Knife looks vs performance

The quantity of outstanding looking knives available is just staggering but I wonder what am I paying for?

Is the price added premium for Damascus knives totally looks? Some of the top knife makers charge almost double for the Damascus version of their knives and I wanted to know if there is any enhanced performance with the Damascus layering to a knife with the same grind and edge steel?

My past simple minded thought about Damascus was a forging that was folder over and over by a blacksmith to refine the grain structure and develop better material properties. I recently realized that many (if not all) knife blacksmith buy steel mill blanks that are forged (or hot rolled or other consolidation process) at a supplier and forge that product to their perferred edge steel and treat with etches and polishing.

My question: is either the old folding over multiple times or the steel mill (damascus process) add value to the final product with better dimensional stability or enhansed mechanical properties? What are we paying for with the different knives - looks or performance?

Thanks for any insight on this topic,

Jack

Jack ,
Originally "Damascus " steel was made in crucibles and what you see is a treelike patterns that occurs during melting of iron ore with carbon and other alloys if present and forming steel . These patterns were determined by the smelting process and the style it was made . Damascus became the most famous one , although the ones in India were regarded as better steels.
Today especially in West pattern welded steel became "Damascus " . By forge welding one steel known for being tough to the less tough one you can increase the strength , however mostly it's done for the beauty And the cosmetic sides of it .
In Japan where the steel was smelted in Tatara you would get tamahagane. This steel contained trapped impurities and the carbon content varied , bladesmiths kept folding it to even out to carbon content and remove any impurities. After refining tamahagane you will get oroshigane which ready to turned Ito blade , it has visible layers but completely different process to modern pattern welded steel
When making a Damascus there is a risk of delamination and failure at each weld ,it takes time to prepare , you are loosing steel during the all drawing and restacking , Especially more in mosaic Damascus

Just my thoughts, I'm no expert!

99.9% of today's damascus knives are etched (as you know). This adds no performance or value. That said, reputable makers use good steels which are sandwiched resulting in a high quality edge. The softer outer steel is etched. It increases the price because of the tools, energy and labor involved.

Then there's real damascus, which is valuable for being authentic. This is a complicated subject, I don't think anyone really knows how authentic damascus was made. It's believed to have originated in the Middle East, containing a combination of steels. Some steels degrade at different rates, so ancient swords are usually pitted and hard to study. A common belief is that they folded the different steels to create the damascus look.

From what I understand it is 99% about looks. The "damascus process" is referred to as pattern welding I beleive. A lot of damascus knives are San-mai so the cladding is damascus and not the core steel. The more knowledgeable people will be along shortly to give you a better answer.

Ah, but what if you have 3 knifes made by the same smith. One San mai, one Damascus and one mono steel. Would they preform differently? Would they sharpen differently? Assuming same grind and f&f

Personally i would go for the San mai stainless clad. Easier to maintain so to me there is a difference. The other two not so much I have found.

No expert but etching would help with reactivity and possibly stiction and/or drag in use. I asked Watanabe about his Damascus (kintaro-ame) and it is more than just for looks (similar to why Shigefusa made Kitaeji cladding and what Mert said).

With a monosteel (not cladded) Damascus I suppose the different steels would wear differently so you'd get micro serrations on the edge?

Etching could help reduce drag and stiction now that I think about it. I guess it depends on how deeply the knife was etched (along with the grind of the knife), so the difference may be subjective.

Can you (or anyone) further explain reactivity? I assume you're referring to reducing it.

miyabi said:

Can you (or anyone) further explain reactivity? I assume you're referring to reducing it.

Click to expand...

I know you weren't asking me, but yes etching will reduce reactivity. When you etch a blade you're forming a more stable oxide, which will reduce the reactivity - as a transition metal, iron has variable oxidation states and by forming a stable oxide you can make it less reactive than raw iron. Etching is basically an extreme (and more permanent) example of a "forced patina".

jacko9 said:

My question: is either the old folding over multiple times or the steel mill (damascus process) add value to the final product with better dimensional stability or enhansed mechanical properties? What are we paying for with the different knives - looks or performance?

Click to expand...

The main reason for why I would go for damascus is because it is usually the most premium option offered and therefore I would assume (possibly incorrectly) that you'll be getting the best example of the maker's work.

I would assume that core-less damascus (consisting on different steels) would perform worse than a straight steel core, as the heat treatment could not be perfected for both materials (but this would obviously depend on the specific materials and smith).

I have heard many note the possibility of micro-serrations, due to the different wear rate of the two materials, but couldn't a similar effect be achieved on a mono-steel knife by simply using a coarser stone to finish? If we assume (for the sake of argument) that a 250mm blade has 1000 layers (perpendicular to the edge), that would make each layer an average thickness of 0.25mm (250 µm). If I'm not mistaken, 250 µm is about equivalent to 60 grit! (I would assume that nobody here would want their edge to be that course)

In any case, I wouldn't choose core-less damascus for a daily use knife as keeping it looking pristine (with regular sharpening) would be more work than I care for. That's not to say that I don't like core-less damascus, I do intend to buy some examples this year, but I'm not expecting improved performance on account of damascus.

*At this point I have ZERO personal experience with core-less damascus kitchen knives*

MAS4T0 said:

The main reason for why I would go for damascus is because it is usually the most premium option offered and therefore I would assume (possibly incorrectly) that you'll be getting the best example of the maker's work.

I would assume that core-less damascus (consisting on different steels) would perform worse than a straight steel core, as the heat treatment could not be perfected for both materials (but this would obviously depend on the specific materials and smith).

I have heard many note the possibility of micro-serrations, due to the different wear rate of the two materials, but couldn't a similar effect be achieved on a mono-steel knife by simply using a coarser stone to finish? If we assume (for the sake of argument) that a 250mm blade has 1000 layers (perpendicular to the edge), that would make each layer an average thickness of 0.25mm (250 µm). If I'm not mistaken, 250 µm is about equivalent to 60 grit! (I would assume that nobody here would want their edge to be that course)

In any case, I wouldn't choose core-less damascus for a daily use knife as keeping it looking pristine (with regular sharpening) would be more work than I care for. That's not to say that I don't like core-less damascus, I do intend to buy some examples this year, but I'm not expecting improved performance on account of damascus.

*At this point I have ZERO personal experience with core-less damascus kitchen knives*

Click to expand...

You will tend to find that most smiths pick the steels which will HT basically the same. Read the below post from Del about this.

http://www.kitchenknifeforums.com/showthread.php/897-A-bit-about-the-damascus-I-make

It's all in the heat treat, there is no performance benefit. If you dig the looks and want to pay a premium to a artist blade maker, by all means go for it. But there is no reason to consider a bland looking blade over a beautiful blade. The tool is what is important. Have fun.

MAS4T0 said:

The main reason for why I would go for damascus is because it is usually the most premium option offered and therefore I would assume (possibly incorrectly) that you'll be getting the best example of the maker's work.

I would assume that core-less damascus (consisting on different steels) would perform worse than a straight steel core, as the heat treatment could not be perfected for both materials (but this would obviously depend on the specific materials and smith).

I have heard many note the possibility of micro-serrations, due to the different wear rate of the two materials, but couldn't a similar effect be achieved on a mono-steel knife by simply using a coarser stone to finish? If we assume (for the sake of argument) that a 250mm blade has 1000 layers (perpendicular to the edge), that would make each layer an average thickness of 0.25mm (250 µm). If I'm not mistaken, 250 µm is about equivalent to 60 grit! (I would assume that nobody here would want their edge to be that course)

In any case, I wouldn't choose core-less damascus for a daily use knife as keeping it looking pristine (with regular sharpening) would be more work than I care for. That's not to say that I don't like core-less damascus, I do intend to buy some examples this year, but I'm not expecting improved performance on account of damascus.

*At this point I have ZERO personal experience with core-less damascus kitchen knives*

Click to expand...

Interesting but isn't Honyaki a mono steel heat treated with clays to get differential properties? If this can be done with a mono steel forging why not a multiple folded layer steel? Perhaps - the Honyaki is in fact what I'm asking about but without the damascus appearance? Premium offerings or etching of the top layer don't seem to give a definitive example of improved quality since you could also etch any knife and achieve the same surface morphology (as far as friction, etc).

I'm still looking for that example where a multiple layer construction is superior to San mai construction for performance. I would suspect that a San mai construction is superior as far as interfacial layer defects go since there are many fewer layers to have defects?

The only thing that I can think of for multiple layer construction is analogous to plywood in the furniture construction where multiple layers even out the overall stresses compared to solid wood construction.

Good input and I thank all that have contributed.

Jack

Here's a thread about the coreless Damascus and "micro serrations". It's about a Shun (no surprise here) so may be a marketing gimmick:
http://www.kitchenknifeforums.com/s...e-Knives-does-the-description-even-make-sense

jacko9 said:

Interesting but isn't Honyaki a mono steel heat treated with clays to get differential properties? If this can be done with a mono steel forging why not a multiple folded layer steel? Perhaps - the Honyaki is in fact what I'm asking about but without the damascus appearance? Premium offerings or etching of the top layer don't seem to give a definitive example of improved quality since you could also etch any knife and achieve the same surface morphology (as far as friction, etc).

I'm still looking for that example where a multiple layer construction is superior to San mai construction for performance. I would suspect that a San mai construction is superior as far as interfacial layer defects go since there are many fewer layers to have defects?

The only thing that I can think of for multiple layer construction is analogous to plywood in the furniture construction where multiple layers even out the overall stresses compared to solid wood construction.

Good input and I thank all that have contributed.

Jack

Click to expand...

Hi Jack,

Yes, honyaki is indeed mono-steel (or more broadly "maru") - it is hard(enable) steel all the way through, but isn't necessarily mono-steel; a core-less damascus blade can be honyaki.

Honyaki are generally taken to significantly higher hardness (at the edge) than standard monoseel blades of the same material; the differential heat treatment helps to offset the brittleness (to avoid the blade snapping). Honyaki only really makes sense functionally (to me) on a single bevel blade, where chipping of the edge is not an issue, but warping (of a laminated blade) would be a concern.

Steel and wood do not behave the same way. Due to grain, cross lamination is an excellent way to increase strength, stability and durability of wood - the same technique is a vital part of carbon fibre lay-up (especially in the case of uni-directyional fabric) and other materials with parallel strands. Metals though do not have strands or grain in the same way as wood or carbon fibre and the grain/ microstructure of the metal is determined by heat treatment and forging methods rather than lay-up orientation.

*I kept writing but missed the edit window*

I would say that functionally San-Mai is the best method of construction for a double bevel blade. You are choosing materials based on their specific needs and constructing a composite material which best meets those needs. The cladding needs to be easily abraded (for easy grinding, thinning and refinishing) so a soft material with low abrasion resistance is ideal, while the edge needs a hard steel which can take a fine edge and hold it for a long time. A super wear resistant stainless could be ideal as a core material, but would be horrible for cladding. You can't ideally meet both the cladding and edge material requirements with a standard core-less damascus billet, as the same material is being used for both the core and cladding. A composite damascus blade (hard damascus core, with soft damascus cladding) as produced by Will Catcheside is superior to straight core-less damascus, as the different parts can be optimised for their different needs, but it still would not be functionally different to a standard San-Mai blade for the reasons explained above.

Combining various steels (into damascus) was a useful technique in the past, and still is a great way to show artistry and skill, but it is not necessary to get the best performance. If for instance you determined that 1080 was the perfect steel for a component you were making, a combination of 1095 and 1050 in a 2:1 ratio, folded repeatedly would get you pretty much there, but you do have the option to buy straight 1080 so there's no need.

in my opinion (which are mostly unpopular ones on this site) is that 400-500 dollars is the ceiling of performance, after that youre mostly paying for looks,customiztion,

Chef_ said:

in my opinion (which are mostly unpopular ones on this site) is that 400-500 dollars is the ceiling of performance, after that youre mostly paying for looks,customiztion,

Click to expand...

Nah.

Like with anything, there's definitely diminishing returns (and by $500 you certainly are a fair bit over to the right of the bell curve), but I've never come across a $500 knife that was on par with a great $1.5k knife (though whether the slight increased preference is worth the vastly increased price is a different matter).

That's not to say that all knives priced at $1.5k or above are worth their price tag (especially not in terms of pure performance), but if you're going for pure preference, the best of the litter at $1.5k does outperform the best at $500.

With a higher price tag, the maker can take more time on it, allowing him to work more slowly (and carefully) and maintain better quality control (to make sure you don't get a lemon).

If we were talking about the difference between a $10k and a $50k kitchen knife, I would certainly agree with you.

I think all this obsession about performance is for naught if you don't have skill enough on the cutting board or on the stone to realize the knife's full potential. I'm not trying to be harsh when I say... most people don't have great knife skills, in my experience. Now, how many knife nerds do I know... not very many. But even my experience in most professional kitchens has been less than impressive.

I'm generally unconcerned with the way a knife looks but I'm fairly resistant to the idea of paying "extra" for aesthetic upgrades.

MAS4T0 said:

Nah.

Like with anything, there's definitely diminishing returns (and by $500 you certainly are a fair bit over to the right of the bell curve), but I've never come across a $500 knife that was on par with a great $1.5k knife (though whether the slight increased preference is worth the vastly increased price is a different matter).

That's not to say that all knives priced at $1.5k or above are worth their price tag (especially not in terms of pure performance), but if you're going for pure preference, the best of the litter at $1.5k does outperform the best at $500.

With a higher price tag, the maker can take more time on it, allowing him to work more slowly (and carefully) and maintain better quality control (to make sure you don't get a lemon).

If we were talking about the difference between a $10k and a $50k kitchen knife, I would certainly agree with you.

Click to expand...

hmmm, my $300 ginga already cuts like a lightsaber, i cant even imagine that there are better performing knives out there.

spoiledbroth said:

I think all this obsession about performance is for naught if you don't have skill enough on the cutting board or on the stone to realize the knife's full potential. I'm not trying to be harsh when I say... most people don't have great knife skills, in my experience. Now, how many knife nerds do I know... not very many. But even my experience in most professional kitchens has been less than impressive.

Click to expand...

That's something I've definitely noticed as well. I've seen people with very expensive and rare knives that have no idea how to use them. Many with average skill at best.

I do believe that you should purchase and enjoy whatever you want, but you shouldn't pretend that your knife skills suddenly improve after a hefty emptying of wallet. I can brunoise carrots better with a four star Zwilling than 90% of the cooks I've met can with any super-performance custom whatever gyuto. A good knife in the hands of a mediocre cook results in mediocre prep work.

Chef_ said:

hmmm, my $300 ginga already cuts like a lightsaber, i cant even imagine that there are better performing knives out there.

Click to expand...

Your imagination is very limited. You can have better edge retention than your Ginga. You can have better food separation. Better non-stick qualities.

Just because you have a nice knife does not mean that nicer (or different) knives don't exist.

I'm actually going to agree with chef large in principal, there are a few makers who can make knives better than kato,shig,heiji,toyama,watanabe,ginga,tanaka,takamura such as Bill burke, rader, lisch and Kramer but their 2k+ price points can't be justified by performance alone as they only cut slightly better than the knives listed above. It isn't the same jump as a $150 henckles to a $500 tanaka r2, the only real exception to this rule is the yanagi where a $1500 honyaki made by a skilled craftsmen will demolish a $400-$500 yanagi. Even a good one made by heiji, tanaka or a cheapo doi. Mainly because the blade won't warp and the blade will have significantly better heat treat and grind. That being said you can get a pretty good honyaki yanagi for $750 where the gap in performance would be significantly less noticable if it was noticeable at all. Please keep in mind I've only handled a Burke none of the others(that being said I will one day buy one) and have a few knives worth over $500 but they weren't bought to be performers at work. More or less functional art pieces I have on display and occasionally use for special occasions. But for 100% of chefs spending over $500 on a knife for performance is just plain silly. Don't get me wrong I love my takamura and kujira knives but I didn't buy them because they cut well I bought them because they were special and I wanted something special. Same reason I recently a HHH damascus blade. That costs 4 figures I wanted a show pony to add to my colection, I have a mono steel HHH for work.

spoiledbroth said:

I think all this obsession about performance is for naught if you don't have skill enough on the cutting board or on the stone to realize the knife's full potential. I'm not trying to be harsh when I say... most people don't have great knife skills, in my experience. Now, how many knife nerds do I know... not very many. But even my experience in most professional kitchens has been less than impressive.

I'm generally unconcerned with the way a knife looks but I'm fairly resistant to the idea of paying "extra" for aesthetic upgrades.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to deny that you could probably get better performance out of a $200 knife than I can from a $1k knife, but I can certainly feel (and do appreciate) the difference.

It's like with anything. You don't have to be a pro-cyclist to feel the difference between an average and pro-tour level bike, and obviously a pro racer on a cheap commuter bike would leave you in the dust on your $5k TDF replica.

BUT, if YOU can feel the difference (which anyone will, irrespective of skill level) and it makes your cycling more enjoyable then you are better off with the better bike (even if you don't need it).

It's not like a high performance motorcycle where you'll probably kill yourself if you dive in at the deep end and don't have something that suits your skills.

DamageInc said:

That's something I've definitely noticed as well. I've seen people with very expensive and rare knives that have no idea how to use them. Many with average skill at best.

I do believe that you should purchase and enjoy whatever you want, but you shouldn't pretend that your knife skills suddenly improve after a hefty emptying of wallet. I can brunoise carrots better with a four star Zwilling than 90% of the cooks I've met can with any super-performance custom whatever gyuto. A good knife in the hands of a mediocre cook results in mediocre prep work.

Click to expand...

People just dont want to take the time to develop a foundation anymore. thats what happens when you have no patience and try to progress yourself too quickly, you end up mediocre, instead of mastering basic skills first. My first few months of working in a kitchen i obsessed over developing my knife skills, I did nothing else except cut onions and peppers all day. I didnt even think about cooking anything, i only thought of how to get better cuts on my onions and peppers. After work i went to the grocery store and bought bags of vegetables to practice cutting up at home. Thats why now after cooking for about a year i have better knife skills than some cooks 5 years+ experience

DamageInc said:

Your imagination is very limited. You can have better edge retention than your Ginga. You can have better food separation. Better non-stick qualities.

Just because you have a nice knife does not mean that nicer (or different) knives don't exist.

Click to expand...

I never thought of food stiction as a big deal honestly, and edge retention doesnt matter all that much when i like to take my knife to a 6000 everyday anyway. You sound a little offended??

Don't throw that word at me. It's a childish ad hominem. I'm just telling you that your Ginga, while being a premium knife, is not the greatest in the universe, and you saying that you can't even imagine something being better is either wrong, or just short-sighted. You not caring about or putting much value in advantages of other knives does not mean they aren't there.

MAS4T0 said:

I'm not going to deny that you could probably get better performance out of a $200 knife than I can from a $1k knife, but I can certainly feel (and do appreciate) the difference.

It's like with anything. You don't have to be a pro-cyclist to feel the difference between an average and pro-tour level bike, and obviously a pro racer on a cheap commuter bike would leave you in the dust on your $5k TDF replica.

BUT, if YOU can feel the difference (which anyone will, irrespective of skill level) and it makes your cycling more enjoyable then you are better off with the better bike (even if you don't need it).

It's not like a high performance motorcycle where you'll probably kill yourself if you dive in at the deep end and don't have something that suits your skills.

Click to expand...

You sound like a two wheel junkie. I like the BIEN channel here it has Moto GP, now they have the Giro di'Italia spint stages I like the mountains. After that Tour de France stuff that would seem boring to non two wheel folks.

Chef_ Damage does know a little about knife skills. I think we'd all like to see you with a knife in hand cutting.

https://youtu.be/-FMAS29zSpE

I'm not calling anyone's knife skills into question, just the arguments presented.

keithsaltydog said:

You sound like a two wheel junkie. I like the BIEN channel here it has Moto GP, now they have the Giro di'Italia spint stages I like the mountains. After that Tour de France stuff that would seem boring to non two wheel folks.

Click to expand...

You got me!