Poll: include steel type in reviews- yes or no?

I agree.... it may give newbies the wrong idea, that steel type actually matters (between the good ones), but it would be nice to know between 440C, 1045, 9260, W2, etc.

As for heat treat, that would be MUCH harder to find out, but whatever info the reviewer can get would be appreciated. I mean, between water quench or oil quench for katana, I really don't care. But, some basic info, like whether it was HT'd at all or not, is a must, IMO.

Good idea, I look forward to seeing people's reactions.

-Slayer

I agree with Aaron. It would be a nice option, but I don't think it's necessary; the smith's ability is usually more important than the steel. Plus, someone may take a glance at the steel and pass over the sword because the sword because they receive mixed messages about what steel constitutes a good sword. They could pass over a quality 1060 (as an example) sword because they think harder is better, so they want D2 or T10.

btw, is this the first poll on the new forum? This is the first I had seen.

As a reviewer, this is my thought on the matter: if the information on steel type and heat treatment is available for the sword in question, then by all means, post it. However, there are still some companies that are loath to volunteer that sort of information, and it may only be available months or years after the swords' production run begins, at which time, several reviews will probably already be in existence and the sword itself could be out of production. So while it is a nicety and useful information to have, I don't personally feel it should become a standard part of the template. I would feel differently if it was required by law that sword manufactures were required to disclose the information, but they aren't, and many still don't.

Additionally, in the name of making a sale (or in naivete), some vendors put incorrect information about the sword in their descriptions (example: a TH sword being advertised as DH; a 1045 sword being advertised as T-10), so even when the information appears to be available, there is the possibility that it is incorrect. We strive for truth and transparency above all in our reviews, and if the source is questionable, it's best to leave that information out. Personally, I put all well-sourced and proven information available to me into my reviews, but if it isn't there or is not trustworthy, it's better left out. The overall body of a well-written review is a great indicator of a swords' inherent flaws and capabilities, regardless of steel type, heat treatment method and whether or not these are mentioned.

Personnaly, I will post the steel type of a blade only if I know what type of steel it is. If I don't know, the only thing I will try to know if is the steel heat treated/tempered and/or stainless. I think that steel types tends to be mostly a hype-pumping marketing trick. A few years ago, 9260 was the coolest steel around, then it was T-10, in the future it will likely be something else. The only major differences I know of, about steel, is that 1045 might be a bit too fragile for tatami cutting, and 1060 and higher steels can take 'em.

IMHO the quality of the forging process is more important than the type of steel that is forged. A poorly-forged blade advertised as T-10 might be more brittle and fragile than a well-forged one made of 1045. That's why I tend to buy, as much as I can, from well-known, reliable makers and sellers, because I know their products rarely, if ever fail.

This is the way I see it.

If you REALLY care about the steel type and heat treatment done on a sword you are thinking about buying, then I would hope you'd have the initiative to go look it up yourself and not rely on someone else to find out for you.

Sword reviews are not required of anyone. Reviewers put forth the reviews as a service to the community. REQUIRING them to add in the steel type or heat treatment would only serve to deter a consumer from posting a review.

It should be optional. Speaking as someone who's interests fall in an area in which there are comparatively few models to choose from, and far fewer reviews, I can't support anything that would discourage someone who owns a sword and wants to do a writeup from going out and doing it.

This was a big problem with Hanwei swords for a long time (still is, in some cases). Instead of actually giving a steel type (such as 1095, 1060, 9260, et cetera) they would simply say 'Swedish powdered high carbon steel' which honestly tells you nothing about the steel itself. It's aggravating at best when manufacturers do this and many do. Another thing is that some simply don't know, because while the head of operations may be here, the forge is in China and not necessarily owned by the manufacturer. The office may ask for one thing, while the people at the forge decide it's best to use something else, for one reason or another, or put down incorrect information to go with the swords when they're shipped out, by mistake.

As I stated previously, I always put down the steel type in my reviews if I know it. There are swords that I own that, honestly, I don't know what the heck they're made of because it's something the forge never disclosed and no one has taken the time (or spent the ridiculous amount of money required) to do a chemical analysis on them. For these, I feel it's best to leave the information I have at 'carbon steel' or 'stainless steel' (in the case of my iaito) because anything more would be either speculation and conjecture or outright falsification on my part, at which point the review becomes worthless.