I think it is a little tricky to define them simply by a height and length formula. Like for example, the 2.5 to 1 ratio makes a 190mm x76mm a cleaver, and I’m not sure if you might come across something with those specs and it feel like a nakiri.
Often times you can look at them or specs and know they are a nakiri or cleaver, but sometimes (when the specs are in the gray area) I think you have to handle it and then you know for sure.
For example, with the Kamon cleaver, if
@BillHanna used it I think he would comfortably say it was a cleaver. With the way Kamon forges his knives and that amount of length it is not going to feel like a nakiri, eventhough it’s shorter than a lot of orders. Also there are other lightweight cleavers that are on the shorter side but with longer lengths.
Another example my 210 Toyama measures 65mm tall. It is unquestionably imho a nakiri, but if you add 10mm in height and put it at 75mm i imagine surely it would be a cleaver.
I had a little 165 cleaver with a western handle and that little guy surely felt like a cleaver.
It had a little thicker grind and would be good for a little dual purpose cleaver. That being said I would agree with most of what’s being said(except the 110mm height, that would seem more of a personal preference) as sort of general terms, but I do think that gray area is sorted out in hand and on the board.
