One of the videos...

There was a follow up test to this ...

David Weaver

where they tested 1095 mules based on hardness cutting through hemp rope. At 200 cuts, the high hardness knives had about 2/3rds of the cut resistance vs. knives at 60 (from a steel that most enthusiast charts say should be targeted at 56 hardness).

At the same time, I started buying tidioute knives, which are 1095. They claim 57 hardness or something, but the wharncliffe knives I've gotten are harder than that - slow to sharpen on a washita, whereas anything soft like 57 hardness gets chewed up quickly.

While I was reading about the knife that I was fancying, I saw a reviewer who had a cardboard cutting test, and based on the literature for 1095, he expected poor results. The same knife that I have instead (1095, probably just north of 60 hardness) posted a cut test (edge durability in cutting cardboard) near the top of all of the knifes tested (no edge failure or any of that nonsense, just even wear). The reviewer was surprised (none of us should be).

That's what prompted me to squash a few saw files into really thin knives to cut down boxes. I kept them at high hardness so that they wouldn't draw much of a wire edge. I can feel them flexing in the cut but none have broken. I'm sure if I tried to bend the blades any appreciable amount (like a knife toughness test would), they would break. But I'd hate to put up with them at 56 hardness just to pass a test like that and lose the edge holding they have.

This kind of stuff is why I don't put a lot of stock in what the knife testers find except for pure slicing tests (in that case, you can draw some conclusions about plane iron durability - as we found parallels with XHP in rope slicing tests - doing better than people expected).

Of course, the surprising performance of newer saw files squashed into knives (vs. O1 - which was fine, but not as good at fine edge holding) is what prompted making a trial chisel out of a file last year.

beating a dead horse some more - 1095-52100

David Weaver

I've been listening to Joe Calton and some other youtubers today talking about the various alloys (staying away from the 5160 stuff, and up in the higher carbon steels that would be usable for woodworking).

The knife testing is kind of a two part thing aside from the abuse - I guess that's the third part, and if it wouldn't come at the cost of something, it would be useful.

I've been wandering through bar stock listings and of the things widely available that aren't O1 (I already have plenty on hand, but I want something more crisp edge and simple), 1095 is pretty much it and 52100 is more of an alternative to O1 (they're not the same alloy, but I mean a steel that's got just a little bit more alloying than the plain steel).

There's another inexpensive crucible steel called cru-forge, but it has surplus vanadium in it with the intention of leaving vanadium carbides. I can't think of something I'd like to have less in a cabinetmaking chisels than excess vanadium.

So that leaves 52100 and 1095, and then it gets more interesting talking to someone like Joe Calton, who can make a knife that performs better than peters heat treating (based on actual separate user tests -calton was able to make a 1095 knife that holds up fine at 1095 to basic test, even some basic toughness tests like deflecting the edge on brass). I'm sure these knives can be broken pretty easily, but not the same way you can tap a quenched 1095 blank and break it like ice.

What Joe said was interesting for two reasons - he is supplier specific for 1095 because he can buy 1095 and not get the same results (which suggests some suppliers may have lower quality or foreign steel that's not done as well finishing - I'm guessing it's rolled to a finish). So, I ordered a couple of bars of 1095 from one of his two preferred suppliers (strangely enough, they're cheaper than most places, too).

Then, he mentioned 52100 bar, which I was on the edge of buying, and said that he only makes his knives from 52100 round, because you have to work round stock to get it into a knife shape, and without that heavy forging work (Which is really only doable with a whole lot more heat than I have, and with wider round stock, with a power hammer), the 52100 doesn't really work as well. He said he hasn't found any 52100 bar stock that's made a good knife without the extensive forging, and since 52100 is widely available in round and limited in bar stock (harder to find and often high priced), he'd not advise buying 52100 bar stock.

I don't have anything on my plate for work this weekend, but the mrs. is at lowes trying to buy doors for me to hinge and fit to replace the doors in our house

Hopefully, she'll have no luck finding anything in stock there that can be delivered any time soon. I'd like to make a half dozen or more chisels this weekend and start some experimenting with hammered and not hammered, etc.

At any rate, calton gets unusual performance out of 1095 and 52100 in terms of high hardness knives that some testers are surprised by.

So, that leaves out the stuff like XHP (which I have no interest in turning into chisels and probably not even knives unless I have some urge to make a stainless knife), 154cm (too soft for chisels, anyway) and most of the other highly alloyed steels that have surplus elements other than carbon to make carbides.

What I learned listening to comparisons of 1095/52100 quality knives vs. s30V, and others, is that knife people consider our initial edges as "beyond a working edge" and a working edge is anything that continues to cut paper reasonably.

Using their terminology, 1095/52100 last about the same amount of time in the "beyond" range and then fade quickly once that edge is gone and get through the "working" edge without much more work. S30V, on the other hand, doesn't last any longer in something like a hair shaving test, but will continue to maintain "working" sharpness (passing the paper test) for many times longer.

This isn't really a surprise (and is in line with comments about high carbide steels settling into a mediocre edge and then staying there for a long time).

What Calton is doing is more interesting in regard to making chisels- focusing on the fine edge holding and reasonable toughness.

I'll report back at some point regarding whether or not the new 1095 feels the same under the hacksaw as the stock I already have (which came from NJ steel baron) after both get the same heating in the forge.

(52100 steel also has a reputation for being a lot better with a 15 minute soak at high temperature before quench, and I'm not sure I want to faff with that. It has better wear resistance than 1095, and is more forgiving and moves a lot less in quenching, but it sounds like a pain for someone heating open atmosphere and oil quenching without wanting to do a bunch of high heat work and forging).

Re: beating a dead horse some more - 1095-52100 *LINK*

Bruce, a MN Galoot

USAKnifemaker has an HT schedule that seems to make an oven really desirable for 52100


52100 heat treating schedule

Re: beating a dead horse some more - 1095-52100

David Weaver

Yes - and fortunately for us, all of the really good edge holding steels temper at regular oven tempering temperatures.

Actually, I can't think of anything I've tempered below about 330F or above 425F.

52100 poses two problems for me, though - I don't have enough heat, and I don't have enough hammer. I do have the ability to soak it fairly accurately, though, and the kind of refinement that the knife makers really love may not be needed for chisels (or in short, the problems that calton has if the steel isn't done just right probably wouldn't be noticed in chisels).

Re: beating a dead horse some more - 1095-52100

Bruce, a MN Galoot

My memory is likely faulty, but didn’t George make a knife from a big 52100 ball bearing?

I'm fond of vanadium

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

can't think of something I'd like to have less in a cabinetmaking chisels than excess vanadium.

I don't know what "excess" vanadium means.

CPM 3V made dandy chisels. What's not to like?

Re: beating a dead horse some more - 1095-52100

Wiley Horne

Can you get Hitachi white 1 or 2 in the US?

Wiley

Re: beating a dead horse some more - 1095-52100

Warren in Lancaster, PA

I don't think white #2 is a lot different from 1095.

I have used 1095 knives for over 40 years. It gives a very fine edge with little sharpening effort. The knives I started using in 1962 were also of a no chrome steel; they may have been 1095 also.

I have four skew chisels of various widths for turning. One I made from a Nicholson 14" mill bastard file in 1981. The steel is nice.

Re: beating a dead horse some more - 1095-52100

David Weaver

Sometimes, but I have only been able to get 3 layer rikizai that's intended to be used for knife making. White 2, that is.

Re: I'm fond of vanadium

David Weaver

When there's more vanadium than just an amount that increases hardness (more than like .3%) such that free vanadium carbides are floating around. They greatly improve wear resistance, but there's not much need for it in a chisel.

Re: beating a dead horse some more - 1095-52100

Wiley Horne

Thank you! Based on everything you’ve reported so far, along with Warren’s post above, the file steel sounds really interesting.

My experience so far is that the unicorn nanobevel really reinforces the White 1 edge, even at extreme sharpness. See no reason it wouldn’t do the same for 1095 or file steel—they’re all clean steels.

Wiley

That one still stings...

Jim Matthews

DW dissed my beloved ECE chrome vanadium irons, years back.

Something about "Later letters in the alphabet sound automatically more spensive."

(or summat alike that)

I'm still sulking.

****

I wonder how many of the additives developed by steel exporters were just to make a shiny product that presents well. I'm thinking of the Solingen and Seki works in the 1970s.

My cheapo Okapi folder from South Africa is still wikkid sharp but looks like an archeological find. My high Chromium Swiss army knife looks show room new (after 15 years) but never has been genuinely sharp.

Harsh criticism

David Weaver

I was pretty harsh about the ECE steel because of my experience with a primus plane. After seeing gushing from a few folks about the primus planes about how much better they were than stanley planes, I found one for a song that had been used, but not much.

The iron exhibited large carbide syndrome, but was also not that hard. So, it held an edge about as long as a vintage stanley but left little lines everywhere.

The gushing along with the ECE ad copy (talking about how long wearing the iron was and how each bit of a primus plane addressed all of the stanley shortcomings) over sold me - if they'd have advertised it as a mediocre alternative, my reaction probably would've been less negative.

Then, I found brent beach's wear test of an ECE iron and it showed the same thing.

They're perfectly mediocre irons (which means they can be used and sharpened without issue), but the way they were sold as being super quality kind of triggered me!

The 3V that bill speaks of is a different animal - there's no large carbides that I can see, but I didn't test it in a chisel, so I couldn't say how it would do (except that what it provides - wear resistance and "working sharpness" as the knife people call it isn't what I"m looking for).

I'm looking for something that's got good edge holding at relatively high hardness for a western tool, which ends up being the plainest steels. I believe 61 is probably about the max that 3v would be suggested at for tempering. If it betters a carbon steel chisel that maintains good fine edge holding at 63, I'd be surprised).

We've long departed getting a set of dovetails banged out, though -the sorbys do that now with the benefit of the buffer. This is about chasing a jones - getting the most out of a chisel for feel and fast sharpening interval and predictability per unit of work completed.

I think just about everything out there in terms of chisel durability tends to favor whatever tolerates higher hardness. There was a chisel test not too long ago (not sure of the youtuber) that was "controlled" and I suspected whoever the winner was, it would probably be the chisel that has the highest spec hardness without being outwardly brittle (i don't recall any good japanese chisels being involved, and many of the best are overhard and need to be tempered back a little bit to b a better chisel). I think the winner was the narex richter (which sounds like a gastrointestinal problem), which is probably one of the harder spec regular process chisels.

I'm way deep in a subset of rabbit holes at this point, though.

Re: Harsh criticism

TomD

I don't think ECE planes are super quality, but it is a relative thing. They were so much better in the 80s at the time of the Great Woodworking Reset, that it was not even a question. Where you are on basically everything is so far from a market it is like Yoko Ono singing (that I assume actually is something of worth/high culture, just not likely to win America's Got Talent).

One of the planes I use most heavily has an ECE scrub blade in it. It is probably the plane that gets called on to do the most real world work. The only thing I don't like about it is it hurts my hand in the plane body I made for it. Nothing else ever comes up as a problem. It is the sort of plane that does not lend itself to soul searching about how one could invent a more infra dig set of criteria for it.

Actually my other ECEs all have either a Hock, or Japanese replacement blades, so I should be careful what I say, as they do not use the stock irons. That was just a reflex, back in the 80s that Japanese blades had to be "better", which they are, but not necessarily for actual working craftsmen. Could not say. The only ECE planes I have are the super smoother, jack, and a block.

Re: Harsh criticism

David Weaver

Jack plane is one of the places where the quality of the iron wouldn't be as big of a deal. On the context of the late 70s, I could see their claims as long as they limited comparisons to contemporary Stanley. O actually like the continental style, but better in a vintage all beech plane with a tapered double iron.

I gather that what they use for steel in ece planes is inexpensive coil hardenable (induction?) Chrome vanadium that has a very forgiving transition temperature requirement.

Re: That one still stings...  Shiny...

John Aniano in central NJ

Jim, et. al.,

I'd guess that the set of shiny Monongahela Stainless Steel ingots I once owned probably had lots of vanadium in them...

John

Re: That one still stings...  Shiny...

Philip F Duffy

- -my 3 cents; I have a knife made by Master Maker; Chucks Oaks, which has cleaned and skinned 7 whitetail deer and never had so much as a strop taken to the edge. It was made of pure 5100. End of argument. P

That's in line with my expectations

Jim Matthews

FYI - I'm a convert to the sentiment that the qualities of O1 and PM-V11 are superior steel for workshop use. (Even with my bruised pride.)

****

I suspect most large manufacturing concerns start with what can be purchased on the cheap, and figure out how to sell it afterwards.

Most of the ECE stuff I own was purchased unused, still in the box (Made in Western Germany stickers attached) decades after they were given as gifts.

My guess is that they were impressive tools to the buyers and a source of consternation to the recipients who rarely used them.

In my opinion, the spring loaded adjustment mechanism stumps most users.

While still available, a "reformed" variant that uses a simple wedge.

This is unfortunate, because the spring loaded assembly is robust and easy to make.

SWAG - the reason most of these perform poorly is that they're so "tetchy" that users avoid disassembly when sharpening is warranted.

****

There is NO DOUBT that I get a better finish with properly hardened O1 or Buck Rodgers XHP than the stock Chrome Vanadium steel in the stock ECE blades.

However, the shape of the classic "horned" Germania plane allows me to carry on when my creaky hands would otherwise tire.

Forgive my ignorance

Jim Matthews

What's 5100? Stainless steel?

Re: That one still stings...  Shiny...

Wiley Horne

Hi Phil,

Is it possible your knife is 52100?

Wiley

52100?

David Weaver

I'm guessing the guy started with round stock and forged it into the knife you have and was careful about heat treatment schedules after forging.

It seems like it would make excellent chisels, but to do what it needs to be like your knife is something that I can't do (lots of heat and either a power hammer or an in house rolling mill to work it).

It's clear so far that the files are better than 1095, but that's having made two 1095 chisels so far (the files spark more and take a sweeter edge off of the same media).

Re: That one still stings...  Shiny...

David Weaver

I couldn't take the ribbing. I've ordered a couple of 3/16ths bars of 52100 and will hammer the taper into a couple of chisels and hope for the best. Cast and rolled bars may be better for chisels if they have a grain direction. Knives would run afoul of it, hopefully that's why the knives benefit from so much more work.

Re: That's in line with my expectations

Eric Rathhaus

Jim - I quite like the ECE tensioned adjustment. Once you learn how to set it up, it's very precise and easy to adjust from the top of the plane. I agree that the blades are mediocre, but my dovetail plane blade has held its edge well using the buffer technique.

Good point on the buffer....

David Weaver

..I've had very good luck with the buffer kind of removing the tip of the blade (where ECE and other similar blades would release little bits).