|
Post by Jussi Ekholm on Apr 16, 2014 18:19:24 GMT
Caution! Some of the findings featured in this post will shock you. Just kidding. I've been saying on various threads how many of the Chinese forges just use marketing speech, and they color the truth so it will fit them better. After fellow forumite SoS brought hardness file testers to my attention I knew immidiately I had to get a set of these. Unfortunately I don't currently have very wide array of production blades, but I had enough to get a lot of variation in the results, and to be honest I was bit shocked to see the results. Of course I have to say this was my first time ever using these, so there is big chance of user error. However as many of the swords showed varying results, there must be real differences, some swords (mainly Euros) were also on the range they should be as marketed by the maker. Sorry for the poor pics. Lets start with HuaWei. I've been really impressed by this blade lately, and I see the blade to be very good value for the money. I got HRC of 50-55 for the edge. I almost put this to 55-60 category but the 55 file made those scratches in the pic. I think this had the hardest edge of all the swords I tested. I was bit stunned when I saw that Kensei monster blade was scratched by 45 file. Tried couple times, and 45 file left a mark on hamon everytime. HRC 40-45 This folded blade by St-Nihonto is something I don't personally like. But I have to admit I didn't expect the red file to scratch this. HRC is 40 or under. Then one of my two really big shocks. I had Cold Steel Nodachi on the plate, took a file and drew, I had to double check that I picked up the correct file. The red one left scratches. So that would indicate that HRC is 40 or under. You can read Cold Steel FAQ, and other marketing, so this result was definately something I would not expect. Paul Chen PPW seemed to have HRC 50-55 for the edge. So the marketed HRC 60 was not the case with this particular blade at least. But most DH blades seemed to have this value for the edge. Then 1095, which seemed to have HRC 50-55 for the edge. I was shocked by this last result, YarinoHanzo 1060 blade seemed to have HRC 40 or under inside the hamon. I tested this multiple times as I didn't believe it at first. Now of course these are not anything definitive, just my own first time fiddling. However as I performed all the tests myself, and tried multiple passes on every blade, I think the results are at least comparable to each other. These HRC values I gave are not very accurate, but there is definately a difference among blades as various files had to be used. Here are some Euro sword HRC values for comparison. For Albion I got HRC 50-55. That is range includes the average HRC of 54, which Albion states their swords have. Windlass hand and half was HRC 40 or under. Hanwei Claymore was HRC 50-55, and Hanwei states this has HRC 53 on average. Again that completely fits to what I got. I was surprised that Valiant Armoury Hedemark gave me HRC 40 or under. Granted this one I bought as factory second, but result surprised me a bit as this has been a good cutter. H/T EMSHS also surprised me. Got HRC of 40 or under for this too. Again I bought this as a factory second, and this has been a good cutter. I believe Hanwei markets HRC 53 for H/T series swords. Hopefully this gives some base for discussion. This is not any scientifical test, and I'll more than likely have a lot to learn in the usage of these files to get more accurate results. But I'm very surprised about these findings.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Apr 16, 2014 19:09:19 GMT
Oh my...another *must have* toy! Cool results, I'd imagine a few of us will be getting a set of these and adding info.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Apr 16, 2014 19:44:29 GMT
[Mandatory reminder that historic swords often test in the "low" 30-40's in HRC and almost all withstood actual combat application and that a hard edge is not necessarily a good edge goes here]
Nonetheless, I also expected more than HRC 40 for most of these. :shock:
Neat toys, definitely, if not supremely accurate scientific tools. :geek:
|
|
|
Post by grmnsplx on Apr 16, 2014 20:27:04 GMT
+1 karma
|
|
|
Post by Bryan Heff on Apr 16, 2014 21:42:06 GMT
Very interesting stuff for sure. So is it any kind of scratch? Or does the depth of scratch come into play? I have never used these tools so have no idea.
I like that the Albion test seemed to prove out their particular claims...which is nice to see.
|
|
|
Post by VicoSprite on Apr 16, 2014 22:19:53 GMT
On your blades with hamons, I am curious as to what the spine is, and if there is a 15-20 hrc difference between the two. Cheers buddy, Cody
|
|
|
Post by LastGodslayer on Apr 16, 2014 22:38:48 GMT
Jussi, where did you get these? (and BTW I had been warned by someone in the know that most chinese forge blades are on the soft side, so this does not surprise me in the least...)
|
|
|
Post by Adrian Jordan on Apr 16, 2014 22:52:00 GMT
I'd like to know that as well. Very cool thread, Jussi.
|
|
|
Post by frankthebunny on Apr 16, 2014 23:55:16 GMT
Adding to this, as Jussi already mentioned in the op, swords of his that tested lower than advertised are still good cutters. It's also unknown how accurate these particular tests were. Were all of the tests performed on the same areas of the blade, and was it within the monouchi? Even if one in a particular model line resulted in one hrc, it doesn't mean that would be the same result of another of the same line. Inconsistencies are common in the production sword world and can make results like these misleading. Basically, this doesn't really prove all that much about functionality. This forum seems to be fond of absolute answers and these then quickly turn into topics such as super sword or super steel or other such ultimate katana, myth perpetuating threads. Just my 2 cents
|
|
|
Post by Jussi Ekholm on Apr 17, 2014 0:02:11 GMT
@bryan, I'm in the same boat, I don't actually know how to judge accurately. I just go by when visible scratch(es) are left on the surface. I tried to apply about similar pressure everytime. On softer files you could not scratch those blades that had HRC of 50+, even if you apply more pressure, it just slides off without leaving any scratch. @vico, I really couldn't measure the spine, as it was 40 or under on every sword. So in case of HuaWei, Hanwei and , it's at least 10 unit difference with this measurement scale. As the red file is the softest and it's 40 in hardness I can't measure anything under it even remotely accurately with this set. @lgs, I got them on Amazon, I don't remember the exact link but this set looks similar: www.amazon.com/Flexbar-Hardness- ... R72YBKJYPR It really surprised me to see that many of these TH blades that I would have thought to be maybe c. HRC 50, took scratches from the red file. However I've had good cutting results with many of these swords, so even though this "test" might indicate for example H/T EMSHS being on the soft side it has perfomed very well in my small cutting sessions. And I have to say that the accuracy of this testing of mine is most likely questionable. As the HuaWei was the hardest, there seemed to be bit variation on spots too. Sometimes I had to use 60 file to get a scratch where as 55 file made a scratch on another spot. Don't know if I applied slightly different pressure on angle, or if it indeed was harder on another spot? Unfortunately this leaves small noticeable marks on the blade. When done once or twice it's not that big deal, but multiple passes can be easily seen. I wouldn't recommend doing this on precious blades. I just had to made a test for Albion too (one pass), and when you go from soft to hard you can minimize the marks, as you stop at first one that marks. I found this better method even though the guide on the cover advices going hard to soft. bunny, you summarized it pretty well. This is fun test but leaves very much to desire and is not really that accurate. More accurate measuring tools would most likely noticed some differences even within one single sword. As with these files the most accurate you will get is between 5 unit gaps.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Apr 17, 2014 0:09:07 GMT
Absolutely. Still, this does address a somewhat important issue, namely truth in advertising. Sure, no factory can individually test every product they manufacture, and especially in "handmade" stuffs there will be variances between each piece. Hardness testing is expensive on a large scale, the best a company can do is research the steels they use and estimate the number based on the "ideal" measurement. Heat X steel to Y degrees for Z hardness, they do that in a big batch, some will be Z, some won't...but they can't be expected to test every single one.
Either way, advertised numbers are always to be taken as approximate, as they are more often than not either the average of a bunch or the hopeful outcome of a process. I've never seem a sword listed without the disclaimer "measurements ate approximate, some variations can/will occur in handmade" etc. and I, personally, think this covers even the truth I'm advertising argument. Granted, in still surprised the numbers are so wildly different, but obviously it hasn't hindered the blades in any way.
Edit: Jussi snuck a post in on me, typing this on my phone means I'm not as quick as a proper keyboard. I glanced through it before clicking submit, expecting to read in depth after, but now that I'm on a second page, this is my disclaimer to anything he said that I should have seen. :?
|
|
|
Post by VicoSprite on Apr 17, 2014 0:34:31 GMT
If the and hanwei had a hamon of above 50, and the spine is "immeasurable" due to the kit not going below 40, that itself proves that there is a significant difference between the two. As Josh said, this cant be looked at as "every blade this type is this" but rather just a data point for his own example of each. It really doesn't prove or disprove anything, but it is very interesting, and a great topic for discussion, as long as everyone understands the limitations of the test itself. I found it cool, especially about the hamon blades. Cheers guys, Cody
|
|
bpogue
Manufacturer/Vendor
Posts: 354
|
Post by bpogue on Apr 17, 2014 10:34:42 GMT
Hey Jussi, In hardness testing you would usually take a sample set from several areas on the blade that should have the same hardness and average those to get a number for that particular blade. 3 sample sites is OK but 5 is better. Even a through-hardened blade is going to have areas that are different. Of course, I understand why you wouldn't want to do this on your own blades!
The reason the guide suggests going from hard to soft is to extend the life of the files. If you are using the 40 file on a 50 edge the edge will not take a mark, the softer file will dull a bit instead. Eventually the 40 file will be so worn as to not be able to cut into slightly softer material.
Blake
|
|
|
Post by LastGodslayer on Apr 17, 2014 12:55:42 GMT
Thank Jussi. When I can I'll be getting one of these for sure.
I actually think the test is quite valuable for 2 reasons. The first one Random already mentioned and the other one is the quality of manufacture itself. Several of the hardness values suggest poor temperature control. Sure "variation" is to be expected, but its heavily implied that the manufacturing process is still archaic, and if that is the case then we are paying for huge margins in the distribution line... I mean, I never thought this was a profitable business (thought it was done mostly out of love really) but seeing as a master smith in china makes around only 50$ a day (the smith in charge of the forge as then there are some "students" that pound out the cheap stuff), I'm not sure where the price tag is coming from.
Sure, hardness is not the end-all of of what goes into a good blade, but we already have hammer marks, bad kissaki, blurred polishing. machis with bite marks, no niku, poor bo-hi, cracked tsuka, loose fittings, etc. Not wanting to destroy our hobby or anything, but we are kinda lowering our standards a bit, no?
|
|
|
Post by Robert in California on Apr 17, 2014 16:17:42 GMT
Thanks for doing this! Nice to have your independent test results instead of having to rely of vendor claims. RinC
|
|
|
Post by frankthebunny on Apr 17, 2014 16:27:04 GMT
As Jussi and Blake have already suggested, these tests might not have been very accurate, so if that is the case how can any conclusions be drawn or value placed on them? Not testing the correct areas or enough areas certainly can't prove or disprove anything about that particular blade let alone an entire line or company or even an entire industry. We've also known for years without the benefit of testing tools that there are many issues and inconsistencies in this class of sword, these results do not have anything to do with this knowledge.
It must be a profitable industry to some extent because I'd bet anything that these forges and companies are definitely not just doing it for love. There are countless clothing manufacturers with factories in China that are immensely profitable while their employees are lucky if they receive $40 a month so I'm not sure what that had to do with the value of a sword.
And again as already stated, some of the swords that tested poorly (in these inaccurate tests) were/are good cutters so one more reason to avoid coming to any conclusions about the results. Certainly you would not put any stock into any health tests performed by your doctor who was using new tools or methods for the first time, and not even doing it the correct way would you? I mean it might sound like something at first but as soon as you know how they were executed, you might relax and disregard it.
Jussi got new tools/toys and was experimenting which is interesting and appreciated, but anything but conclusive, and shouldn't start a panic. I just hate seeing one good or lucky cut becoming "this is the best sword and steel ever" or one amateur test taken and it turning into "all sellers are lying and all swords are crap". I'm exaggerating of course but again, this forum seems to often thrive on extremes and absolutes. There are too many false statements accepted as fact while constantly searching for the nonexistent "Holy Grail" imho.
|
|
|
Post by LastGodslayer on Apr 17, 2014 18:18:09 GMT
I'm with you Josh, but the test is self consistent. Even if the hardness values implied by the file test are inaccurate, the fact is, some files scratch one particular section of a particular blade while others don't. This already points to at least one of the files being softer or harder than the steel in the above measurements. Again, we don't know the exact hardness value, but a file that didn't scratch the yakiba in a Huawei but did so in a Yarinohanzo or Cold Steel implies the direct relationship in hardness between these blades. Still, lots of "implied" observations but nothing definitive. That was actually besides the point I was making. The thing is, such variation is more than you'd expect from modern HT in any industry. This means swords are still being churned out, heated, quenched and tempered with little temperature control = archaic HT. On Longquan/eBay chinata we kinda know this, but the Cold Steel test was actually surprising, since I always assumed the higher cost was related to some sort of QC or spec. In fact, only the Albion rated at the level advertised (which also implies the file test isn't that inaccurate), so I came to the conclusion that with the probable (known) low cost of manufacture, the price we are being charged is related to markups and probably far higher than what I assumed the blade cost to make. I know they gotta turn a profit, but I was thinking the revenue per blade was low they just made it up with volume of sales, I now think some companies are making a killing on each and every blade sold! This is kinda scary in a time prices are going up and not down, at least from the mid range up! In Europe it doesn't pay to manufacture swords (customer base is tiny, legislation is restrictive, etc) but in the USA someone probably could get their own entry level katana line manufactured at a very competitive cost and with much higher quality standards than the regular Chinese forge. Perhaps I am making a big deal about this, but one of the major reason I joined this particular forum (besides SFI's slow demise) was for getting to know the good deals in the production market compared to the custom market. I am now seeing quite the opposite, where the custom market, even with the necessarily higher prices, offers great value whilst the value of production blades has stagnated or even decreased. Recently Josh, you've revealed to us a blade apparently quite a bit better than the market's usual offerings, that combines certain things we've seen in high end blades (Kaneie) with mid to high end blades (Hanwei/Huanuo), but who we still don't know the price. Sure, a good polish is worth 500$ easy, but when the blade cost what? 50$ to make or less (and I'm not talking about the blade you showed us, I actually mean something that has been on the market for a few years now), we get asked 1500$, the value proposition is kinda sucky... Bottom line is: we let companies get away with terrible value in their swords and soon enough the market is gonna evolve into a competition to see who offers the least for most. There will be only eBaytana, that, and custom. Heck, I think recently we've seen a new company do just that
|
|
|
Post by frankthebunny on Apr 17, 2014 19:19:49 GMT
I see things differently. In my opinion, the quality of affordable katana has improved over the years and a lot of that improvement seems to be a direct result of customer request and demand. Some manufacturers, even the bigger ones, do listen to their customers (except maybe Cheness) Yes, there is a lot of overselling and creative marketing in this industry but we have to learn to read through this, even from those like CS. Lines like "can cut trees" or any of the other unrealistic claims used to sell these swords are ignored by those who know better and we then find out for ourselves what that sword is really capable of, so I don't see why the hrc they claim should be taken any differently. I don't think the profit margin is as great per sword as you might think LGS, remember that multiple swords are lost to the quench for every one that makes it without fatal flaws, plus all the others that don't pass QC.
Essentially, I think tests like these should be ignored or overridden by the results we've trusted and relied on all this time. In my opinion, using, testing, and reviewing swords is still the best way to know which are good and which aren't up to par. Honestly, if I tested the hrc on blades I've successfully cut with for years with tools like these and without experience and found low results, I seriously doubt it would change my opinion on the competence of those blades.
We revere the historical swords of all cultures and constantly compare our $300 swords to these masterworks yet we often forget that the steel we have now is far superior to even the best of those made in the past. I might actually choose an average budget sword made in China that has consistently reviewed well, over one made by a master smith of the past with the materials they had at the time, at least as far as potential is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Jussi Ekholm on Apr 17, 2014 19:30:24 GMT
I pretty much agree what has been said in the above posts. These measurements are inaccurate, of course there is a huge difference what device is used for measuring. I think those industrial grade HRC testers can give you a result with 0,1 unit accuracy. While this set can give you a maximum accuracy of 0-5 units. Well in theory the accuracy can be all the way 0-7 units as they give 2 unit difference possibility for the files. As there is a possibility that 55 file is in between 55-57. So it's possible that same dark green file will scratch blade that has HRC 50.5 and HRC 56, in theory at least, and both would be 50-55, as you cannot judge more accurate than this. That explains some of the variation, however it really blew me away how many blades were scratched by the red file which is 40 or under. On blades other than Albion I did multiple passes, even more on those that surprised me. I think Huawei and YarinoHanzo received around 8 measurements, all with same result (Huawei had that 1 or 2 times that required harder file). Of course it would be perfect to have an industrial grade tester... (beep) oh it is 54.56 let's try the next spot, (beep) this is 55.04. (I don't know if those testers make a beep sound...) I agree that we should not take anything about these measurements as the definitive truth, but neither we should take that information that the seller/manufacturer claims. I know I've been quite vocal about false marketing lately, but I'm getting so bored of it. Of course it's impossible to weed it down as it will appeal to the masses. Sure HRC hardness alone does not mean a thing, but combined with other small details it builds the sword. And I must agree with LastGodSlayer, I'm not happy about how the market is currently evolving in production swords. Of course we as buyers do not see things like global financial situation, or what was the EUR-USD rate this day 3 years ago... But we can see that the same sword that you bought for 230$ couple years ago now costs 330$'s or 400$'s. For us buyers that does not sound good. I think the "golden years" might have been couple years ago, and now prices are getting higher. Of course the greatest thing would be having several swords by various brands that use Zhengs forge, several brands that use Huanuo etc. Then see if there is correlation between the products and so on... You'd probably would need to measure 100's of blades for decent average. Of course there are variations but for example VA and H/T blades surprised me. Of course they both were bought as factory seconds due to condition issues. Valiant Armoury says HRC 53 in their advertising, yet this particular blade was scratched by red file (40 or under) in all 5 measured spots. Hanwei Tinkers are advertised being at HRC 50-53, yet this particular blade was scratched by red file (40 or under) in all 4 measured spots. Of course these are possibly flukes, and these were sold as factory seconds. But then again, Hanwei Claymore and Albion Vigil were right at the HRC range they should have been. So there has to be some truth behind these measurements as there is so much variation among different swords. Likewise the Hanwei PPW, and HuaWei were all in the same range as DH blades, and my YarinoHanzo custom was much below them. Does it change my mind about these blades that did not be as "hard" as I expected, not a single bit, I've cut with H/T EMSHS, VA Hedemark, CS Shamshir and my YarinoHanzo Custom, and I thought all of them are good cutting swords. There are multiple qualities that are needed for sword to be good in my eyes. But I see many are seeking for the toughest, most abuse withstanding blade out there, then I think things like HRC might become one of those qualities for them?
|
|
bpogue
Manufacturer/Vendor
Posts: 354
|
Post by bpogue on Apr 17, 2014 20:58:55 GMT
They don't (well ours doesn't) but you can be sure I'll make some beeps next time I use it I didn't realize you had taken multiple readings from the initial post, just trying to clear up your question about having different hardnesses at different points in the blade. A DH blade that has ashi for instance should have quite a variance in hardness along the cutting edge and into the hamon. This was done on purpose, of course. I will say I'm glad that what you have found in your group of swords is a softer result than you expected. I would much rather have a blade slip through QC that was softer than advertised than harder. Blake
|
|