Shirogami (White) No.1 & No.2 Questions...

[Troopah_Knives]

W2 is great but I prefer W2

Blasphemy. W2 is garbage steel, I only use W2.

 

[jacobwilder5]

I don’t know why you guys like W2. Shirogami 2 is clearly superior.

 

[labor of love]

Everyone hates everyone else’s favorite steel has been the only consistent position on this thread.

 

[jedy617]

Everyone hates everyone else’s favorite steel has been the only consistent position on this thread.

It's true everyone acts like they invented that specific steel and it's their baby, only Larrin can act like that

 

[M1k3]

It's true everyone acts like they invented that specific steel and it's their baby, only Larrin can act like that

Only if Larrin runs it 64.5 HRC

 

[jedy617]

Only if Larrin runs it 64.5 HRC

I have moved on

Now I only accept 64.8 and above

 

[NotAddictedYet]

Just put the dull knife away for a month and use one of your other 846 knives.

darn we don't need this kind of talk around here. Open drawer -> pick knife -> close drawer. No counting allowed.

 

[Blank Blades.]

To this point @Blank Blades, I have two custom Mizuno honyakis. Ordered from Jun, a 240 and 270. In my first one, the 240, I ordered (demanded?) Blue 2 and I like it, but it isn't perfect. Talking with him about it when ordering the 270, he told me that unquestionably believes his White 3 honyaki offers the best overall performance in any of his knives, and said he only uses that when given the option by the client as it gets similar performance but is much more forgiving to the end user and easier to work on. My experience with his knives only corroborates that, though this I think is limited to honyaki conversations.

I think, if makers put nickel shims into play on their san mai, it would be the same there.

That said without nickel shims, its going to depend on the maker. Contrary to what you might hear. I actually think, if they used white 1, a nice hot forge weld, and a bit of forging could benefit the end knife. Since it could stand to loose a good bit of carbon, to end up in a good place for overall properties.

white 2, i think it might be easier to ruin because of carbon loss to the cladding. And white 3, certain would take a lot of skill to do right in san mai.

 

[More_Gyutos]

Just put the dull knife away for a month and use one of your other 846 knives.

Thank you so much for using a very high number.

 

[Blank Blades.]

https://zknives.com/knives/steels/s...mi 1,26c3,52100,W2&ni=587,,813,118&hrn=1&gm=0
https://zknives.com/knives/steels/steelgraph.php?nm=Shirogami 2,1095,Shiro2&ni=,360,578&hrn=1&gm=0
https://zknives.com/knives/steels/s... 2,V-Toku2,1.2442&ni=,597,637,5200&hrn=1&gm=0
https://zknives.com/knives/steels/s...al,A-Type,SLD8&ni=,,3519,2545,1425&hrn=1&gm=0
I'm sure there's more.

Wolfram special is basically v-toku1.

I only made one knife in it, but it was wrought iron clad, and it got a delam, so i just kept it for myself.

But the steel is


Anyway you people need to forget these japanese steels.

Take the redpill, become based. And use 80crv2

(Edited: my apologies, i guess i somehow combined 2 posts)

 

[Qapla']

I think, if makers put nickel shims into play on their san mai, it would be the same there.

That said without nickel shims, its going to depend on the maker. Contrary to what you might hear. I actually think, if they used white 1, a nice hot forge weld, and a bit of forging could benefit the end knife. Since it could stand to loose a good bit of carbon, to end up in a good place for overall properties.

white 2, i think it might be easier to ruin because of carbon loss to the cladding. And white 3, certain would take a lot of skill to do right in san mai.

I'm assuming this would be similar in cases like awase single-bevel knives, which are ni-mai?

 

[jedy617]

Why exactly would white 3 with it's lesser carbon and alloying elements make for better honyaki/monosteel? Just the fact that it will have a finer grain structure and be tougher?

 

[blokey]

I think it's has to do after 0.8% carbon content you have more of less the same achievable hardness but better toughness, the more cementite is not contributing as much to the wear resistance. Tho in non honyakis most white 2 or 3 are not treated to that hardness.

 

[blokey]

Wolfram special is basically v-toku1.

I only made one knife in it, but it was wrought iron clad, and it got a delam, so i just kept it for myself.

But the steel is


Anyway you people need to forget these japanese steels.

Take the redpill, become based. And use 80crv2

(Edited: my apologies, i guess i somehow combined 2 posts)

Juha Perttula sells some really nice knives in 80CrV2, got a puukko and folder, quite impressed. (Larrin also did a video on him, that's how I found his stuff)
https://www.lamnia.com/en/br/107/juha-perttula-knives-and-folding-knives

 

[Nemo]

Thank you so much for using a very high number.

Nope.

846 is not a high number.

 

[HumbleHomeCook]

Fear No Steel!

 

[DitmasPork]

Can’t say I’ve ever bought a bad Japanese kitchen knife, or one with steel that wasn’t good. Yeah, I prefer a lot of my knives over others, but everything I have is well made and competently forged.
With Japanese steel, White 1 is the steel that typically gets me most excited.

 

[Blank Blades.]

Why exactly would white 3 with it's lesser carbon and alloying elements make for better honyaki/monosteel? Just the fact that it will have a finer grain structure and be tougher?

The highee carbon, with no additional alloying. Means it will have the formation of plate martensite very likely. And that leads to a dramatic reduction of toughness (check larrins toughness testing for 1095 or o1, vs 1084, or 80crv2) but also, like was mentioned, they will have more cementite also, and higher carbide volume means lower toughness also, but you get very little bang for your buck with plain cementite.

But i think its likely plate martensite that will lead to the biggest hit in toughness for these steels, since cementite is so easy to dissolve when heat treating. It allows a bunch of carbon to be brought into solution potentially.

 

[Troopah_Knives]

Wolfram special is basically v-toku1.

I only made one knife in it, but it was wrought iron clad, and it got a delam, so i just kept it for myself.

But the steel is


Anyway you people need to forget these japanese steels.

Take the redpill, become based. And use 80crv2

(Edited: my apologies, i guess i somehow combined 2 posts)

They are compositionally similar but based on micrographs of V-Toku 2 and Wolfram Special likely quite microstructurally different.

 

[MSicardCutlery]

They are compositionally similar but based on micrographs of V-Toku 2 and Wolfram Special likely quite microstructurally different.

Did you ever publish the WS micrograph?

 

[Troopah_Knives]

Did you ever publish the WS micrograph?

I did publish a micrograph in my Steel Saturday on Wolfram Special, but after reading this I just realized I forgot to update the public article on my Patreon.

I just updated it with those. Here is the link (to the mods: this is a public Patreon article for what that is worth): Is Wolfram Special Special?

 

[Blank Blades.]

They are compositionally similar but based on micrographs of V-Toku 2 and Wolfram Special likely quite microstructurally different.

Even if it is. Just in my personal use so far. I actually quite like it.

I believe the knife is at 64 hrc. Seemed to do noticably better than the w2 knife i made for myself

 

[Blank Blades.]

They are compositionally similar but based on micrographs of V-Toku 2 and Wolfram Special likely quite microstructurally different.

They are compositionally similar but based on micrographs of V-Toku 2 and Wolfram Special likely quite microstructurally different.

Also. Are there any available micrographs for vtoku-1?

 

[Troopah_Knives]

Also. Are there any available micrographs for vtoku-1?

There are not. But the structures found in Wolfram Special or really a function of its processing not composition. There are micrographs of 1.2442, which is a similar steel, that look better.

 

[Blank Blades.]

There are not. But the structures found in Wolfram Special or really a function of its processing not composition. There are micrographs of 1.2442, which is a similar steel, that look better.

Yeah. Its unfortunate that it could have potentially have been done better.

I still think its not enough of a reason for me to write off the steel personally.

But really i mostly havent used it other than this knife, because the stock is thin enough that it only makes sense for san mai.

And also i really want to avoid forging atm.

 

[deltaplex]

Why exactly would white 3 with it's lesser carbon and alloying elements make for better honyaki/monosteel? Just the fact that it will have a finer grain structure and be tougher?

@Troopah_Knives I think you've mentioned that Shiro 3 makes for an interesting honyaki choice, any chance you can elaborate on that a bit (or point to where you already have?)

 

[Cliff]

Does it have anything to do with polishing and having a sharp Hamon?

 

[Troopah_Knives]

@Troopah_Knives I think you've mentioned that Shiro 3 makes for an interesting honyaki choice, any chance you can elaborate on that a bit (or point to where you already have?)

I am not sure I have mentioned that here anywhere, could be in a Steel Saturday or something. But I certainly don't mind explaining my reasoning.

Shiro 3 is identical to Shiro 2 and 1 except for having a carbon content of 0.8-0.9%. When you austenitize (heat) these steels before quenching them you are dissolving cementite and dumping carbon into the austenite. Since their compositions are otherwise identical maximum amount of carbon dissolved is purely a function of the temperature (This can be shown by an Iron-Cementite phase diagram). For these steels, an austenitization temperature of around 1475 ˚F is the most common. At this temperature, you can dissolve 0.95% carbon in solution. This means that for both Shiro 2 and 1 the carbon in solution is somewhere around there (the dissolution of cementite happens pretty quickly in these very low alloy steels).

Now this presents an issue as in these relatively simple systems there is a large amount of research (DM me if you are at all interested in this) that suggests this leads to the formation of plate martensite as opposed to lathe martensite. Plate martensite leads to poor toughness as shown in Dr. Thomas's testing of 1095 and O1. By reducing the carbon content below this 0.95% mark you can probably reduce the amount of plate martensite formed and appreciably increase toughness (compare Dr. Thomas's testing of 1084 to 1095).

The downside is that you are dissolving all the cementite which could lead to quick grain growth if the hold time is too long (a small V addition could help with this). Additionally, you lose the abrasive wear resistance that cementite may be contributing. Given that cementite is quite soft (~70HRC) I highly doubt this will make an appreciable difference as with better toughness you could take Shiro 3 to higher hardness than Shiro 2 or 1 while maintaining the same or better toughness. In theory, Shiro 3 has lower achievable hardness than Shiro 2 or 1 but in reality, these steels are very rarely HTed to anywhere near their maximum hardness.

Put simply using Shiro 3 vs Shiro 2 or 1 could give a significant bump in toughness while losing a small amount of wear resistance at a given hardness.

 

[esoo]

I am not sure I have mentioned that here anywhere, could be in a Steel Saturday or something. But I certainly don't mind explaining my reasoning.

Shiro 3 is identical to Shiro 2 and 1 except for having a carbon content of 0.8-0.9%. When you austenitize (heat) these steels before quenching them you are dissolving cementite and dumping carbon into the austenite. Since their compositions are otherwise identical maximum amount of carbon dissolved is purely a function of the temperature (This can be shown by an Iron-Cementite phase diagram). For these steels, an austenitization temperature of around 1475 ˚F is the most common. At this temperature, you can dissolve 0.95% carbon in solution. This means that for both Shiro 2 and 1 the carbon in solution is somewhere around there (the dissolution of cementite happens pretty quickly in these very low alloy steels).

Now this presents an issue as in these relatively simple systems there is a large amount of research (DM me if you are at all interested in this) that suggests this leads to the formation of plate martensite as opposed to lathe martensite. Plate martensite leads to poor toughness as shown in Dr. Thomas's testing of 1095 and O1. By reducing the carbon content below this 0.95% mark you can probably reduce the amount of plate martensite formed and appreciably increase toughness (compare Dr. Thomas's testing of 1084 to 1095).

The downside is that you are dissolving all the cementite which could lead to quick grain growth if the hold time is too long (a small V addition could help with this). Additionally, you lose the abrasive wear resistance that cementite may be contributing. Given that cementite is quite soft (~70HRC) I highly doubt this will make an appreciable difference as with better toughness you could take Shiro 3 to higher hardness than Shiro 2 or 1 while maintaining the same or better toughness. In theory, Shiro 3 has lower achievable hardness than Shiro 2 or 1 but in reality, these steels are very rarely HTed to anywhere near their maximum hardness.

Put simply using Shiro 3 vs Shiro 2 or 1 could give a significant bump in toughness while losing a small amount of wear resistance at a given hardness.

I actually vaguely get that, so thank you.

Does quenchant make a difference in the end? I see a lot of Shiro 3 honyaki listed as abura (oil) as opposed to Shiro 1/2 seem to be listed as mizu (water).

 

[MSicardCutlery]

Not if the final hardness is the same. Wh 1/2 probably have lower hardenability than #3 so water probably makes hardening them consistently easier. I have read at some point, somewhere about the possibility of water quenching creating microfractures, but I can't substantiate that.