Differences between blue#2 blue#1 and blue super.

Shop Knives and stones on ebay
Japanese Knives - by Tokushu Knife
Kitchen Knife Forums

Help Support Kitchen Knife Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Hz_zzzzzz said:
HT is also very important. Toyama blue 2 is very toothy and long-lasting to me. I actually like it better than most blue 1s I've tried. I usually finish it on some mid-to-high grit Jnat or just Chosera 3000. TF AS is also a great example of well HTed steel. I recently bought a Moritaka AS and a Hinoura AS just to see if it's TF's magic HT or it's the AS steel itself. I'll find out soon.
Click to expand...
And even for white steels or any not-so-toothy steel, if you finish it on a lower grit stone it's gonna be toothy. I finish my Munetoshi white 2 butcher on SG 500 and get very toothy and clean edge.
 
memorael said:
This is exactly what I was asking, what your experience in using the steels is. I too find blue super gets "toothier" which is what I interpret as sharp. I think some people interpreted what I said as white steel and other blue steels not getting crazy sharp, they do, but when the actual cutting happens I know for a fact the steel feels different. Some examples in my experience are as follows:

Misono UX10 really aggressive edge, feels really toothy and when cutting something like beef you can really feel it grab on to it and cuts through with little effort. I remember finishing this on a 6k king which is my go to for stainless steels.
Suisin INOX Honyaki, I really like this steel finished with the king 6k, when cutting vegetables like carrots or potatoes it feels like it glides through, on beef it feels like a little more effort is needed to finish the cut, in a sense it feels like you need to push down on the knife in order to get it to cut but it leaves a nice clean slice.
Masamoto KS gyuto carbon steel version, This gets really sharp, it would cut through proteins cleanly and slipped through without much effort but again I felt I needed to push down on the knife a bit in order to get it to cut, not a lot but I could notice it and basically had to change my cutting style. I would finish this on a natural Japanese stone, different finishers some left a toothier edge which I liked better but in general the feeling when cutting remained, I also used the kitayama 8k, king 8k, naniwa 10k, chocera 10k, chocera 5k and the naniwa snow white. I liked the synthetic stones better than the natural ones, it left a toothier edge.
Tadatsuna INOX, this knife is craaaaaazy, the edge feels similar to the suisin INOX honyaki but it gets toothier, finishing this knife on a naniwa 10k get you an edge that doesn't last more than a shift if your lucky but if you thin the knife and polish it really good it will literally fall through onions, on protein it feels pretty much equal with the suisin but I think I like it better.
Tanaka blue #2, feels a lot like the masamoto KS but the edge feels less sharp. It will last longer, on the KS slice a couple of tomatoes or cooked proteins and the edge is pretty much gone, on this knife it feels like you could strop every thirty minutes and get through a shift, I wouldn't want to do that on the KS.
Ginga INOX, again the edge feels really toothy very similar to the UX
Hattori forums knife, o man... this knife is a love hate relationship. It has the qualities, in my experience of the blue #2 and the Suisin INOX where it gets sharp but the edge isn't as aggressive??? IDK... I like that it sharpens up easily and it cuts well but if any of the knives I have ever used feels like a tool I would say it's this one. I wouldn't use it if I didn't have to but since it gets the job done and its there its kinda like a o well.... Works well on everything just doesn't excel for me at nothing, its not a bad knife just not exciting to use.
Suisin INOX, the ones with the brown handle, They get sharp to to where something like a 3k or 5k works well, its a good knife something that is easy to use and guilt free. They work well on protein since the edge is toothy but lack that aggressiveness of the UX 10 or the GINGA.

These are the ones I recall right now.
Suisin
Click to expand...
Misono UX10, Suisin Innox, and Tadatsuna Innox I think they all using the same steel(19c27/Ginsan) except UX10 heat treated a little bit softer.
 
Jason183 said:
Misono UX10, Suisin Innox, and Tadatsuna Innox I think they all using the same steel(19c27/Ginsan) except UX10 heat treated a little bit softer.
Click to expand...
I always thought Suisin INOX honyaki was something like AEBL, is 19c27/ginsan the same?
 
Tad Inox is Ginsanko. IIRC Suisin IH is a proprietary formulation, Suisin Western Inox is AUS 8 or something similar. No idea Misono Moly, 440 or UX. Don't really care - I like the Tad and Suisin IH, Misono (all) is pretty average.
 
Suisin IH and Nenox Inox use 19c27 iirc, which is quite similar to ginsan.

1631151254070.png
 
Elliot said:
Short and realistic answer from the user perspective: An almost surely indiscernible difference, though many hobbyists pretend they can tell.
Factually from a chemical makeup perspective: Less than 0.5% carbon difference between all three, with an equally small difference in Tungsten.

Some will chime in and say they can tell the difference on stones or in restaurant use because they do more cuts than the home cooks. Data suggests that's beyond unlikely and more than likely a function of cutting technique and psychology.
Click to expand...
Maybe, there's definitely something going on, I just can't put my finger on it.
 
Rangen said:
As a Chinese cleaver guy, I come at this from a different perspective. When I started using good J-knives, I had to learn to make much more of a slicing motion, or they would not cut properly. I can easily believe that that works as you say, like a little saw.

But with a cleaver, if you're not doing the fast up-and-down chopping thing, you're cutting with a small amount of forward/back motion, a tiny fraction of the motion you'd use with a knife. The weight does a lot of the work, and especially so with the 480-580g cleavers I use most of the time. I can imagine that that would upend the judgment about steels, but I don't really know.
Click to expand...
I think there's a huge correlation to the way the knife works and what steel it is made out of. I am no expert at chinese cleavers but I do own one and use it as a solution to a huge multitude of problems to put it one way. My current and only cleaver is a tojiro F600 or something like that, its got a metal handle and uses tojiros vg10 steel? I think. For some reason, now that you mention it, I don't like doing the straight up and down motion with this cleaver, I do forward push cuts, if I go straight up and down I can't get it to work the way I want it to. When I used to own a CCK the thin one with the black cladding I could do the fast chopping motion and get away with it.

I don't think the steel here makes the hugest difference, I would put my money more on the geometry of the knife, but still I can't help but feel that it does form part of the equation. As someone mentioned it probably has more to do with psychology and cutting technique but the sensations are still there.

Never would I have imagined that something so simple as an edge would generate such fierce debates.

It just occurred to me that there is a clear example on the feeling of the edge and how it cuts, this is for straight razor users, I like my old puma for shaving, and I finish on a old Japanese stone that I got on ebay and it works like magic. Once I get it to where I like it I can wipe the whiskers like nothing, can't feel them coming off either, but this feeling only lasts for about 3/4 of the shave, so I leave the easiest part for last. If I finish on a coticule, I can shave just as well, but the shave is harsher, I can feel the razor cutting hair and the edge lasts through all the shave.

Something similar to this, happens with my knives, which is what I meant when I said Blue super feels more aggressive than the other two. Is it sharper? maybe not, but I do know for a fact something different happens at the edge.
 
I posed the same question in differences between blue1, 2 - Super Blue and German Blue from a highly respected and well known builder and it really boiled down to a proper heat treatment for each steel and grind. However, my personal experience, blue1 then German blue holds its edge longer and can get razor sharp or toothy depending on the skills of the sharpener and stones progression. So lots and lots of veritable but what remains constant factors were the proper heat treatment and or grind. I could be wrong, but as a user I could identify with the finding from my source.
 
Last edited:
I like to think that I could identify white from blue, from the same maker, on the stones. Is it true? I've done plenty of blind wine tasting, and I know it can be humbling, though not quite as much as non-wine people believe. It would be fun to try, as a test.

I'm not so sure I could do the same thing on the cutting board.
 
I say blue super is definitely distinguishable by the edge once you’ve handled enough knives; it’s toothier, something something carbides probably. If you handed me a couple of freshly sharpened knives in blue and white, whichever 2 or 1 but not super, I doubt I could tell the difference, but after a few hours of using them blue has noticeably better edge retention IME. Now as to 2 vs 1 I’d really have to try them side by side from the same maker; I notice that many makers work in either one or the other. Togashi I know does both and probably Y Tanaka and maybe Nakagawa? But Wat/Toyama only do 2, Murata only does 1, etc. And TF only does super because he’s super.

For sharpening lemme toss this proposal out for discussion. Saying objectively that white gets sharper than blue implies that a theoretical sharpener with perfect technique will get an edge that is sharper with some kind of perfect measurement, and that the disparity is observable and/or has measurable effect in practice; that’s hard to prove although I bet Larrin could tell us how, and questionable whether it would be observable for many users in real life conditions. However as a subjective and probabilistic statement, let’s say that white is more responsive to grinding and therefore it will be more forgiving of imperfections in technique and choice of stones. So when I observe white getting sharper than blue, 1 getting sharper than 2, what I’m really observing is that with my set of stones and the imperfections in my sharpening technique, angle maintenance, deburring, etc. white still forms a sharper edge while blue requires more precision than I can deliver to get the same edge.

I don’t have any proof of this, it’s just an idea, but I’m working backwards from my experience with super steels such as ZDP and HAP. I thought they weren’t that great and eventually realized that firstly I was simply using the wrong stones sometimes and secondly I wasn’t reaching the apex or was rounding it over, etc. So the composition required better technique and equipment than the simpler steels. Scaling that down to the slight difference in composition between blue and white or 1 and 2, it seems plausible that that is what is being observed. Then I decided I liked blue better than all those others anyway.
 
IMO a major problem discussing such steels with very comparable compositions, it becomes very hard to distinguish factors such as heat treatment from the differences between the steel, especially in small sample sizes. So for example the differences between 3 different blue 2 knives might be larger than the average expected difference between the steels given a comparable heat treatment. I think few of us here have had enough of these knives through their hands / on the stones to really overcome this sample size problem and say anything sensible.
 
Barmoley said:
Aeb-l and 19c27/ginsanko are not the same. 19c27/ginsanko are similar to aeb-h, which is different from aeb-l.
Click to expand...
Sandvik says 19c27 got some larger carbides. Something about less more wear and less corrosion resistance.
 
Last edited:
I’ve yet to have two knives that feel the same on stones regardless of steel used. Some feel smoother with a more tactile response, while some cheaper ones have had a duller feedback. This leads me to believe the conclusion that a lot of people have mentioned, and that is; 95% of then differences you feel are actually just a difference between the knives themselves and their respective HT.

The knife for me that has felt best on stones is a Hinoura Blue #2. I’ve owned other knives in white 1/2, and even other blue 2 knives, but nonetheless the Hinoura felt . This is my personal example of why the HT is going to make all the difference.

I think performance differences are going to largely going to follow the same rule that’s mentioned above. Though, I’m not a good enough sharpener that I can claim that I bring every knife that I own to its peak performance. I also don’t really focus too much on edge retention because I am a home cook and find sharpening 1-2 times a month therapeutic.
 
Also; in defense of this thread. People are on this forum to have fun, and to find the differences between the knives out there. They are also just trying to discover and explore their own preferences. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and at the end of the day there are differences between steels that some may notice.

If you disagree with this thread because “its all the same” then you probably also drink $5 wine out of a solo cup because “its all just grapes anyway”.
 
GorillaGrunt said:
I say blue super is definitely distinguishable by the edge once you’ve handled enough knives; it’s toothier, something something carbides probably. If you handed me a couple of freshly sharpened knives in blue and white, whichever 2 or 1 but not super, I doubt I could tell the difference, but after a few hours of using them blue has noticeably better edge retention IME. Now as to 2 vs 1 I’d really have to try them side by side from the same maker; I notice that many makers work in either one or the other. Togashi I know does both and probably Y Tanaka and maybe Nakagawa? But Wat/Toyama only do 2, Murata only does 1, etc. And TF only does super because he’s super.

For sharpening lemme toss this proposal out for discussion. Saying objectively that white gets sharper than blue implies that a theoretical sharpener with perfect technique will get an edge that is sharper with some kind of perfect measurement, and that the disparity is observable and/or has measurable effect in practice; that’s hard to prove although I bet Larrin could tell us how, and questionable whether it would be observable for many users in real life conditions. However as a subjective and probabilistic statement, let’s say that white is more responsive to grinding and therefore it will be more forgiving of imperfections in technique and choice of stones. So when I observe white getting sharper than blue, 1 getting sharper than 2, what I’m really observing is that with my set of stones and the imperfections in my sharpening technique, angle maintenance, deburring, etc. white still forms a sharper edge while blue requires more precision than I can deliver to get the same edge.

I don’t have any proof of this, it’s just an idea, but I’m working backwards from my experience with super steels such as ZDP and HAP. I thought they weren’t that great and eventually realized that firstly I was simply using the wrong stones sometimes and secondly I wasn’t reaching the apex or was rounding it over, etc. So the composition required better technique and equipment than the simpler steels. Scaling that down to the slight difference in composition between blue and white or 1 and 2, it seems plausible that that is what is being observed. Then I decided I liked blue better than all those others anyway.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of good info in this thread, I think it is safe to conclude that the variables in the equation are just waaaaay to many to conclude something that has value for all of us. Some guys prefer the feeling of a toothy knife etc.

Some kind gentleman posted a link to one of Larrin's post on his nerd page and I think, taking into consideration your proposal for discussion, for the sake of everyone being in the same page and having the same term's to discuss the same thing I think we should ALL agree on what sharp is. My proposal is that sharp, refers only to the geometry of the EDGE. So there is a theoretical knife that has a sharp edge but is so thick it cuts really bad, so a good knife has two things working together overall knife geometry and sharpness. IDK, what do you guys think? getting everyone on board with the same terms I think would help push most discussions into the right direction.
 
Here’s my own personal scale of sharpness, but I’m going to say right up front that I view it with lighthearted sarcastic amusement as it’s completely impractical, meaningless, and ignores many variables such as the aforementioned toothiness and personal preference.

Mostly I just use this scale for deciding whether or not to sharpen a brand new knife. If it cleanly push cuts paper, I consider it ready to use.

3-5: Slice cut paper
6: Push cut paper
7-8: Cut rolled paper, clean cuts in paper towel
9: HHT 2-3
10: HHT 4

Anything above 7 or 8 pretty much all feels the same to me on actual food, with knife geometry having a bigger impact than sharpness at that level IMHO. HHT4 is beyond my skill level and I top out at HHT3 if taking extreme care, but usually just call it quits around 7-8 level as anything higher is really just a flex and wouldn’t last more than a few minutes of a food prep anyway.
 
I like to theorize about steels I sharpen. Cognition is basically built on a differentiation pattern, so I guess it's inevitable especially as you get to sharpen numerous iterations of a same steel/group of steels. And I don't believe in it, don't assume it's right, but I do it and like it nevertheless.

The one thing I don't really believe at any time, is that steel specifically correlates with sharpness. I've seen professional levels of sharpness - those rarer J-knives that have it OOTB, some of my own I wouldn't pretend to readily repeat - come from "every" steel. Sure White is easy to get to real nice levels of sharp. Blue is for that matter too. I'd guess AS would be just as easy as Blue #2 or so if RC correlates and HT is considered decent in both cases. It's just that most Blue #2 I've sharpened were of the supposedly 61-63RC range average, whereas both AS I sharpened are 65RC, so in all absolutes of tangible experience, AS is more demanding in my mind. Possibly would still be at lower hardness. Possibly could be worst. Possibly a lot of things.

Strictly speaking OOTB, since its a given that most knives don't come so sharp nor with great stability there, and with not so many knives I tried overall, Blue #2 came sharp as hell on two occasions: Toyama and S. Tanaka. Sharp like you don't need to gauge any level before deciding to keep with the original edge while it lasts. Can't say that much of any other steel. Such occasions of sharpness were really really rare overall: one SKD-12 (Yoshi obviously but the other Yoshi was crappy and I think Douglas at Ai & Om probably touched up the first Yoshi for me, possibly because it was my first purchase with him and we had exchanged a bit beforehand), one White #2 (Tanaka/Takada Reika). I'm raking my brains but can't so readily think of any other. There were a few really good ones but not like that.

One of my conclusion is stones. Like, whoever sharpened it or touched it up, would like to know what stone/prog was used. Or belt... 🤔 Skills are pretty much a given when a knife is that sharp, so I consider them equal.

My other conclusion is that any steel can have that perfect combination of skills and tool where it will be amazingly sharp. Retention and all not computed in. From myself, I get better edges from Carbons than SS in average, but yet two steels I've sharpened to levels of pure excellence (to me they were at least) enough to readily pop in my mind are VG-10 (Ryusen and S. Tanaka) and Ginsan (cheap Futana S3). So now I know the stones to them - iterations of steels. I'd probably lend them to any similar steel just because they can't be too far off the perfect tool. Levels of skills... meh. Can't count on that sharp yet as a regular result.

So as related to the OP, I can sure say I don't agree with Blue #2 not feeling *as* sharp as... well anything. In one's experience they very well might feel like that though. It's been already discussed that a helluva lot of factors will play in such impressions... main one being, that they are impressions to begin with.
 
Jovidah said:
I think few of us here have had enough of these knives through their hands / on the stones to really overcome this sample size problem and say anything sensible.
Click to expand...
I'll wait for Larrin to chime in
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top