Why do people like 1095 for pricier knives?

[Mecha]

Somebody needs to let Hitachi know how sub-par their white paper steel is for making cutlery. For some reason they forgot that their super fine-grained, ultra purity high carbon steel would be way better if it was loaded with huge carbides and saturated with a palette of alloying elements.

 

[KingMC]

Steel improvements can be had for nothing more than the raw materials costs.

Not quite. Upgraded steels also need upgraded manufacturing tools too, stronger belts to grind with, different techniques for heat treat, lots of testing of said heat treat,

A new steel means a whole new assembly line, that will add to the price a lot more than any upgrade in price of the steel.

 

[craytab]

No, I'm not. A bar of retail 1095 is maybe 20% cheaper than a low alloy alternative. The heat treatment is not terribly different, so the net cost increase for a good knife maker to go from a cheap steel to a slightly better steel is negligible.

People understand this perfectly when they say "that $25 CRKT AUS-6 knife is cool, but I would happily spend an extra $10 if they had used AUS-8". And they say that all the time about other steels.

Steel improvements can be had for nothing more than the raw materials costs. Even if you pass those on to the distributor, retailer and consumer the net change in price on $100 isn't going to be the 20% material cost, but more like 5% because the blade material costs are only a fraction of the total cost of producing a blade, handle, sheath, box and warranty.

So you saying that I'm obsessing seems kind of crazy because this appears to be the only cheap alloy that no one is obsessing about. Why shouldn't people take the same view of 1095 as every other alloy that is low cost?

Seems like you have the calculations figured out. Why not elaborate with some actual examples?

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Steel changes also affect appropriate manufacturing requirements. More wear resistant steels increase abrasive costs and machine hours etc. etc.--that's where a lot of the increased cost is found rather than in the raw material itself.

 

[RX-79G]

Somebody needs to let Hitachi know how sub-par their white paper steel is for making cutlery. For some reason they forgot that their super fine-grained, ultra purity high carbon steel would be way better if it was loaded with huge carbides and saturated with a palette of alloying elements.

White Steel has silicon in it, making it the kind of low alloy steel I'm talking about.

In addition, white steel is traditionally used in conjunction with low carbon steels for laminates, so its as-quenched carbon is lower than out of the box.

 

[Halfneck]

1095 is not the same as 1095CV. 1095CV is a trade name of 50100b, also sold under the names "CroVan" and "Carbon V".

Never stated they were. By typing "1095/1095CV" I was stating I used knives in those steels growing up. You stated a personal opinion, I stated mine, then you nitpick mine. Seems to be a pattern you enjoy in your posts. You post something with a click-bait thread title, follow it up with a personal opinion piece that comes off slightly inflammatory, then argue with other poster's personal opinion responses. I come here to enjoy learning about knives, and enjoyable discussions. Not finding that in your recent posts, so I'm done taking the bait.

 

[RX-79G]

Not quite. Upgraded steels also need upgraded manufacturing tools too, stronger belts to grind with, different techniques for heat treat, lots of testing of said heat treat,

A new steel means a whole new assembly line, that will add to the price a lot more than any upgrade in price of the steel.

This is definitely true when we're talking about some of the higher end alloys, like 3V, S110V, etc.

In my experience it isn't significant when comparing low alloy steels to 10XX steels. The alloying ingredients, though very beneficial for carbide formation and grain refinement, don't significantly impact the machinability. Especially when the steel is still annealed.

 

[RX-79G]

Never stated they were. By typing "1095/1095CV" I was stating I used knives in those steels growing up. You stated a personal opinion, I stated mine, then you nitpick mine. Seems to be a pattern you enjoy in your posts. You post something with a click-bait thread title, follow it up with a personal opinion piece that comes off slightly inflammatory, then argue with other poster's personal opinion responses. I come here to enjoy learning about knives, and enjoyable discussions. Not finding that in your recent posts, so I'm done taking the bait.

I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your use of "1095/1095CV" as presuming they are the same, then letting you know what 1095CV is. I did not mean to insult you by sharing this fact with you.

 

[gadgetgeek]

This is definitely true when we're talking about some of the higher end alloys, like 3V, S110V, etc.

In my experience it isn't significant when comparing low alloy steels to 10XX steels. The alloying ingredients, though very beneficial for carbide formation and grain refinement, don't significantly impact the machinability. Especially when the steel is still annealed.

Still, percentages add up. Even if its small. in the cost/benefit analysis, Someone has run the numbers and has decided that 1095 is a sweet-spot, and gaining the additional incremental benefits are not worth while. As we see other newer steels get tried and tested, some will remain, and some will fall away. D2 does not seem to have held popularity compared to other steels, and perhaps one of the current patch of powder steels will still be around in 90 years, hard to say. Variety is the spice of life, and so there will always be differences. But at the end of the day the main materials used are going to be the ones that provide value at their price, compared to others.

Also I think its a bit of a false argument to compare maker exclusive steels to widely used ones. Its fair when comparing two knives, but since there is no way to know how croVan or carbonV would preform when produced by someone else, its not a good comparison. the fact that both those steels are used by very high production number companies also skews the data, since it minimizes the additional costs to a large degree. I can't know for certain, but my guess is that Kabar and Cold Steel produce nearly an order of magnitude more knives a year than their nearest competition in the category. Like any manufactured good, price points can vary widely based solely on the size of the production, and the methods that allows. There is a reason the bottom end Moras cost what they do, and its not the steel.

 

[craytab]

Never stated they were. By typing "1095/1095CV" I was stating I used knives in those steels growing up. You stated a personal opinion, I stated mine, then you nitpick mine. Seems to be a pattern you enjoy in your posts. You post something with a click-bait thread title, follow it up with a personal opinion piece that comes off slightly inflammatory, then argue with other poster's personal opinion responses. I come here to enjoy learning about knives, and enjoyable discussions. Not finding that in your recent posts, so I'm done taking the bait.

Perfectly stated.

 

[marcinek]

Never stated they were. By typing "1095/1095CV" I was stating I used knives in those steels growing up. You stated a personal opinion, I stated mine, then you nitpick mine. Seems to be a pattern you enjoy in your posts. You post something with a click-bait thread title, follow it up with a personal opinion piece that comes off slightly inflammatory, then argue with other poster's personal opinion responses. I come here to enjoy learning about knives, and enjoyable discussions. Not finding that in your recent posts, so I'm done taking the bait.

Nailed it.

 

[Mecha]

White Steel has silicon in it, making it the kind of low alloy steel I'm talking about.

In addition, white steel is traditionally used in conjunction with low carbon steels for laminates, so its as-quenched carbon is lower than out of the box.

The silicon is all of 0.1% of the Hitachi white paper steel. Tiny amounts of silicon are in all steel because it's used to deoxidize the molten metal when it's smelted. It doesn't make it a "low-alloy" steel, it's just a routine part of modern steel-making. Other than scavenging oxygen, it doesn't do a whole lot for the mechanical properties of the metal.

Hitachi blue #2 would be a low-alloy steel, with around 1%+ of tungsten and half a percent of chromium.
Same for 52100 which is nothing but 1095 with 1.5% of chromium added.

Plain high-carbon steel is great stuff, probably the benchmark upon which all other blade materials are ultimately compared. I'm don't know why you think it's bargain-basement metal. It's more than capable of making a "higher-priced" knife.

 

[DeadboxHero]

No, I'm not. A bar of retail 1095 is maybe 20% cheaper than a low alloy alternative. The heat treatment is not terribly different, so the net cost increase for a good knife maker to go from a cheap steel to a slightly better steel is negligible.

People understand this perfectly when they say "that $25 CRKT AUS-6 knife is cool, but I would happily spend an extra $10 if they had used AUS-8". And they say that all the time about other steels.

Steel improvements can be had for nothing more than the raw materials costs. Even if you pass those on to the distributor, retailer and consumer the net change in price on $100 isn't going to be the 20% material cost, but more like 5% because the blade material costs are only a fraction of the total cost of producing a blade, handle, sheath, box and warranty.

So you saying that I'm obsessing seems kind of crazy because this appears to be the only cheap alloy that no one is obsessing about. Why shouldn't people take the same view of 1095 as every other alloy that is low cost?

We are not communicating well.

I'm discussing the title or your thread.
"Why do people like 1095 for more expensive knives?"

Its not about the steel.
it's about the other features and designs these more expensive knives offer.
Survive! Knives offers simaler products to ESEE and Tops

But there is a cost increase.

It's great that you have a lot of knowledge about steel.

But your applying your biased to the masses.

1095 is good enough for the majority

Not everyone needs to commute to work in a Ferri

You need to step outside yourself to understand.

 

[RX-79G]

We are not communicating well.

I'm discussing the title or your thread.
"Why do people like 1095 for more expensive knives?"

Its not about the steel.
it's about the other features and designs these more expensive knives offer.
Survive! Knives offers simaler products to ESEE and Tops

But there is a cost increase.

It's great that you have a lot of knowledge about steel.

But your applying your biased to the masses.

1095 is good enough for the majority

Not everyone needs to commute to work in a Ferri

You need to step outside yourself to understand.

Then let me state this another way:

Given what steel knobs knife fans are, why is 1095 spared the grumbling every other low end steel gets when used in a higher end knife?



I can appreciate that Ritter in 1095 works fine. So do all those other nicer knives made of less expensive steel that receive the commentary 1095 does not. Al Mar makes a great product, and any discussion of Al Mar seems to come around to a complaint that they only use AUS-8. Stepping up from AUS-8 appears to be a lot more expensive to go to a notably better stainless than it is to go from 10xx to low alloy, but that doesn't come up, either.


I don't think I would have ever considered this question had the members of this forum, in particular, not obsessively dissected and discussed every other steel choice companies make.

 

[Mecha]

Then let me state this another way:

Given what steel knobs knife fans are, why is 1095 spared the grumbling every other low end steel gets when used in a higher end knife?

Do you really want to know why? Brace yourself: it's because they like 1095.

1095 isn't "low end" - it performs excellently. Apparently you just happen to think that it's some sort of crappy material, so you're super confused about why nobody's complaining about it.

 

[RX-79G]

The silicon is all of 0.1% of the Hitachi white paper steel. Tiny amounts of silicon are in all steel because it's used to deoxidize the molten metal when it's smelted. It doesn't make it a "low-alloy" steel, it's just a routine part of modern steel-making. Other than scavenging oxygen, it doesn't do a whole lot for the mechanical properties of the metal.

Hitachi blue #2 would be a low-alloy steel, with around 1%+ of tungsten and half a percent of chromium.
Same for 52100 which is nothing but 1095 with 1.5% of chromium added.

Plain high-carbon steel is great stuff, probably the benchmark upon which all other blade materials are ultimately compared. I'm don't know why you think it's bargain-basement metal. It's more than capable of making a "higher-priced" knife.

So, here's where I respond to a legitimate post, and this becomes further evidence that I'm argumentative:

White is pretty much the same steel as W109. Is W109 a low alloy, a tool steel, or a basic steel?

Silicon aids hardenability and increases toughness. 1095 doesn't have any.


In any case, I pointed out that Hitachi White is primarily a laminating steel, so it does not have the same chemistry it started with by the time it is a knife. The carbon drops, probably into the eutectoid range.

Additionally, White has a reputation for super fine grain which 1095 does not. That, and the purity, imply that there is a process going on that imbues qualities standard smelting does not. Much like PM does.


But really, why is White applicable? Is White cheap and common, like 1095? Is White used in applications where toughness is prized? Is the primary selling point of white its "purity", in a society that values traditional crafts much more highly than ours? Their basic chemical composition is about the only thing that seems comparable.

 

[RX-79G]

Do you really want to know why? Brace yourself: it's because they like 1095.

1095 isn't "low end" - it performs excellently. Apparently you just happen to think that it's some sort of crappy material, so you're super confused about why nobody's complaining about it.

My AUS-6 knives perform well, too.

I don't think it is a crappy material, and have never stated anything like that. Please use the quote button.

I have said that it is a very inexpensive material with many better performing alternatives for non-inexpensive knives. That isn't the same as crappy, and mischaracterizing my statements are something better left to politics. Quote button.

 

[Mecha]

So, here's where I respond to a legitimate post, and this becomes further evidence that I'm argumentative:

White is pretty much the same steel as W109. Is W109 a low alloy, a tool steel, or a basic steel?

Silicon aids hardenability and increases toughness. 1095 doesn't have any.


In any case, I pointed out that Hitachi White is primarily a laminating steel, so it does not have the same chemistry it started with by the time it is a knife. The carbon drops, probably into the eutectoid range.

Additionally, White has a reputation for super fine grain which 1095 does not. That, and the purity, imply that there is a process going on that imbues qualities standard smelting does not. Much like PM does.


But really, why is White applicable? Is White cheap and common, like 1095? Is White used in applications where toughness is prized? Is the primary selling point of white its "purity", in a society that values traditional crafts much more highly than ours? Their basic chemical composition is about the only thing that seems comparable.

I only brought up the white paper steel because this thread seems to be based off of the idea that because the steel is simple, 1095 knives would be expected to be cheap, so why do some people pay a high price for a knife made from just plain old 1095 instead of a more complex alloy?

The Hitachi white paper is damn near just very nice, pure 1095 (slightly higher carbon content). It's simple, like 1095, but nobody is saying that a knife made from the Hitachi stuff should be cheap because it's a simple alloy.

0.1% silicon does not mean a steel classifies as low-alloy in my book, though there is a gray area in that regard. I still think 1095 probably has lingering residual silicon within it.

I've always thought of 1095 as a fine-grained steel, when it's heat-treated well. Maybe others have a different opinion on that.

Plus I like saying Hitachi. Hitachi, just rolls right off the tongue.

 

[RX-79G]

I only brought up the white paper steel because this thread seems to be based off of the idea that because the steel is simple, 1095 knives would be expected to be cheap, so why do some people pay a high price for a knife made from just plain old 1095 instead of a more complex alloy?

The Hitachi white paper is damn near just very nice, pure 1095 (slightly higher carbon content). It's simple, like 1095, but nobody is saying that a knife made from the Hitachi stuff should be cheap because it's a simple alloy.

0.1% silicon does not mean a steel classifies as low-alloy in my book, though there is a gray area in that regard. I still think 1095 probably has lingering residual silicon within it.

I've always thought of 1095 as a fine-grained steel, when it's heat-treated well. Maybe others have a different opinion on that.

Plus I like saying Hitachi. Hitachi, just rolls right off the tongue.

Oookay, if 1095 and White are the same thing, my apologies.

 

[Mecha]

Oookay, if 1095 and White are the same thing, my apologies.

They're not the same, but they're similar...the white is like super extra pure and nice 1095 with a little extra carbon. The point was that it's simple like 1095.

My problem is that I think 1095 knives are excellent all-around. I think of most alloys as performing differently rather than simply better or worse, and I think that 1095 deserves to be made into really nice knives as much as any other great steel. :grumpy:

So now I'm in general knife discussion ranting about fractions of percentages in minor alloying elements.