Why do people like 1095 for pricier knives?

[jdm61]

D2 may have been the first steel where knife makers "discovered" that deviating from the "factory spec" HT recipe could produce a finished product that was better suited for KNIFE use. Bob Dozier comes to mind. Would anyone care to guess what Busse's special HT of 52100 SR101 might look like? I may be totally wrong, but I would suspect that it would start off with an austenizing temp of say 1475F. That is a fairly recent "discovery" for the rest of us, but I would suspect that Bob Kramer also figured that out a number of years ago as he is the guy who many say totally nailed the HT for 52100. I am sure that some of you have seen the video from the CBS Sunday Morning show where he rather casually puts one of his finished 52100 chef's knives through the ABS performance test with no visible harm to the blade

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.

 

[Park Swan]

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.

Neither 1095 or ESEE could really be considered lowest common denominator.

 

[KingMC]

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.

Do you have a good example of a stainless steel with toughness equal to 1095 for the same price? There's a reason stainless isn't used on large knives very often, it's brittle and hard to sharpen in the field, plus it's expensive in comparison.

 

[craytab]

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.

Wow. How insulting.

 

[Fanglekai]

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.

What materials science data did you read that supports the specific claims you made in the opening post?

 

[RX-79G]

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

Well, I think so. But that could be opinion...

 

[RX-79G]

Do you have a good example of a stainless steel with toughness equal to 1095 for the same price? There's a reason stainless isn't used on large knives very often, it's brittle and hard to sharpen in the field, plus it's expensive in comparison.

Of course not. 1095 is one of the cheapest steels because it has the fewest ingredients. That's been the theme all the way through this - if you spend money on alloying ingredients you get something for it.

AEB-L is a very tough stainless that could match 1095 at similar hardnesses, but neither are sword steels.

 

[RX-79G]

Wow. How insulting.

Insulting to whom?

 

[crom]

Do you have a good example of a stainless steel with toughness equal to 1095 for the same price? There's a reason stainless isn't used on large knives very often, it's brittle and hard to sharpen in the field, plus it's expensive in comparison.

I'd go with AUS8 for a decent compromise. Tough, tends to roll instead of chip, decent stainless properties, easy to get the edge back and inexpensive. Holds an edge about like 1095 as well.

 

[RX-79G]

Neither 1095 or ESEE could really be considered lowest common denominator.

I did not say they were. I said that understanding subtlety is not for the lowest common denominator.

Everyone should remove the fanboy thinking when they read what I'm writing. I'm not attacking ESEE - I've been pretty complimentary to their blade design and business model.

I also haven't bagged on 1095. It is an excellent steel for the price, capable of high hardness and decent wear resistance. And while not as tough as low alloy or lower carbon 10XX steels, still tougher than most any stainless. A fantastic value steel.

 

[craytab]

Insulting to whom?

The same people you have been kicking dirt on this whole thread. Comparing 1095 and Esee fans to fad diets and drug enforcement? Saying that people who like 1095 don't care about steel? Come on now.

I guess you missed where Rev asked for these types of pot shots to stop....

\\

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.

 

[craytab]

I did not say they were. I said that understanding subtlety is not for the lowest common denominator.

Everyone should remove the fanboy thinking when they read what I'm writing. I'm not attacking ESEE - I've been pretty complimentary to their blade design and business model.

I also haven't bagged on 1095. It is an excellent steel for the price, capable of high hardness and decent wear resistance. And while not as tough as low alloy or lower carbon 10XX steels, still tougher than most any stainless. A fantastic value steel.

 

[RX-79G]

What materials science data did you read that supports the specific claims you made in the opening post?

Honestly, I can't find the charpy tests I've seen for 1095. People who work with steels immediately recognize what 1095 is and is not, and guides like ASM don't even bother to talk about the 10xx series as serious tool and die steels.

Here's a link with a description:
http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6561

AISI 1095 carbon steel is brittle, and has high hardness and strength.

"Brittle" being the opposite of "tough" in material science terms.
Or

This is a high carbon alloy of the plain carbon steel family. It is intended for high hardness and strength, but also tends to be brittle.

http://www.suppliersonline.com/propertypages/1095.asp

It is a fair question, and I'll keep looking. People tend to do Charpy testing on steels they expect to have a reasonably high toughness, so I'm not shocked 1095 got skipped.

 

[KingMC]

"Brittle" being the opposite of "tough" in material science terms.

This is a high carbon alloy of the plain carbon steel family. It is intended for high hardness and strength, but also tends to be brittle.

So what's the difference between 'toughness' and 'strength'? Those would appear to mean the same thing in layman's terms, so how can a steel be strong but not tough?

 

[RX-79G]

The same people you have been kicking dirt on this whole thread. Comparing 1095 and Esee fans to fad diets and drug enforcement? Saying that people who like 1095 don't care about steel? Come on now.

I guess you missed where Rev asked for these types of pot shots to stop....

\\

It isn't a pot shot, you just didn't understand what it was a shot at.

That isn't my problem if you want to be insulted by something that isn't what you think it is. This reminds me of the professor that was alleged to be racist for using the term "niggardly".

You shouldn't assume so much insult.

 

[RX-79G]

So what's the difference between 'toughness' and 'strength'? Those would appear to mean the same thing in layman's terms, so how can a steel be strong but not tough?

Strength in steel is pretty much hardness - at what point will the steel change shape. Glass is very strong.

Toughness is more about what happens when it goes past yield strength in an impact. Tough steels deform less, distributing shocks through their matrix more efficiently rather than fracturing or denting.

 

[craytab]

It isn't a pot shot, you just didn't understand what it was a shot at.

That isn't my problem if you want to be insulted by something that isn't what you think it is. This reminds me of the professor that was alleged to be racist for using the term "niggardly".

You shouldn't assume so much insult.

Um, okay?

 

[KingMC]

I also haven't bagged on 1095. It is an excellent steel for the price, capable of high hardness and decent wear resistance. And while not as tough as low alloy or lower carbon 10XX steels, still tougher than most any stainless. A fantastic value steel.

So if it is a fantastic value steel for anything under $100 (the defined line for what is 'pricier' from one of the first posts in the thread), why would raising the price above $100 suddenly make it an inferior steel? Is it maybe the pricing model for companies that sell high-end 1095 knives that is your problem rather than the steel itself?

Another question: do you think a company like Schrade converting their 1095 knives to O1 and 52100 would be a good thing for them? Since most of the cost of their 1095 knives IS in the steel, raising the cost of the steel by upgrading it would raise the cost of their knives a greater percentage compared to those who sell their knives for over $100. Do you think someone who buys a $30 Schrade in 1095 would be willing to spend $50 on the same knife but in O1?

Is the line of $100 where knife buyers should start to become pickier about their steel choices?

 

[RX-79G]

Um, okay?

You recall when you posted the diatribe because I posted pictures of broken ESEEs, but it turns out you just didn't understand that I was lampooning the claim that one broken Becker was meaningful? That's what you keep doing.

You are less likely to get upset if you read things I write more thoughtfully/carefully/angrily.

I can't help you with that, but maybe you get tired of denouncing your misunderstanding?

 

[KingMC]

Strength in steel is pretty much hardness - at what point will the steel change shape. Glass is very strong.

Toughness is more about what happens when it goes past yield strength in an impact. Tough steels deform less, distributing shocks through their matrix more efficiently rather than fracturing or denting.

Makes enough sense. So if 1095 was kept at a slightly lower hardness, would it be weaker but tougher? if O1 or 52100 were hardened quite high, would they be less tough than the lower-hardness 1095? Or are O1 and 52100 both stronger and tougher at all hardnesses than 1095?