't use my knives like a moron so I don't need a warranty that covers stupid.

I'm not the owner of ESEE but I'm pretty sure they know exactly what they're doing, I'm sure they've already weighed the options many times on upgrading steel and yet they have stuck with 1095 because it works for them. They have one of the best warranties in the business, they believe 1095 is tough enough that they will replace any knife of theirs that breaks. They think their 1095 is tough, I can't disagree with that.

Would their knives be better with O1? No doubt.
Would their knives be more expensive with O1? Most definitely.
Would more people pay more money to buy an ESEE knife in O1? I have no idea, but I'm sure ESEE does.

It's all about the bottom line. When people are paying extra for brand and warranty, why not use a cheap steel that's easy to mass produce? The difference between the cost to manufacture and sale price is such that, if someone breaks a knife and makes a warranty claim, you can send them a new one and you're still in the black.

 

[KingMC]

The points you noted are exactly the reasons why I buy other brands, they offer more value. I'm guessing people pay for ESEE because of the brand and warranty. I don't use my knives like a moron so I don't need a warranty that covers stupid.



It's all about the bottom line. When people are paying extra for brand and warranty, why not use a cheap steel that's easy to mass produce? The difference between the cost to manufacture and sale price is such that, if someone breaks a knife and makes a warranty claim, you can send them a new one and you're still in the black.

I'm not an ESEE fan (my main knives are Ka-bar and Becker), so I'm not one to blindly agree with anything they say.

But you are saying that ESEE can afford to make 2 knives for the price they ask for 1 of theirs? And if the one they sell breaks they can just replace it with the second one and still come out with a profit? That's a rather far-fetching theory, one I don't believe is very accurate.

Is ESEE's warranty just a marketing ploy for selling overpriced knives? Or, is it a smart way to make sure the couple people who suffer from broken knives can continue to be satisfied customers? Basing my opinion on just about every other warranty I can think of, I have to lean towards the latter. Sure, they might lose money replacing a broken knife, but they keep a customer happy who will then post all about it sparking interest in other non-customers who could then become new customers.

KA-BAR/Becker has a very similar warranty as ESEE, does this mean they are employing the same business tactics as ESEE?

 

[RX-79G]

I'm not an ESEE fan (my main knives are Ka-bar and Becker), so I'm not one to blindly agree with anything they say.

But you are saying that ESEE can afford to make 2 knives for the price they ask for 1 of theirs? And if the one they sell breaks they can just replace it with the second one and still come out with a profit? That's a rather far-fetching theory, one I don't believe is very accurate.

Is ESEE's warranty just a marketing ploy for selling overpriced knives? Or, is it a smart way to make sure the couple people who suffer from broken knives can continue to be satisfied customers? Basing my opinion on just about every other warranty I can think of, I have to lean towards the latter. Sure, they might lose money replacing a broken knife, but they keep a customer happy who will then post all about it sparking interest in other non-customers who could then become new customers.

KA-BAR/Becker has a very similar warranty as ESEE, does this mean they are employing the same business tactics as ESEE?

It isn't a two to one ratio because 50% of their knives don't break. A no questions warranty costs more than a limited warranty, but only a small percentage of total cost.

But when you advertise "our knives is so tough, we warranty anything", it creates the belief that the knives are extra tough, rather than there is just so much margin to factor in a huge warranty for marketing purposes.

And that doesn't have anything to do with the knife itself, just its marketing.

ESEE could have a limited warranty and go after an $80 price point and also sell a ton of knives to people that will get no less out of them than they do now. Sales price in the modern world is most strongly connected to product placement, not production costs. If Kabar can make a 14" 1095 knife and retail it for less than $20, they could certainly do the same thing with a kydex sheath for $30 - if that made any sense from a product placement standpoint.

I had a similar big Dexter butcher knife as a kid that I used as a machete on the local hardwood vines that grew on oaks in Wisconsin. I beat the crap out of it and it never bent or chipped. Did that make it a $50 or $100 knife?

 

[Revolverrodger]

ESEE makes excellent knives !
I suggest you try the Junglas, it will curr you from your alloy envy !

 

[KingMC]

It isn't a two to one ratio because 50% of their knives don't break. A no questions warranty costs more than a limited warranty, but only a small percentage of total cost.

But when you advertise "our knives is so tough, we warranty anything", it creates the belief that the knives are extra tough, rather than there is just so much margin to factor in a huge warranty for marketing purposes.

And that doesn't have anything to do with the knife itself, just its marketing.

ESEE could have a limited warranty and go after an $80 price point and also sell a ton of knives to people that will get no less out of them than they do now. Sales price in the modern world is most strongly connected to product placement, not production costs. If Kabar can make a 14" 1095 knife and retail it for less than $20, they could certainly do the same thing with a kydex sheath for $30 - if that made any sense from a product placement standpoint.

I had a similar big Dexter butcher knife as a kid that I used as a machete on the local hardwood vines that grew on oaks in Wisconsin. I beat the crap out of it and it never bent or chipped. Did that make it a $50 or $100 knife?

So ESEE is using their comprehensive warranty to sell their knives at a significant markup, and thus at a price far exceeding their steel's toughness? And, if they decided to cut their profit margin OR offer a limited warranty, they could afford to upgrade their steel and offer tougher knives for the same price?

 

[bodog]

This whole thread seems kind of ridiculous. Why argue about it? It's steel, it either works or it doesn't. If this thread doesn't show what a certain fairly cheap steel is capable of and what it isn't capable of and give some kind if insight then we're all screwed.

Again, it's a steel. A low wear resistance, low corrosion resistant steel that is tougher than some others suitable for knives.

Some companies choose to keep it very soft and mushy to retain some extra toughness, some choose to take it up super hard to retain some edge stability. Some choose thin, some choose thick.

I don't believe many people are making swords or axes with it so that pretty much leaves knives. It's ok. It's not the best, unless you start talking about how it's designed and processed.

55 RC is barely suitable for a knife. If a company does that and you like it, fine. If you don't, move on. Why are people obsessing over this? There's not much hard science being presented and barely any anecdotal evidence either. It's just a bunch of dudes arguing about a steel and their favorite or most hated brands. Come on guys.

Bring something to the table or just read and move on. There's legitimate discussion going on out there concerning our hobbies. Find it. This thread isn't it and seems ripe for a lockdown.

 

[RX-79G]

So ESEE is using their comprehensive warranty to sell their knives at a significant markup, and thus at a price far exceeding their steel's toughness? And, if they decided to cut their profit margin OR offer a limited warranty, they could afford to upgrade their steel and offer tougher knives for the same price?

All these companies sell their knives at a good profit. Some spend their overhead on nicer steel, some on warranties, some on over the top marketing. What you pay has little to do with that.

ESEE can choose to use 1095 and spend money on marketing a very basic heat treat and warranty. Other companies can spend the same money on steel, contoured handles, whatever.


I think ESEE is smart, in part because people think "1095 is one of the toughest steels", so they can use one of the cheapest steels and market it as if it were one of the hottest performing steels by implication, not actual testing or anything else.

As long as there are people who don't care about the steel (and no one needs to care, that's their choice), or have a basic misconception about what 1095 is or is not, then they have it made.


If, for some strange reason, people start asking questions based on reading something about material science or performing tests (rather than owning one machete or reading a brochure), it is certainly possible that the market could sour on 1095 and ESEE would be forced to change either their price or their materials to suit the market. It wouldn't be the first time a steel went out of favor.

But there are always people that would rather believe something simple than try to understand something subtle. No different than dieting trends or drug enforcement - the lowest common denominator will rule.

 

[willc]

1095 is a good steel for me sometimes.
I have more than a few old knives that cut great and hold a good edge plus I have a nice bit of GEC's in 1095.

I rarely use 1095 at work though just because of corrosion issues.
There my main steels would be Inox, aus-8, 4116, Opinel stainless and XHP.
Some of these are often referred to as "junk" steel but for me they all serve a particular use.

I think the main reason 1095 gets more love is because of its history and it is an American steel.
That's just my take on it.

 

[NYOutdoors]

A solid argument could be made that knives that are manufactured to be field knives are better off with a softer, easily resharpened steel. People out on a week long backpacking trip will have to use a field stone to resharpen, unless of course they want to pack their wicked edge with them!

 

[craytab]

Yup, as discussed earlier it would add maybe $2 to $5 per knife, or well less than 5% of purchase cost. I won't tell anyone what to think about that, but my experience is that if people thing a product is worth buying at $110, they will still buy it at $115 - especially if value has been added.

You have no way of knowing that.

 

[G-Winstead]

Screw 1095. It's obsolete as a blade steel. Yeah, you can get all romantic about a patina that tells of the life both you and the knife have enjoyed together, but I'd rather have a knife that didn't rust. Easy to sharpen? Sure, and it is so cool when you can tell your hunting/fishing friends how the Canadian fishing guide, preparing shore lunch, sharpened his dependable old carbon steel fillet knife on a piece of driftwood with sand rubbed into it. Who wouldn't rather have a knife that didn't dull so easily, that would hold an edge for the entire trip, and beyond. I can't believe the prices charged by custom and production makers for knives crafted of 1095.

 

[jdm61]

3V has a big shadow. A2 at 60 Rc has about 40% of the impact toughness of 3V at 58. Bring the 3V up to 60 using the high temperature temper and the the 3V supposedly drops to around 130% of A2 toughness according to some charts. So at 59, maybe almost twice as tough? Not sure about the specific numbers using the high temperature temper on 3V to get it to 60 or more, but Nathan the Machinist's tests that he has shown in the Shop Talk forum seem to indicate that there are some rather noticeable improvements in edge toughness/stabilty. L6 is typically "tested" at 58 and it is between A2 at 60 and 3V at 58. 80CrV2 is said to be as tough as 5160 more or less, but with better abrasion resistance.

What do you think is the toughest at the same hardness (say, 59 Hrc) - 80CrV2, 1084, 52100 or A2? I've seen some tests suggesting A2 is right in 3V's shadow, while 80CrV2 has been described as the best of L6 and 5160.

 

[RX-79G]

A solid argument could be made that knives that are manufactured to be field knives are better off with a softer, easily resharpened steel. People out on a week long backpacking trip will have to use a field stone to resharpen, unless of course they want to pack their wicked edge with them!

That's really more of a wear resistance issue than a hardness issue. 1095 or O1 will sharpen more easily than D2, even at higher hardness.

 

[jdm61]

Or the could hold the edge longer and still pretty tough by leaven them harder, right?

They are tough knives, due to their design. They could be ever so slightly tougher OR hold an edge better with the selection of a better steel. Some folks might appreciate that very slight advance in edge performance considering what they paid, and other people might not.