Dear Forum,
after years of reading and learning from you amazing people here on the forum it ist time for my first post. Having been inspired about cleavers, and especially from the posts of Andy777 thank you I have finally bought one to start with. Living in Germany I found no possibility to find a Chan Chi Kee, so after reading a recommendation here I took the chance of buying a simple knife in order to at least try the cai dao style out. It was extremely cheap, took 3 weeks to ship, but is finally there.
Still though, I have some questions about the cleaver styles I hope that you could help med to sort out. I will use the CCK number series to refer to the styles, but it a general question that applies to the whole càidāo range.
1. Terminology:
Fuchsia dunlop writes about the cleaver, and is referring to the 菜刀 Càidāo. Google translate tells me this means either kitchen knife wht written as 菜刀 without blank, and as vegetable knife when written with blanks.
One commenter, however, states: »The lady of pic was holding a knife calls 桑刀 in chinese, not a 菜刀. 桑刀 is a knife with very thin blade and light, and can not chop any bones. 菜刀 is designed to uses its fronter blade to slice vegetables, meats, the rear blade to chop small bones, like chicken bone, spareribs. 桑刀 and 菜刀 are quite different.«
This seems to be true in the sense that the CCK130* series is spelled 桑刀 and looks like the knife she is holding. But what does 桑刀 mean? GTranslate only says Sang knife, but it sure looks like a vegetable slicer. And the 菜刀 sign is for CCK a chopper, but the 110* series is spelled 片刀 and that seems to mean »piece knife.« To say the least, I am a bit confused, does anyone know what is going on?
2. Types
If I have understood things correcly, the 110* series is not a chopper, but rather as thin and light as the 130* series, just with e deeper blad (approx. 1:2 proporton, against the the 130* 1:2,4 proportion). Is this correct?
It also seems, that fuchsia mostly, as in this excellent post, actually mostly uses the 110* series, and not the 130*. This would reinforce my guess that both these series are thin, lightweight, with almost the sam purposes, but different proportions?
3. Finishing
Is there a special reason the 1:2,4 knifes (130*) are almost always laquered black on half the blade whereas the 1:2 knifes (110*) are not? This applies also to my SmartWfe cleaver (I will post pictures of it).
4. Steel
Is it the same steel in 110* and 130*?
5. Patina
Is there any reason to force a patina? To me, the aestetics are not primarily important, and I would enjoy a nice patina. I am more interested in not having the food smell and taste of metal. Is a forced patina better than a naturally developed. Can I force a patina later, even if a natural has developed, or must I do it when the knife is new?
I hope you do not oppose to my lengthy post, and that you have oversight with my inability to express myself very well in English.
Regards,
Johannes
after years of reading and learning from you amazing people here on the forum it ist time for my first post. Having been inspired about cleavers, and especially from the posts of Andy777 thank you I have finally bought one to start with. Living in Germany I found no possibility to find a Chan Chi Kee, so after reading a recommendation here I took the chance of buying a simple knife in order to at least try the cai dao style out. It was extremely cheap, took 3 weeks to ship, but is finally there.
Still though, I have some questions about the cleaver styles I hope that you could help med to sort out. I will use the CCK number series to refer to the styles, but it a general question that applies to the whole càidāo range.
1. Terminology:
Fuchsia dunlop writes about the cleaver, and is referring to the 菜刀 Càidāo. Google translate tells me this means either kitchen knife wht written as 菜刀 without blank, and as vegetable knife when written with blanks.
One commenter, however, states: »The lady of pic was holding a knife calls 桑刀 in chinese, not a 菜刀. 桑刀 is a knife with very thin blade and light, and can not chop any bones. 菜刀 is designed to uses its fronter blade to slice vegetables, meats, the rear blade to chop small bones, like chicken bone, spareribs. 桑刀 and 菜刀 are quite different.«
This seems to be true in the sense that the CCK130* series is spelled 桑刀 and looks like the knife she is holding. But what does 桑刀 mean? GTranslate only says Sang knife, but it sure looks like a vegetable slicer. And the 菜刀 sign is for CCK a chopper, but the 110* series is spelled 片刀 and that seems to mean »piece knife.« To say the least, I am a bit confused, does anyone know what is going on?
2. Types
If I have understood things correcly, the 110* series is not a chopper, but rather as thin and light as the 130* series, just with e deeper blad (approx. 1:2 proporton, against the the 130* 1:2,4 proportion). Is this correct?
It also seems, that fuchsia mostly, as in this excellent post, actually mostly uses the 110* series, and not the 130*. This would reinforce my guess that both these series are thin, lightweight, with almost the sam purposes, but different proportions?
3. Finishing
Is there a special reason the 1:2,4 knifes (130*) are almost always laquered black on half the blade whereas the 1:2 knifes (110*) are not? This applies also to my SmartWfe cleaver (I will post pictures of it).
4. Steel
Is it the same steel in 110* and 130*?
5. Patina
Is there any reason to force a patina? To me, the aestetics are not primarily important, and I would enjoy a nice patina. I am more interested in not having the food smell and taste of metal. Is a forced patina better than a naturally developed. Can I force a patina later, even if a natural has developed, or must I do it when the knife is new?
I hope you do not oppose to my lengthy post, and that you have oversight with my inability to express myself very well in English.
Regards,
Johannes
