|
Post by Ronin Katana on Jun 18, 2009 23:55:46 GMT
Laminated blades are more expensive to make, and are a part of the traditional forging process that makes Japanese blades famous, but with today's more refined steels and construction methods, does it make a difference? I've linked a few styles below, and am looking for some discussion on which styles are actually worth using. Having read Paul's review of a Sam Sung laminated blade, I've questioned my own opinion that certain styles had far greater shock absorption than a DH or TH katana. From a backyard cutter prospective, would any type of laminated construction prove more resilient than a well made TH blade? In a dojo environment with a lot of mat cutting, would a user really need something beyond a higher carbon steel DH blade? Looking at the cross sections, ,it just seems that many of the styles no longer have any practical use beyond collecting. The soshu school with it's seven layer steel construction is well suited for parrying a blade on the side, but that is an unnecessary feature for modern use. Do any of them still offer useful performance enhancement that would justify the premium price increase over DH or TH? I've also noticed quite a few new katana for sale that are laminated only, but do not mention being differentially hardened. Can a laminated blade be TH just like a mono-steel blade? If so, does this create an inferior blade to one that has been both laminated and DH? I've read quite a bit, but a lot of what's been written on the subject predates some of the advances in modern steel, and the newer machinery some of the larger Chinese factories are now using. Pictures of a few cross sections to follow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 0:55:25 GMT
It sounds like you have done quite a bit of research on this subject. I am afraid my opinions might equate to "duh!" so I will not restate what could well be obvious to the educated in this matter.
About the TH vs DH on laminated blades, I guess that the heart of the question lies in this:
Do different types of steel harden to different degrees given the same heat treatment and tempering? In other words, would two different steels have a different hardness or resilience if they were subjected to the exact heat, time, and cooling rate? My uneducated guess would be yes. If this were not the case then why use different steels for mono-blades in the first place?
So assuming that this is the case, I would think that if a laminated blade were sent through a TH process, the end result would still be a "differentially hardened" product. Not DH in the traditional sense, but still be comprised of layers of steel with various hardness and resilience. Given that, a combination of these factors has a potential to make a blade more robust.
The real trick is to get the hard steel where it is needed and the more resilient steel where it needs to be. This is the end result of traditional DH and the claying process, a hard edge and springy spine.
I feel that while a lot of the architecture of steel placement may not be relevant to sword use today, it was developed over centuries for a specific benefit. As such, if you can have a well executed complex structure that addresses multiple issues, why you you not want that?
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 12:36:17 GMT
So lamination is what the Japanese did rather than folding? And on a somewhat related note, aren't Angelsword the maker of the most durable (katana) blades known at the moment (and hence their methods being the "best" known?), even surpassing Howard Clark L6 and the cheaper TH stuff (Cheness, Musha, Raptor)?
I've also gotten the impression that the traditional methods used by the Japanese were developed to combat their disadvantagous poor steel, not something that would make any steel far better, such as the steels without as many (negative) impurities today. Didn't the Japanese stop traditional methods in the 1800's because methods from the West were easier, or because getting foreign steel by trade made the old methods relatively obsolete?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 18:35:29 GMT
So lamination is what the Japanese did rather than folding? And on a somewhat related note, aren't Angelsword the maker of the most durable (katana) blades known at the moment (and hence their methods being the "best" known?), even surpassing Howard Clark L6 and the cheaper TH stuff (Cheness, Musha, Raptor)? I've also gotten the impression that the traditional methods used by the Japanese were developed to combat their disadvantagous poor steel, not something that would make any steel far better, such as the steels without as many (negative) impurities today. Didn't the Japanese stop traditional methods in the 1800's because methods from the West were easier, or because getting foreign steel by trade made the old methods relatively obsolete? As far as I know, folding came before lamination. Folding was a method of removing impurities and carbon distribution. Lamination is the blending of different grades of steel for specific purposes such as a softer core steel or a flexible skin steel. Modern methods for folding can start with a layered laminated billet and this is folded making more layers with less folding. There is a great debate about the quality of Angelsword that led to a lawsuit. I am under the impression that the Clark L6 is considered the "toughest" blade out there but there is always room for debate and opinion. I would say that Angelsword surpasses any production sword because if they did not, who would pay 30 times the price for one? As far as TH, it makes a tough blade but will not hold an edge well compared to a DH generally. TH is easy and cheap, period. I imagine that the reason sword production faltered in the latter part of the 1800's was because of the decline of the Samurai and laws restricting sword ownership. Times changed and so did the demand for swords so less effort was put forth in making them. I am unaware of imported steels ever being used in Japan to make swords. In fact, it is illegal today. Japanese swords are considered among the finest in the world and considered a national treasure. The tradition is highly guarded on a national level to make sure the product is "pure" and rare even tying into religious aspects of life. I don't think that reputation was earned by using poor quality steel and certainly was never based on imported steel. Japanese swords are made of tamahagane. All tamahagane is made in Japan. It is not normally exported and therefore Chinese or other production blades claiming to be tamahagne are really lying to you. In comparison, your sandwich may contain Swiss cheese, but if the cheese is not made in Switzerland, it's not really Swiss cheese. And yes, there is a drastic difference in quality between the real product and the phonies. It seems that is is also the case with steel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 18:50:11 GMT
Yeah, I got the impression that the Samurai would never resort to using Western steel/weapons, but I got the impression that the millitary in between the Samurai being outlawed in the late 1800's and until WWII and the rise of nationalism used Western-styled sabers without traditional techniques (tamahagane, folding, DH, lamination), and since they were mass produced, I also though they were made of "normal" steel rather than iron sand. I might very well be wrong, I know next to nothing on the topic, I've just gotten vague impressions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 18:58:00 GMT
I'm still a beginning study when it comes to this stuff so bear that in mind. My understanding is that, as uncreative said, traditional Japanese smiths actually did lamination, not so much folding. They ore they had on the isles was very poor quality (compared to what's available now) and so they developed methods to make great swords from it.
My understanding is that the methods of making the tamahagne produced various types of ore, with different levels of carbon etc. This is where their "lamination" came in. Based on lots of experience, the smith could visually recognize the properties of the ore, and would stack them in a way to get what we are calling lamination of different steel types. They would forge this stack into a billet and then produce a sword from that. Further, they developed the DH techniques to produce the effect it makes. Hmm now that I have said that outloud, I wonder, which came first, or either? Did they develope DH to produce better monosteel blades, or did lamination develope first.
My personal opinion, again from the little I know, I'm a little shy of laminated blades. Just like with monosteel, it's all about the heat treating and forging. So like OC pointed out, a laminated blade with a poor forging could be very bad.
Just my 2 cents. I'm a big spunge right now with this knowledge, so these conversations are enjoyable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 19:17:56 GMT
At the very least it seems that folding/laminations are not benificial for production swords, atleast if we can trust DF, Cheness and Hanwei. I believe they all mention that their laminated/folded swords are (far) more fragile, and more objects sought for beauty or traditionalism than functionality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 20:11:16 GMT
I am unaware of imported steels ever being used in Japan to make swords. In fact, it is illegal today. Imported steels in katana were considered desirable back when Japan had poor steel quality. Curious as to what time period you are speaking of. I am not up on history but assume this must have been hundreds (5-6+) ago or more?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 20:33:35 GMT
At the very least it seems that folding/laminations are not benificial for production swords, atleast if we can trust DF, Cheness and Hanwei. I believe they all mention that their laminated/folded swords are (far) more fragile, and more objects sought for beauty or traditionalism than functionality. The way it was described to me is that in the hands of an untrained novice, or with bad technique from anyone, DH swords will "take a set" and perhaps twist at the same time when used incorrectly. I don't consider this to make it an "inferior" blade. Swords are made to cut, not be springs. DH will allow a blade to be made of a higher carbon steel and balance the brittle hard edge with a shock resistant softer body. I can make a blade of copper and it will not break or crack easily. If it bends you can straighten it. On other hand, it won't be sharp and if it could be, it won't hold that edge. If the Samurai had modern steels, they might not have ever folded blades. On the other hand, if they had machine guns ... I agree that for sword use today, folding and lamination is done for tradition and looks. This does not mean that a cheap tough TH blade can compare to a custom made traditionally folded blade. What it does mean is that a cheaply made folded or laminated blade is inferior (in EVERY way) to a well made custom mono blade. On another note, does anyone know of a smith with a good reputation who prefers to TH rather than DH because of sword quality unrelated to price or ease of production?
|
|
|
Post by Ronin Katana on Jun 19, 2009 20:37:54 GMT
Japan used to import a lot of raw ore from Korea several centuries ago. I am not sure they continued doing so after their failed invasion.
The European traders who arrived in the late 1500's acted as middlemen for Chinese imports, but that was primarily silk and certain types of hardwood with no mention of ore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 20:50:10 GMT
Japan used to import a lot of raw ore from Korea several centuries ago. I am not sure they continued doing so after their failed invasion. The European traders who arrived in the late 1500's acted as middlemen for Chinese imports, but that was primarily silk and certain types of hardwood with no mention of ore. This would make sense as if you can get ore easily It would sure beat the process needed to extract steel from iron sand as is done for tamahagane. Still, even with importing the ore, the iron it's self would be considered "Japanese made", but not tamahagane.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 21:18:46 GMT
At the very least it seems that folding/laminations are not benificial for production swords, atleast if we can trust DF, Cheness and Hanwei. I believe they all mention that their laminated/folded swords are (far) more fragile, and more objects sought for beauty or traditionalism than functionality. The way it was described to me is that in the hands of an untrained novice, or with bad technique from anyone, DH swords will "take a set" and perhaps twist at the same time when used incorrectly. I don't consider this to make it an "inferior" blade. Swords are made to cut, not be springs. DH will allow a blade to be made of a higher carbon steel and balance the brittle hard edge with a shock resistant softer body. I can make a blade of copper and it will not break or crack easily. If it bends you can straighten it. On other hand, it won't be sharp and if it could be, it won't hold that edge. If the Samurai had modern steels, they might not have ever folded blades. On the other hand, if they had machine guns ... I agree that for sword use today, folding and lamination is done for tradition and looks. This does not mean that a cheap tough TH blade can compare to a custom made traditionally folded blade. What it does mean is that a cheaply made folded or laminated blade is inferior (in EVERY way) to a well made custom mono blade. On another note, does anyone know of a smith with a good reputation who prefers to TH rather than DH because of sword quality unrelated to price or ease of production? Hence I only with quotation marks described something as "better", and merely said they were more fragile, which I believe is correct. I have no doubt that in the hands of an skilled practitioner aainst softer targets that a folded, laminated tamahagane blade is as good as it gets, but put it this way, if I was going to a gun-less war, I'd rather have a L6 blade by Clark than a pretty tamahagane temple offering/testament to a smith's skill. But on the topic, I think I read something on SFI recently that katana were generally far thicker than most production blades, even the folded/laminated ones. Apparently, many modern smiths/forges have gotten an impression of katana as overly slim from looking at antiques, not taking into account that some of those may have had 10 or so polishing jobs over the years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 22:11:59 GMT
that thickness thing is true ^^^^
traditional nihonto were made for real battle, modern thinner blades are designed for tameshigiri only.
no self respecting samurai would carry a hanwei XL into a battle, it wouldnt last long.
clink *chip* clink *snap* ?
i do genuinely think that a self respecting samurai would however carry a purpose built howard clark > keith larman L6 daito into battle, that would be a sword to be proud of in any era.
|
|
Marc Ridgeway
Member
Retired Global Moderator
"The best cost less when you buy it the first time." - Papabear
Posts: 3,122
|
Post by Marc Ridgeway on Jun 20, 2009 16:57:18 GMT
Imported steels in katana were considered desirable back when Japan had poor steel quality. Curious as to what time period you are speaking of. I am not up on history but assume this must have been hundreds (5-6+) ago or more? Research Nanban tetsu... literally steel of the southern barbarian ... it was used and even proudly engraved upon the nakago... at times it was prestigious to have a sword or components with some degree of barabrian steel incorporated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2009 3:44:40 GMT
Cool stuff, I didn't know they would import ore from the mainland, but that makes sence, and is smart.
|
|