Shirogami...

Kitchen Knife Forums

Help Support Kitchen Knife Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
My.one quality shirogami 2 knife (a Kono FM) I thought was a bit of a dud. It went "sharp, sharp, super dull" in a manner I didn't like and I found to be a PITA to sharpen.

My one shirogami 1 knife (a Kono FM) has been exceptional. Easy to sharpen and has stayed sharp for longer than expected.
Yeah the 'sharp sharp sharp, dull' experience is here too. Compared to more alloyed steels that have a rather linear dropoff and retain at least a 'usable' edge for longer.
 
Not sure what this post is about :) . However if you took shirogami knives out of the picture, I would not likely have entered this "hobby"; would not have become obsessed with sharpening and took a deep dive down the rabbit hole. Said differently if I came to this site a few years ago and it was recommended that I purchase and learn to sharpen on expensive/fancy high end stainless knives..., I don't think I would have taken the jump.

Now if this is about learning, and moving beyond white, I get it. But if you take Shirogami out of the picture, I don't know....
 
Not sure what this post is about :) . However if you took shirogami knives out of the picture, I would not likely have entered this "hobby"; would not have become obsessed with sharpening and took a deep dive down the rabbit hole. Said differently if I came to this site a few years ago and it was recommended that I purchase and learn to sharpen on expensive/fancy high end stainless knives..., I don't think I would have taken the jump.

Now if this is about learning, and moving beyond white, I get it. But if you take Shirogami out of the picture, I don't know....

No doubt that's a good point. I was already into sharpening and had been playing with high-alloy steels when I got serious about kitchen cutlery. That said, still had a lot to learn and still do but yeah, I can absolutely understand white steels being a gateway drug just like 420HC, BD1, VG10, 12C27 and so many others are in the pocket knife world.
 
White #1 can be really good, Tanaka, TF and Kato all can treat it to on par with other higher end steel. White #2 on the other hand is a little tricky, different craftsmen can have varying result, I am happy with my Wakui, but that said I did not pay much for it.
 
White #1 can be really good, Tanaka, TF and Kato all can treat it to on par with other higher end steel. White #2 on the other hand is a little tricky, different craftsmen can have varying result, I am happy with my Wakui, but that said I did not pay much for it.

I own one knife in white#1. A Matsubara gyuto. It is one of my favourite knives. Very easy to sharpen. Hold an edge pretty good. And is way way less prone to micro chipping then some of my other carbons that are mainly AS and blue#2. Even reactivity is easy to deal with. Compared to my other carbons.
 
White #1 can be really good, Tanaka, TF and Kato all can treat it to on par with other higher end steel. White #2 on the other hand is a little tricky, different craftsmen can have varying result, I am happy with my Wakui, but that said I did not pay much for it.

Agree, I typically avoid shirogami but wanted to try out a nakiri and the wakui white#2 stainless-clad for around $200 is a heck of a value. So far I’m loving the little thing, although my wife insists on calling it a little cleaver and using it as such. It’s held up surprisingly well to the abuse so far.
 
I am a blue guy, I had a Kono fm white#1 for a short time. Sharpened quickly, easily and got scary sharp. Edge retention was less than what I like, and was reactive as heck.
I will stick with my blues.
 
Provided they were heat treated competently, I think most simple carbons behave similarly enough at any given hardness that steel choice isn't really a deciding factor for me. There are some differences that can be parsed out when pushed to the extremes - which, hey, is half the fun of any hobbyist pursuit - but I think writing off a whole family of steels is silly as it limits your options. Guess that makes me silly since I don't do stainless.... hmmm
 
Damn, I thought for sure white steel was on that list. At least it has Blue Super though.

And oh, the comments on that site sometimes...Larrin is in the habit of killing many a sacred cow with his research. Anyways, it probably safe to assume that Shirogami scores under blue super and above O1 on that chart.
 
White 1 should be in line with 26C3 which in turn adjusted for hardness is in line with AS. That is one of the most important parts of what that data shows. Adjusting for hardness all of the low alloy steels have very similar levels of wear resistance. Based on the data O1, 26C3, V-toku2, blue super and 1.2562 would all have the same wear resistance if heat treated to the same hardness.

Note: Just realized @MSicardCutlery basically said this above
 
Last edited:
White 1 should be in line with 26C3 which in turn adjusted for hardness is in line with AS. That is one of the most important parts of what that data shows. Adjusting for hardness all of the low alloy steels have very similar levels of wear resistance. Based on the data O1, 26C3, V-toku2, blue super and 1.2562 would all have the same wear resistance if heat treated to the same hardness.

Note: Just realized @MSicardCutlery basically said this above
Re-reading the article has me wondering why would I want AS. The carbides are NOT contributing to wear resistance but makes the knife more brittle? Just seems like it's a step down from Aogami.
 
Re-reading the article has me wondering why would I want AS. The carbides are NOT contributing to wear resistance but makes the knife more brittle? Just seems like it's a step down from Aogami.

Higher attainable hardness is the only reason I can think of. The MC carbides likely do contribute to wear resistance but between their very low volume (<2%), non-homogeneous nature, and the fact that they are replacing a slightly larger volume of Iron carbides, it seems like the effect is negligible. To bring it back to the OP's topic I think the other interesting question would be why would you pick 26C3 (White #1) over Vtoku-2 (or aogami 2) given that the latter has the same wear resistance and greater toughness. (Yes the Aogami series of steels likely have better toughness than their same # Shiro steel assuming good HT of course).
 
  • Love
Reactions: Pie
My TF Nashiji actually got a great balance between sharpness and edge retention even for work, also it's pretty easy to retouch it to tip top shape for something like pepper or tomato. It has like terrible handle but actually grew on me because some of the harder knife I have, while retaining the functioning edge well, it just slips on pepper/tomato skin and it's pretty hard to get those to high level sharpness mid-shift
 
I generally agree with most that white class steels are some of the worst knife steels one could pick for a knife. Relatively low toughness, low wear resistance and absolutely no corrosion resistance. What goes for these steels is relative ease of manufacturing and grinding/sharpening and ability to show off killer hamon. Having said that we have to put things in perspective. Larrin discussed in his articles that the testing medium being sand which is harder than iron carbide might cause all low alloy steels to fall into the same, indistinguishable category. It is conceivable that given a different medium there would be more of a differential. High alloy steels would still do much, much better, but it is possible that at least we would see a difference between white, blue, super, etc steels. The other side of it is toughness, even If we assume that all these steels have similar wear resistance, tougher steels would do better assuming similar hardness can be achieved with higher toughness. Higher toughness would allow more acute edges without chipping and this would increase edge holding significantly. So something like 52100 is clearly better than any of the white steels. It is also important to know how the edges dull in someone’s use, is it due to wear, or chipping or bending and deforming. If you have to go with a low alloy steel, picking a steel that has a higher toughness at a given hardness seems like a good idea, assuming they can get to similar hardness.

As far as 1.2562 or aogami super not doing anything better than white steel, take a look at this article where Larrin tested 1.2562 refined by Marco Guldimann. This significantly improved 1.2562 toughness. I don’t know if same can be done to blue super, but in this case 1.2562 would perform better than white.

Ease of sharpening is probably why many people like white steels here. With correct tools any steel used in knives can get very sharp, but if someone likes to sharpen white steels provide many opportunities to do so.

The main problem is that a good kitchen knife is so much more than the steel used to make it. Sometimes we just don’t get a choice if a maker we like doesn’t use the steel we like. In that case going with a good knife is much more important than going with a superior steel. Fortunately, we have many choices these days.
 
@Barmoley All excellent points I just wanted to expand a bit on the ideas because bringing this wear resistance discussion out of controlled testing and into the real world things look a tiny bit better for White class steels and considerably more bleak for AS and 1.2562 (the other tungsten alloy steels have a decent toughness boost which helps them in comparison to the white class steels).

Larrin discussed in his articles that the testing medium being sand which is harder than iron carbide might cause all low alloy steels to fall into the same, indistinguishable category. It is conceivable that given a different medium there would be more of a differential.
but it is possible that at least we would see a difference between white, blue, super, etc steels.

The testing abrasive used is a very common abrasive in food although in higher volumes.

As far as a softer abrasive is concerned I would expect to see steel with higher cementite volumes perform better. While the tungsten low alloy steels would benefit less due to lower volumes of cementite. If anything it's possible that you would start to see something like 26c3 outperform AS in terms of wear resistance. You might even see 26C3 bounce up to the same level as 52100 although this somewhat depends on the nature of the relationship between abrasive and carbide hardness (something talked about extensively in sharpening).

The only scenario I could see the tungsten alloy steels perform better is if the test moved to a harder abrasive where the cementite became even less relevant. But even then the difference would be marginal the low alloy tungsten steels have MC carbide volumes of 2% or so max. This is rather interesting with apex ultra coming down the line as it seems that steel gets its wear resistance in a similar fashion to 52100 (through enrichment of the cementite) rather then any sort of MC carbide formation.

Fortunately, we have many choices these days.

I think in some ways this is the most important part. Less so with Japanese makers (but who knows with the Hitachi news) if there is more demand for different steels we will likely start to see makers move to alloys close to 52100 and less of super simple steels (as they have negligible cost and working differences). So hopefully the trend of seeing more good knives in superior steel continues!
 
@Barmoley All excellent points I just wanted to expand a bit on the ideas because bringing this wear resistance discussion out of controlled testing and into the real world things look a tiny bit better for White class steels and considerably more bleak for AS and 1.2562 (the other tungsten alloy steels have a decent toughness boost which helps them in comparison to the white class steels).

The testing abrasive used is a very common abrasive in food although in higher volumes.

As far as a softer abrasive is concerned I would expect to see steel with higher cementite volumes perform better. While the tungsten low alloy steels would benefit less due to lower volumes of cementite. If anything it's possible that you would start to see something like 26c3 outperform AS in terms of wear resistance. You might even see 26C3 bounce up to the same level as 52100 although this somewhat depends on the nature of the relationship between abrasive and carbide hardness (something talked about extensively in sharpening).

The only scenario I could see the tungsten alloy steels perform better is if the test moved to a harder abrasive where the cementite became even less relevant. But even then the difference would be marginal the low alloy tungsten steels have MC carbide volumes of 2% or so max. This is rather interesting with apex ultra coming down the line as it seems that steel gets its wear resistance in a similar fashion to 52100 (through enrichment of the cementite) rather then any sort of MC carbide formation.

Yes silica is very common in food and in general CATRA tests seem to correlate well with rope cutting tests for example, where silica too is common. I am not saying the results would be different or would not reverse as you suggest, but without more testing in a different medium it is hard to say how it will go. We can theorize of course and what you say makes sense. Anecdotally, 1.2562 and AS have better edge retention than white steels when cutting food, but this could be simply due to them being usually harder and tougher at high hardness. I suspect this is the case, but I don't have any solid data to back up these claims.

Attributing performance to steel is very difficult when dealing with kitchen knives. For one geometry and sharpening makes a huge difference and for another we are dealing with humans using the knives. We read all the time someone claiming that they don't see a difference in edge holding between low alloy and high alloy steels, just to then find out that less than ideal abrasives were used to sharpen high alloy steels. People also claim all sorts of angles and geometries when sharpening free hand in addition to claiming hardness that hasn't actually been tested.

My main point is that knife design is more important than the choice of steel beyond some minimum level of good enough. Everything else being equal high alloy steels within reason will make a better knife than low alloy steels, ease of sharpening or thinning notwithstanding. It would be even more so if users or makers tuned edge geometry to the steel. Another problem of course is cost and difficulty of manufacture and this is probably why we see more knives made in lower alloy steels. I hope that if ApexUltra turns out to be what it promises and that it will become the base lower alloy steel at least for western makers and that MagnaCut becomes base stainless. These 2 plus laminates with them would significantly improve general knife performance.
 
Last edited:
I hope that if ApexUltra turns out to be what it promises that it will become the base lower alloy steel at least for western makers and that MagnaCut becomes base stainless. These 2 plus laminates with them would significantly improve general knife performance.

If only, if only. It will take some time to see what demand does to the price, but at the moment a bar 3/32"x2" of MagnaCut runs about $55 U.S/foot. Whereas a 3 foot bar in the same thickness and width would be about 46$ in Nitro-V, 34$ in AEB-L, 69$ in CPM-M4, and 92$ in S90V. And then there's the difficulty of grinding. There's no denying it's a remarkable steel, but whether the cost to benefit ratio is significant enough for it to catch on, and transition from a high performance novelty to a standard material, is something that only time will tell.

ApexUltra at 45 Euro (49$ U.S) to pre-order a 5mmx50mmx500mm bar, (which works out to about 16$/foot if you account for the difference in thickness,) is much closer in price to more common western steels. I have a feeling that the only problem ApexUltra will have, is whether the mill can keep up with demand.

I'd love to get my hands on both at some point and give them a try.
 
If only, if only. It will take some time to see what demand does to the price, but at the moment a bar 3/32"x2" of MagnaCut runs about $55 U.S/foot. Whereas a 3 foot bar in the same thickness and width would be about 46$ in Nitro-V, 34$ in AEB-L, 69$ in CPM-M4, and 92$ in S90V. And then there's the difficulty of grinding. There's no denying it's a remarkable steel, but whether the cost to benefit ratio is significant enough for it to catch on, and transition from a high performance novelty to a standard material, is something that only time will tell.

ApexUltra at 45 Euro (49$ U.S) to pre-order a 5mmx50mmx500mm bar, (which works out to about 16$/foot if you account for the difference in thickness,) is much closer in price to more common western steels. I have a feeling that the only problem ApexUltra will have, is whether the mill can keep up with demand.

I'd love to get my hands on both at some point and give them a try.
I hope this is temporary and prices will stabilize to be inline with other steels in the same class. Grinding of MagnaCut should also be similar to steels in the same class. Sharpening seems easier with MagnaCut then zwear for example. The difference is minor, but seems to be there. Also, I’ve read reports that MagnaCut is somewhat easier to grind compared to stainless in the same class. It won’t be as easy as AEB-L, that’s for sure. For low alloy I really like 52100, but ApexUltra promises to be even better. Fingers crossed, exciting times for steel nerds.
 
I don’t get concern for steel cost. Its labor thats expensive for handmade products. Kamon just made like 40 with none lost to defects. I get that material cost matters if there are losses or if you have to stock inventory for significant time. However if you buy on demand and losses are low then the difference in $15 steel and $50 steel is $35 on say a $500 product. Harder steel takes more labor so thats a valid difference. I’m referring to the custom producers that are currently using this new stuff, not retailers that obviously add their own markup.
 
I don’t get concern for steel cost. Its labor thats expensive for handmade products. Kamon just made like 40 with none lost to defects. I get that material cost matters if there are losses or if you have to stock inventory for significant time. However if you buy on demand and losses are low then the difference in $15 steel and $50 steel is $35 on say a $500 product. Harder steel takes more labor so thats a valid difference. I’m referring to the custom producers that are currently using this new stuff, not retailers that obviously add their own markup.
Higher carbide steel, which is usually more expensive, also wears belts out. Which takes longer also. Which means more time AND energy spent on it. And the need for a kiln. And replacement parts. And then there's cryo. And finishing work takes longer also. Just additional costs piling on...
 
I don't want to pull this thread further off-topic but this is worth adding: MagnaCut will always be more expensive then non-PM steels and even some PM steels like CPM-M4 which are produced in {relatively) large quantities for industrial use. NioMax is much more likely to become a standard stainless because it is conventionally produced. Although it has the same issues with difficulty in finishing as MagnaCut. From my own experience and talking to other makers the cost of Making a MagnaCut knife is much higher. Remember if it takes 2 extra hrs to hand sand and thin and another hrs on the grinder with labor costs alone that's another $90-180. Not to mention the increased abrasive costs. I think it is unlikely MagnaCut becomes a standard stainless for anyone who doesn't do belt finishes. Much more likely that we see more CPM154 (which I would be all for!).

Bringing it back to low alloy steels the issue with the white class steels is that it seems pretty much any option is a better choice other than AS. So really it would just be nice if makers switched to steels that are similarly easy to finish like A2 when the goal isn't to make a honyaki blade.
 
Barmoley made some great points. I have to add that from some extensive testing in a pro environment with guided sharpening with tons of different knives/steels it seems there is a bigger gap between no alloyed steels and your typical tungsten alloyed tool steels (1.2442/AS etc) and less of a gap between those tungsten alloyed steels and hss compared to larrins catra data.

Of course thats for my personal use case with my personal sharping angle etc. Im not entirely sure what constitutes this difference but it seems clear that catra does not represent the specific use of a kitchen knife ideally, be it the cutting medium or the fact that other modes of failure play a bigger role xompared to catra
 
As a certified steel snob. Shirogami really doesn't have any appeal to me at all. Whether its 1 2 or 3. Aogami is a much better choice if you really want to go with a Japanese carbon steel. I hate seeing my knives getting sharpened away. Especially if I spent good money on them.
 
Back
Top