Hang on a minute...
Just need to get this...
Almost readyyyyyy...
Okay. Ready.
It's been slow around here so let's kick some tires.
Understand, this is not a knock on the tools or your preferences, but rather the mantras that so often accompany them. The title is what the kids call click bait.
But, I do believe what follows and present my arguments for debate and discussion.
"You're going to find a 210 is too small and want a 240!" "For serious work, you need a 240." We see and hear some variation of these declarations often, especially when a new person asks for advice on choosing a new knife. My personal experience, and I know many others as well, this is simply not true and in fact in many ways the opposite. I suspect these types of statements are more a reflection of the declarer's personal druthers than genuine advice for the hapless noob.
I watch a lot of knife and cooking videos and these include a lot of cutting and professional cooks and a couple things are very common when you look for them. One, rarely is anyone cutting up multiple larger veggies at once and often when they are, they are roughly chopping them. So yes, a longer knife may be nice in those few instances but if you're rough chopping anyway, how much faster is it really? And if you're a home cook, how often does this even apply or become a need? Two, a lot of pro cooks outside of their pro kitchens routinely use smaller knives. I've seen this with vendors as well. They will repeat the oft-spoken "a 240 might seem big in the beginning but once you get used to it it's the best..." mantra but then scattered throughout their videos are comments about how much they use bunkas and nakiri at home. I don't think it is nefarious and trying to sell the more expensive knives, I think they are reflecting what they too see and hear all the time. I also think that people who have been pro cooks/chefs just naturally have the larger knife bias.
I submit that in terms of blade length, the advantages of going longer are much more an exception than the rule and especially so for home cooks. Further, I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of cutting tasks accomplished by home cooks are vegetables and probably not in bulk quantity. Does a 240 dice an onion any better than a 165? I mean, you're only dicing one at a time. A 165 has no issue with sweet or russet potatoes and how many of those are you cutting at one time? And I'm not talking about a poor substitute getting the job done. I'm saying the shorter knife handles these tasks just fine. I see a whole lot of people, even here on the forum, cutting lone carrots, maybe a couple celery stalks at once or both halves a zucchini, but rarely do I see anyone trying to plow through truly hefty loads. And again, as a home cook do you need to do that?
A 180 deba is considered sufficient for many larger fish tasks and 210's are large. So why does one need a 240+ gyuto for such tasks?
"240's are better at rock chopping." Granted. Sure the lever is longer but how often do you rock chop? And how often do you rock chop versus how often you use the tip? Tip control is easier on shorter knives.
"240's often have more weight and that helps cutting." Okay, again, granted. But this is a niche within the larger knife crowd. There's just as many who prefer thin lasers so it defies the "need" mantra.
I think this "240+ or die" mentality is some carry over from ham-fisted men with barrel chests strained against leather aprons, with scowls on their faces and sour dispositions, in dimly lit kitchens who were as much butcher as chef. How many of us have seen friends or family, hell our wives, prepare entire meals with paring knives? I've watched my prepare many a chef salad with one. No, they often aren't executing precise cuts but even so, would they need a 240 for that?
"Master the 1k!" "A 1k is the best all around, one-stone starter." The late Ken Schwartz popularized the former and the latter is a common statement. The subscribers of this theory profess that a 1k can do a little cutting but still give a decent edge. That isn't great at any one thing but is good at most so it is a good one-stone starter. I submit that those attributes are exactly why it isn't. I'm a touch more serious on this subject than the previous one. As most of us know, the coarse stone is where the work gets done. We cannot grit our way into sharpness so we must be proficient with coarser stones. Might as well start early. A SG500 or possibly even a Shapton 320 are very good here. They can handle most all steels, save the exceptional ones and most new folks won't be going for those anyways. They can handle most edge work that will be needed and can do it quickly. Sure, there's an argument about higher girts being safer to learn on but I don't know that a 1k provides all that much cushion. A coarser stone will raise the burr quickly providing faster feedback and, just as importantly, get the knife off the stone sooner. Time on the stone increases mistake potential.
A low grit edge is fine in the kitchen. Most of us aren't slinging a ton of raw fish. I bet a whole lot of us stop somewhere between 2 and 4k anyway. No, a 320 edge is not as pleasant as those, but it is fully functional and while I know many don't like non-stone stropping, a light touch on some newspaper or denim can spruce that edge up pretty nicely. I wonder how many people who make this claim even use a 1k after a while?
When in doubt, and when choices are limited, default to coarser.
Okay, those are my arguments. What you got?
And keep in mind, this is all good natured and in fun. I'm not insulting anyone's lineage here so no need to get upset.
Just need to get this...
Almost readyyyyyy...
Okay. Ready.
It's been slow around here so let's kick some tires.
Understand, this is not a knock on the tools or your preferences, but rather the mantras that so often accompany them. The title is what the kids call click bait.
But, I do believe what follows and present my arguments for debate and discussion."You're going to find a 210 is too small and want a 240!" "For serious work, you need a 240." We see and hear some variation of these declarations often, especially when a new person asks for advice on choosing a new knife. My personal experience, and I know many others as well, this is simply not true and in fact in many ways the opposite. I suspect these types of statements are more a reflection of the declarer's personal druthers than genuine advice for the hapless noob.
I watch a lot of knife and cooking videos and these include a lot of cutting and professional cooks and a couple things are very common when you look for them. One, rarely is anyone cutting up multiple larger veggies at once and often when they are, they are roughly chopping them. So yes, a longer knife may be nice in those few instances but if you're rough chopping anyway, how much faster is it really? And if you're a home cook, how often does this even apply or become a need? Two, a lot of pro cooks outside of their pro kitchens routinely use smaller knives. I've seen this with vendors as well. They will repeat the oft-spoken "a 240 might seem big in the beginning but once you get used to it it's the best..." mantra but then scattered throughout their videos are comments about how much they use bunkas and nakiri at home. I don't think it is nefarious and trying to sell the more expensive knives, I think they are reflecting what they too see and hear all the time. I also think that people who have been pro cooks/chefs just naturally have the larger knife bias.
I submit that in terms of blade length, the advantages of going longer are much more an exception than the rule and especially so for home cooks. Further, I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of cutting tasks accomplished by home cooks are vegetables and probably not in bulk quantity. Does a 240 dice an onion any better than a 165? I mean, you're only dicing one at a time. A 165 has no issue with sweet or russet potatoes and how many of those are you cutting at one time? And I'm not talking about a poor substitute getting the job done. I'm saying the shorter knife handles these tasks just fine. I see a whole lot of people, even here on the forum, cutting lone carrots, maybe a couple celery stalks at once or both halves a zucchini, but rarely do I see anyone trying to plow through truly hefty loads. And again, as a home cook do you need to do that?
A 180 deba is considered sufficient for many larger fish tasks and 210's are large. So why does one need a 240+ gyuto for such tasks?
"240's are better at rock chopping." Granted. Sure the lever is longer but how often do you rock chop? And how often do you rock chop versus how often you use the tip? Tip control is easier on shorter knives.
"240's often have more weight and that helps cutting." Okay, again, granted. But this is a niche within the larger knife crowd. There's just as many who prefer thin lasers so it defies the "need" mantra.
I think this "240+ or die" mentality is some carry over from ham-fisted men with barrel chests strained against leather aprons, with scowls on their faces and sour dispositions, in dimly lit kitchens who were as much butcher as chef. How many of us have seen friends or family, hell our wives, prepare entire meals with paring knives? I've watched my prepare many a chef salad with one. No, they often aren't executing precise cuts but even so, would they need a 240 for that?
"Master the 1k!" "A 1k is the best all around, one-stone starter." The late Ken Schwartz popularized the former and the latter is a common statement. The subscribers of this theory profess that a 1k can do a little cutting but still give a decent edge. That isn't great at any one thing but is good at most so it is a good one-stone starter. I submit that those attributes are exactly why it isn't. I'm a touch more serious on this subject than the previous one. As most of us know, the coarse stone is where the work gets done. We cannot grit our way into sharpness so we must be proficient with coarser stones. Might as well start early. A SG500 or possibly even a Shapton 320 are very good here. They can handle most all steels, save the exceptional ones and most new folks won't be going for those anyways. They can handle most edge work that will be needed and can do it quickly. Sure, there's an argument about higher girts being safer to learn on but I don't know that a 1k provides all that much cushion. A coarser stone will raise the burr quickly providing faster feedback and, just as importantly, get the knife off the stone sooner. Time on the stone increases mistake potential.
A low grit edge is fine in the kitchen. Most of us aren't slinging a ton of raw fish. I bet a whole lot of us stop somewhere between 2 and 4k anyway. No, a 320 edge is not as pleasant as those, but it is fully functional and while I know many don't like non-stone stropping, a light touch on some newspaper or denim can spruce that edge up pretty nicely. I wonder how many people who make this claim even use a 1k after a while?
When in doubt, and when choices are limited, default to coarser.
Okay, those are my arguments. What you got?
And keep in mind, this is all good natured and in fun. I'm not insulting anyone's lineage here so no need to get upset.
