Am I the only home cook to prefer a larger chef's knife??

[XooMG]

...and "Jacques Pepin"...

I'm in the short-blade camp, given my kitchen and cooking output. Biggest thing I'll cut on any regular basis is a head of cabbage, and a 210 handles that fine. I unfortunately cannot cut more than one onion or bell pepper at a time, and really don't need to go into speed-processing mode when cooking for 2-3 (if I did, I've got a Chinese cleaver).

I put a couple bell peppers and mushrooms on the board, and the first knives I want to grab are a 165mm nakiri and a 140mm Harner that I'm trying out. I can reach for a 210mm gyuto but counter space is limited and most of the edge is unnecessary. What would a 270 give me? More opportunity to bang the tip on something near the board if I'm cutting with the heel, and an awkward stance in a cramped kitchen if I'm trying to slice or work with the tip. Perhaps I'm missing something.

 

[panda]

270 @ work, 240 @ home.

 

[eshua]

I could totally get behind using a 270 at home. If I got a 500% raise and bought a place with a big ass kitchen.

 

[panda]

if i could afford a place with big enough kitchen to accommodate the use of a 270, i would only eat food that was prepared by someone else thus no use for a knife

 

[James]

I usually use a 240 at home, but ideally, I'd have a 225-230mm. For what it's worth, I only cook for two and have a relatively small board (12"x18")

 

[user 1925]

Length is overstated. The difference between 230mm and 240mm is not enough to even worry about. Also, from experience I don't buy the idea that a 270mm is so much faster than a 240mm knife. Speed really comes down to other factors such as knife skills and board management. Personally, I see chef's knives above 250mm as specialized tools. They loose some of their versatility as an all-purpose knife, which is how I use them. 8-10" is perfectly adequate and I think the user should base their decision on how the knife feels in the hand and not on some belief that they will "grow into" the larger knife or that their speed (a product of knife skills) will improve.

A 12" Chef's knife might make you look more badass on the line or to your spouses friends, but you also risk looking like a fool--there is nothing elegant about using a sledgehammer to drive a 1/4" nail.

 

[El Pescador]

I use a couple of "DT"s in the 230mm range. I liked bigger knives in the pro environment when I had the space and needed to be more productive.

 

[jaybett]

Length is overstated. The difference between 230mm and 240mm is not enough to even worry about. Also, from experience I don't buy the idea that a 270mm is so much faster than a 240mm knife. Speed really comes down to other factors such as knife skills and board management. Personally, I see chef's knives above 250mm as specialized tools. They loose some of their versatility as an all-purpose knife, which is how I use them. 8-10" is perfectly adequate and I think the user should base their decision on how the knife feels in the hand and not on some belief that they will "grow into" the larger knife or that their speed (a product of knife skills) will improve.

A 12" Chef's knife might make you look more badass on the line or to your spouses friends, but you also risk looking like a fool--there is nothing elegant about using a sledgehammer to drive a 1/4" nail.

While the length between a 240mm and 270mm is only an inch, there is a noticeable difference in square inches. A larger knife is going to have a longer flat or sweet spot, and be heavier, which makes for a more efficient knife. All things being equal a person should be more productive with a longer knife.

A 240mm seems to be a good compromise between nimbleness and production. A smaller knife is more nimble but not as productive, while a larger knife is not as nimble but more productive. Everybody has to choose what works best for them. Its a bit short sighted to characterize people who use longer knifes, as posers.

Jay

 

[stevenStefano]

Also, from experience I don't buy the idea that a 270mm is so much faster than a 240mm knife. Speed really comes down to other factors such as knife skills and board management

Well yes it's not massively faster, but if a knife is a little faster than another, when you extrapolate that slight speed advantage over everything you do over 60 hours a week, then the bigger knife is much much more efficient. It's pretty simple, a larger knife has larger flat sections so you can cut faster

A 12" Chef's knife might make you look more badass on the line or to your spouses friends, but you also risk looking like a fool--there is nothing elegant about using a sledgehammer to drive a 1/4" nail.

It also might make you look like someone who knows what they're doing

 

[user 1925]

While the length between a 240mm and 270mm is only an inch, there is a noticeable difference in square inches. A larger knife is going to have a longer flat or sweet spot, and be heavier, which makes for a more efficient knife. All things being equal a person should be more productive with a longer knife.

A 240mm seems to be a good compromise between nimbleness and production. A smaller knife is more nimble but not as productive, while a larger knife is not as nimble but more productive. Everybody has to choose what works best for them. Its a bit short sighted to characterize people who use longer knifes, as posers.

Jay

Huh? Square inches is a measurement of area...

You're not convincing me. I've owned various patterns in different lengths. I am comparing two "gyutos" right now, 210mm and 250mm, and I promise you the "flat spot" is equal ("sweet spot" has not value to me as its purely a subjective statement i.e. not grounded in empirical reality).

All things being equal, a person will not necessarily be more productive with the longer knife if the knife is used as a chef's knife. It's not as absolute as you say.

Again, "productive" could mean many things to many different chef's.

I never "characterized people who use longer knifes (sp?), as posers." Straw man, anyone?

 

[user 1925]

Well yes it's not massively faster, but if a knife is a little faster than another, when you extrapolate that slight speed advantage over everything you do over 60 hours a week, then the bigger knife is much much more efficient. It's pretty simple, a larger knife has larger flat sections so you can cut faster



It also might make you look like someone who knows what they're doing

See above. I don't buy that it's "faster". Please explain to me in concrete terms how an 270mm knife is faster than a 240mm knife--especially if your technique is primarily push cutting.

I bet our Chinese cleaver users would have something to say about this extra length equating to faster production>>>

 

[Mucho Bocho]

This is a great thread but lets not get too huffy peep. We're all entitled to our opinion but eventhough I use a 13" butcher block an am a home chef, I'm inclined to use knives 210 to 240 or smaller. However, I was lucky enough to get a DT ITK from the last batch and mine runs 250 on the blade. Was initially disapointed but after spending some time with it, It does make chopping veg faster cause I can go through more product. But Canadian makes a good point about a Chinese Clever, obviously shorter than a 270 gyuto but I bet the weight of the two knives are pretty close?

 

[stevenn21]

It's all Son's fault, of course. He let me use a 29cm Trompette Sabatier for some time before cleaning it up. I had used large blades before, but this one was slightly forward heavy, so it was much easier and not that fatiguing. Question of changing the grip.
I bought a 270 Hiromoto, and it gives me the same impression. So much faster than a 240. Am I the only one??

i have a carter 240 im about to put on bst its the biggest i have ever had its perfect in size i cant imagine 270!

 

[user 1925]

For some people a 210mm or 240mm gyuto might be "faster" than a 270mm or 300mm gyuto because it is more "nimble"--see what I'm getting at?

Obviously if one prefers a longer knife, then use it. However, to make unsubstantiated claims whilst extolling them as rules is simply not right.

Whether you like it or not, this forum is a source of kitchen knife knowledge for thousands (probably tens of thousands) of people who never register, yet who seek out information to help direct them in choosing a good kitchen knife (and nothing beyond that). Sometimes I think knife nuts/nerds/fanatics are actually the wrong people to be giving out advice because they focus on minutia details and out of that develops folklore and assumptions that are simply not based in reality.

I do beleive there are points where a knife can be too small or too big for its intended purpose, but I also don't think that millimetres within that "general" range is going to make an iota of difference in practical application. And yes, that includes so-called "speed".

I will reiterate. Provided an individual is using a general chef's knife between 8 and 10 inches, and said person is using the knife as an all purpose tool, knife skills and board management are the determining factors in a person's efficiency and thus speed on the board.

If you are cutting something specific all day every day, then maybe a 13" chef's would be better. Or maybe a 7" chef's? However, then it becomes a specialized tool.

I find some of the assumptions on this forum regarding length does not line up with my personal experience on the cutting board and with working professionals. For example, in the field I use (and most people I know) a 3" drop point for dressing an 800 pound elk. In the cooler most butchers use a 5-6" boning knife for 90% of their work and an 8-10" "butcher" or "breaking" knife for portioning (where's the 300mm Suji?). I break down game birds with a 3.5" clip point. Never would I think a 6" "petty" would be a better tool for the job. Could I still do it? Yeah, of course, but there is a point where the size becomes a hinderance.

 

[stevenStefano]

See above. I don't buy that it's "faster". Please explain to me in concrete terms how an 270mm knife is faster than a 240mm knife--especially if your technique is primarily push cutting.

In concrete terms? Cut by just moving the knife straight up and down with no backwards/forwards motion. Do that with a 240 then a 270 and see which is quicker.

Whether you like it or not, this forum is a source of kitchen knife knowledge for thousands (probably tens of thousands) of people who never register, yet who seek out information to help direct them in choosing a good kitchen knife (and nothing beyond that). Sometimes I think knife nuts/nerds/fanatics are actually the wrong people to be giving out advice because they focus on minutia details and out of that develops folklore and assumptions that are simply not based in reality.

Perhaps you should explain to all the professional Chefs here on the forum how their assumptions are not based on reality. I agree that the forum is a useful source to many people, so I reflect on my own experiences in the hope that someone doesn't spend a load of money on their first good knife ever and wish they had bought a longer one.

 

[user 1925]

In concrete terms? Cut by just moving the knife straight up and down with no backwards/forwards motion. Do that with a 240 then a 270 and see which is quicker.

This statement makes no sense. If one is push cutting a normal sized item then how would a longer knife be "faster"?

 

[Benuser]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zq37b1wG-yo&gl=NL&client=mv-google&hl=nl&guid=

When not chopping but using "guillotine and glide" this is even more evident, as the first contact between food and blade will take place more forward. It's all about the upward distance one has to traverse.

 

[stevenStefano]

This statement makes no sense. If one is push cutting a normal sized item then how would a longer knife be "faster"?

You're being obtuse. I suspect your definition of a "normal-sized item" would differ to mine. Try a cabbage? Maybe a lettuce? onion? What doesn't make sense to you? The flat section of the knife is larger therefore less backwards and forwards motion is needed, therefore you can cut faster

 

[labor of love]

im not sure that edge length really is the primary factor to consider when we talk about speed. lasers could cut the quickest i suppose if the blade doesnt get too much food stiction but you maybe have to stop to clean off the food stuck to the blade which slows down prep. serious steep asymetric bevels could also prevent sticktion but the added weight of a thicker gyuto may slow down actual guillotine cuts. also, who cares how fast you can cut food if your cuts arent precise and consistent. ive seen numerous youtube vids of people demolishing vegatable prep in seconds but if you look at the cuts you can tell theyre inconsistent. IMO finding whatever knife can give you the most precise and consistent cuts technically is the "fastest":sofa::my2cents:

 

[mkriggen]

Just thought I'd remind all you pros that the OP asked about home cooks using 270+ gyutos.

Be well,
Mikey

 

[WildBoar]

Just thought I'd remind all you pros that the OP asked about home cooks using 270+ gyutos.

Be well,
Mikey

Sadly your original question went in the terlit a while back when someone started insisting there was no way a knife over 255 could benefit any home cook. i had started a response earlier today about my own preferences but decided not to post it because I saw the turn the thread was already taking. But I do find it rediculous that someone can insist that the best to use are 210-255 unless you are a pro, rather then just stating their own preference. And if you claim otherwise you need to prove it. Yet no proof is offered a 210-255 is always best for all non-pros.

 

[bahamaroot]

There are very few if any absolutes when it comes to knives. That there is a best length for everyone in a given situation is definitely NOT an absolute.

 

[user 1925]

You're being obtuse. I suspect your definition of a "normal-sized item" would differ to mine. Try a cabbage? Maybe a lettuce? onion? What doesn't make sense to you? The flat section of the knife is larger therefore less backwards and forwards motion is needed, therefore you can cut faster

No, those are my ideas of normals sized items too--carrots, onions, potatoes, yams, etc.

You're talking about slicing NOT push cutting. These are two different techniques...:headband:

For most tasks when push cutting you shouldn't need to "slice" back and forth regardless of blade length (unless of course the knife is shorter than the item being cut)

For future clarity of communications, "larger" is a designation of size and longer is a designation of length. Likewise, inches is not the same as "square inches".

 

[user 1925]

im not sure that edge length really is the primary factor to consider when we talk about speed. lasers could cut the quickest i suppose if the blade doesnt get too much food stiction but you maybe have to stop to clean off the food stuck to the blade which slows down prep. serious steep asymetric bevels could also prevent sticktion but the added weight of a thicker gyuto may slow down actual guillotine cuts. also, who cares how fast you can cut food if your cuts arent precise and consistent. ive seen numerous youtube vids of people demolishing vegatable prep in seconds but if you look at the cuts you can tell theyre inconsistent. IMO finding whatever knife can give you the most precise and consistent cuts technically is the "fastest":sofa::my2cents:

Good points.

 

[user 1925]

Sadly your original question went in the terlit a while back when someone started insisting there was no way a knife over 255 could benefit any home cook. i had started a response earlier today about my own preferences but decided not to post it because I saw the turn the thread was already taking. But I do find it rediculous that someone can insist that the best to use are 210-255 unless you are a pro, rather then just stating their own preference. And if you claim otherwise you need to prove it. Yet no proof is offered a 210-255 is always best for all non-pros.

That "someone" never claimed that "there was no way a knife over 255 could benefit any home cook".

I said length is overstated especially when we are comparing knives that are 210, 240 and 270mm. There are no absolutes when talking about the perfect chef's knife length. There is a tendency of some to "insist" that the longer knife is more "serious" or "professional" or "faster" when I simply don't believe this to be true for most types of multi-purpose cutting tasks nor is it what I see in professional kitchens.

I say buy the one that feels best in the hand. If it's 270mm in length then so be it, but be honest with yourself--you won't look like any less of a man and it won't affect what ends up on the plate.

 

[Geo87]

Benuser: sorry for contributing to the OT tangent , however the discussion is interesting

I think every size has a certain use that may vary from person to person. There should definitely not be any absolutes . However if the majority of professional chefs are saying 270 is what works for them surly this cannot be ignored. In saying that.... I agree that cutting more product at once for some May end up less consistent.

As an example in a particular dish you may need absolutely perfect small dice of potatoes .... My personal choice 240 .

Another task : large miripoix for veal stock needed urgently.... Knife of choice 270 as precision is not a factor and you could cut more product at once

So different knives for different tasks for different people . There is no absolute...surely

 

[Geo87]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zq37b1wG-yo&gl=NL&client=mv-google&hl=nl&guid=

When not chopping but using "guillotine and glide" this is even more evident, as the first contact between food and blade will take place more forward. It's all about the upward distance one has to traverse.

Although that video has a pretty solid argument as to why larger is faster. even though my sound wasn't working lol. Less up and down movement when the tip stays on the board. I feel a lightbulb has just gone off for me .

 

[stevenStefano]

No, those are my ideas of normals sized items too--carrots, onions, potatoes, yams, etc.

You're talking about slicing NOT push cutting. These are two different techniques...:headband:

For most tasks when push cutting you shouldn't need to "slice" back and forth regardless of blade length (unless of course the knife is shorter than the item being cut)

For future clarity of communications, "larger" is a designation of size and longer is a designation of length. Likewise, inches is not the same as "square inches".

You're wrong but whatever, I think no matter what I say you're gonna have some issue with it and you'll disagree regardless. Since about half this thread has little to do with the original post, I'm out. Your opinion is correct, everyone else's is wrong, you win. I hope new people aren't put off by this thread

 

[user 1925]

You're wrong but whatever, I think no matter what I say you're gonna have some issue with it and you'll disagree regardless. Since about half this thread has little to do with the original post, I'm out. Your opinion is correct, everyone else's is wrong, you win. I hope new people aren't put off by this thread

Steven, I wasn't trying to ruffle your feathers. I just wanted some clarifications--I apologize if I came off rude. No way am I more right than anybody else, but at the same time if someone is attempting to validate a concept my critical nature kicks in and I ask questions.

I watched the video Benuser posted and I have to say that is the most convincing example of a larger knife being more "efficient" than a smaller knife. faster? I'm not so sure--probably over the long haul. For a home cook I strongly suspect it doesn't matter as speed and duration are not important.

 

[WildBoar]

For a home cook I strongly suspect it doesn't matter as speed and duration are not important.

Once again it depends on the person. Speed is very important for me, as a lot of what we cook takes piles of onions, etc., and after getting home from work I don't want to spend any more time than I need to on getting dinner together. Heck, that's why I am here at KKF; using the Wusthofs I had was painful, and I wanted to find knives that would let me knock out prep faster. I started with a 210, which I thought would be long enough. But it wasn't that great for big onions and some other things. I tried 220s and 240s-255s, and found the 240s-255s work best for me. I have some shorter ones to use for when I only have some garlic, a couple shallots, etc., and a 270 for when I need to tackle larger items. Not sure why you think people recommending longer knives has anything to do with perceived masculinity. :scratchhead: