Sean (Shadowhowler)
VIP Reviewer
Retired Moderator
No matter where you go, there you are.
Posts: 8,828
|
Post by Sean (Shadowhowler) on Apr 17, 2014 21:21:07 GMT
I'd love to see this test on a DSA blade... in my experience mine have been very hard, attempts to sharpen them resulted in files skating off... huge hassle. Jussi: That Kensei sounds much, much too soft... you should send it to me. :-)
|
|
|
Post by VicoSprite on Apr 17, 2014 22:14:43 GMT
Jussi- I think it was a cool test, interesting. I think it is cool that the hamon blades were scratched with 50-60 files while the spine was scratched with the 40. Is there kits in the below 40 range and above 60 range? It would also be cool to check your file set against one of those "beep" machines :-) as Josh said this should be taken with a huge grain of salt, interesting nonetheless. Blake-you bring up a great point with the ashi, how cool would it be (besides to the owner of the blade lol) to make one scratch from the kissaki down to the habaki, where you would see; scratch, no scratch, scratch, no scratch ect. Cheers guys, Cody
|
|
|
Post by Onimusha on Apr 18, 2014 2:41:46 GMT
If these things are really accurate within 5 units, it still makes you rethink some of the things you "know".
|
|
|
Post by aussie-rabbit on Apr 18, 2014 3:10:15 GMT
Remember that flawed blades become "seconds", cut down, re purposed or returned to steel mills as scrap so there is no pile of flawed blades in general, at least not in China.
|
|
|
Post by frankthebunny on Apr 18, 2014 3:17:55 GMT
yes, but if it takes 2 or 3 or more blades lost in the quench to produce one healthy one, that was still time spent and cost of labor for one blade regardless of whether the steel is reused. I know they are making money or else they'd obviously be out of business but I'm just thinking it's not all that much per sword. I really don't know for sure though.
|
|
|
Post by LemuelTheLemur on Apr 18, 2014 4:00:42 GMT
really interesting stuff! It's fantastic to have someone on the forums with the means to do tests such as this. Really surprised to hear about the Hanwei Tinker being 40 or under, I've heard that Tinker himself gave guidelines and instructions on how the heat treatment should be done.
Would I be right in thinking that the HRC scale of hardness isn't exactly linear? What I mean is something like this; the range of 40-60HRC can do pretty much the same things and handle similar amounts of abuse, but then suddenly in the range of 20 - 39HRC we're dealing with pool noodles. If that's the case, then maybe variance in HRC of +- 10 units around 45HRC isn't so bad (maybe even barely noticeable in practical use). I would love to hear someone in the industry comment on how difficult it is to keep consistent hardness with their blades.
|
|
|
Post by Student of Sword on Apr 18, 2014 4:43:23 GMT
There are two points I like to make.
(1) I think that the tests were somewhat accurate. If we take Albion as the base line. This is because we know how Albion heat treat their blades -- via molten salt bath. Salt bath provide the most accurate temperature during the heat treating process. So the blades were heated to the precise temperature; quenched at the precise temperature, and tempered at the precise temperature. And we get the HRC as advertised. When was the last time any of you saw a electronic controlled kiln at a Chinese forge? Or any temperature control devices during the forging and heat treating process? I have never seen a youtube video that came out of China that show a thermocouples. So they essentially guessed the temperature during forging and heat treating. Furthermore, it is likely that those Chinese blades were quenched NOT in water since water would result in more breakage. They were most likely NOT even quenched in industrial heat treating oil since those quenchant can be pretty expensive. Most likely, they were quenched in some sort of vegetable oils or automotive oils. It should not surprise anyone that the advertise hardness is not anywhere near the actual hardness.
(2) But this is not as big a deal as you think. Historical blades (at least in Europe) had very low HRC. Mid to low 40 were very common. And if you would use the hardness file on your cheap kitchen knives (bought a Walmart or Target), you most likely will find fairly low HRC as well. But those kitchen knives continue to cut day in day out. So, it is no big deal.
|
|
|
Post by frankthebunny on Apr 18, 2014 5:01:07 GMT
I'm not comparing the skill level of historical Japanese smiths to those heat treating the blades in modern Chinese forges but they judged temp and time by color and experience back then and there weren't any expensive hrc testing machines afaik. I have been told by Jacky of HuaWei that they do quench in water and do lose blades due to fatal cracks. I think I remember someone else reporting this about another forge as well. This could very well be untrue of course.
|
|
|
Post by Student of Sword on Apr 18, 2014 5:28:45 GMT
Josh, My theory is that historical Japanese smiths, on average, had lower skill level than current Japanese smiths. This is probably true in Europe as well. Certified smiths in Japan today are held in extreme high standard by their peers. Back in the days, you have smiths of great quality, but they are probably the minority. Most of them were probably mediocre. In a way, the quality of the heat treating coming out of China is quite close to historical heat treating. Old smiths judge temp by color without any modern instruments; and the result is old swords have hardness all over the places. This article from My Amoury shows that hardness of historical blades were very inconsistent. Some weren't even heat treated at all: www.myarmoury.com/feature_bladehardness.htmlAttachments:
|
|
bpogue
Manufacturer/Vendor
Posts: 354
|
Post by bpogue on Apr 18, 2014 13:13:51 GMT
And this, I believe, is part of what Josh has been conveying above. Based on this one tested sword should not lead you to conclusions on all of the swords in the line. Yes, Tinker has given explicit instruction into the method and means to heat-treat the 5160 steel blades which Hanwei produces. And they, generally, do a good job following that.
Also, on losing blades to the quench - yes it happens. Quite often.
Blake
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Apr 18, 2014 14:51:11 GMT
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the industrial hardness test based on Rockwell hardness, and it leaves a dimple on the steel you test? The files are a good ballpark *guesstimate* tool, and perhaps could lead to better scientific testing if a line proves to be way off base. This is just my inner Q/C person babbling.
All in all, this is a great post, and you all are giving some really good info...it's a great read.
|
|
bpogue
Manufacturer/Vendor
Posts: 354
|
Post by bpogue on Apr 18, 2014 15:17:16 GMT
It does leave a dimple, here is ours testing a knife blank: And the result (from a different blade): There are several methods and several scales for testing hardness, Hrc is the one generally used for blades since it's in the hardness ranges you would want for a blade. Blake
|
|
|
Post by Arwyn on Apr 18, 2014 16:06:31 GMT
Very very interesting thread. Thanks for the testing Jussi!
It does bring up some questions about A) Marketing hype, and B) actual quality, but I would agree that the test and what it indicates are not the end-all be-all on blades.
Quality steel, at least historically, was junk in most locations. Tamahane was done that way precisely because Japanese steel of the period was garbage, due to the source/quality of the ore. Ditto almost all of Europe. Germany (and Sweden later on) were renowned for their steel because they had access to higher quality, easily extracted iron ore.
Comparing historical steels to modern is really not an apples to apples comparison.
Now, the truth in advertising part is pretty interesting, and I think the other indicator worthy of discussion would be the consistency and quality of the blades produced.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Apr 18, 2014 19:51:48 GMT
I think this discussion will evolve into "what makes a good blade" and really from what I've read it varies a bit by style. And I think as long as we try to keep the vendors pushing for better product we all win. With a little dose of truth in advertising.
|
|
|
Post by Aurélien on Apr 18, 2014 20:11:24 GMT
Words of wisdom, Sir. And thank you Jussi for that test! Karma+1!
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Apr 18, 2014 22:07:38 GMT
Kitchen knives are a poor example - they are used to cut day in and day out, while a sword is used much, much, less often for cutting. (Especially in past times; today some people will cut things a lot more often (but usually still less often than kitchen knives are used).)
The hardness makes a big difference, and the differences between hard Western knives (like Wusthof, who aim for 57-58 RHC), softer (but still hard) Western knives of about 50 plus or minus 5, soft Western knives (e.g., 40), and Japanese knives (61-63) are very noticeable. Part of the difference is the more acute edges that the harder blades can have, and part of it is edge retention.
With the kitchen knife, the edge has to do all the work. You place the blade, and slice. With a sword, the blade is usually moving, and moving fast, on contact, and it cuts fine with an edge that would make for an extremely poor kitchen knife.
(Note that hard Japanese knives are harder than typical sharpening steels (usually 60-62); not that you steel them anyway, since the edges don't roll and all you'd do is either nothing or chip the edge.)
|
|
|
Post by LastGodslayer on Apr 19, 2014 0:28:37 GMT
I find the comments about "variation", blades snapping during quench, "they were told how to do it, but this is just a dud" disingenuous. All of that just points to "ancient japan" or "medieval europe" level methods and specifically temp control.
That is kinda my beef with this... Why are prices rising or stagnating it an apparently competitive market like this one if nothing other than experience is improving? We still get the same poorly cast fittings so no cost hike there... Have wages risen in China? Inflation? Kissaki are still terrible. Even in the high end a mitsukado exists only in paper. We now even get guys selling us "traditional fake hamon"!
Bottom line IMHO, custom work, even from eBay forges is giving more value to customers because with everything else staying the same (bad koshirae and kodogu, questionable/archaic manufacturing process, poor QC) at least one gets something personalized. Why should anyone buy a branded good when they appear to be marked up chinatana anyway? Its not like the eBay guys are lying much more than anyone else. Tests are anecdotal if not done correctly thats for sure, but I gotta say, even forgetting for this test (thanks Jussi), it seems there only price is going up and not value.
Also, I was under the impression that the big players had better manufacturing processes, and I mean Hanwei, Huanuo, and whatever main forge does all the "longquan" high end stuff. If the methods are basically the same as the random 10 guy forge, the prices are reflecting the higher fixed costs, but with roughly the same variable costs. Thats bad for us. Heck, thats bad for them. I think this is why Albion can charge a premium whilst chinatana in general cannot. I dunno, something must be keeping profit margins razor thin for such fear of pushing the envelope quality wise. Last company to try it was Hanwei and it literally went up in flames. And despite the price tag I don't think it was a super steel...
Lower standards help nobody in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by Jussi Ekholm on Apr 19, 2014 13:36:31 GMT
I know very well that 1 tested sword can fall outside of a range that is regularily in the swords. But the real question is, how many would you have to test so that the results would give any reliability? I tested 2 Huawei blades and both had the same range. I really wish I had had this set when I had 4 different Hanwei Tinkers. But in reality I don't usually have multiples of the same sword. So usually I would only be able to test one single example of that sword model. So basically it might be worthless to do so... Now as some swords brought results that I was not expecting I might just be unlucky one. That is the most that could probably be said with any confidence. Now every time I've done comparisons it leaves some manufacturers in bad light, while some get a chance to shine. It's bit unfortunate but that just happens. It might rub manufacturers one way or the other, just like my sub-300$ katana comparison test did... Even though the H/T EMSHS might be a lot softer than advertised, just note that Hanwei Claymore was in the range it was supposed to be, and Hanwei PPW was on par with other DH swords, and only slightly below what is advertised. EMSHS was bought as factory second along with 3 other factory seconds. 3 others had condition issues while this did not have, so maybe the reason why this was factory second was that this was softer than standard? Now even though I am very happy with my YarinoHanzo custom katana, as you can read from my review. After testing the hardness inside hamon and seeing the results I can only think that maybe the other DH YarinoHanzo took damage on that think cardboard tube because the edge is relatively soft compared to other DH blades? My main idea with this test was that this might give something to think about, and it seems to have worked. This is not a scientifical test, just having fun testing stuff.
|
|
|
Post by shoboshi on Apr 20, 2014 16:08:22 GMT
+1 Jussi! An excellent read!
Seems like the test was accurate enough. If the design variance of the testing files is 5 units and we trust that the files themselves are within the specified limits, then a scratch is evidence that a blade is or is not within it's advertised hardness range. It either scratches or it doesn't.
The question is whether or not similar results would occur on other examples.
This all relates back to quality and eventually to where you may send your money. A hardness being lower than advertised may not affect a blades cutting ability, but if that hardness is consistently low that may color the manufacturers honesty and if the hardness is variable that questions the manufacturers methods and thus the reliability of the blade itself.
Too bad you didn't have any Cheness handy, Jussi.
|
|
|
Post by Arwyn on Apr 21, 2014 19:47:55 GMT
I think that the tests would be really interesting with a selection of several swords of the same type, from the same vendor. In the case of production swords, not custom, consistence of product is the real question. On the plus side, Hanwei, the biggest of the big, is actually looking pretty consistent. That's actually really good to know. I was also pretty impressed seeing the numbers from Huawei.
This isnt a dig against the other vendors. As Jussi said, he has swords that cut and perform well, even below the claimed HRC. I think this goes to the consistency portion again. I would hazard a guess that some of this boils down to manufacturing method. Albion is pretty consistent, and uses very modern methods. Seems Hanwei is in the same situation.
Now, when we start looking into some of the others, I think its interesting how many of them are doing the heat treat via "Eyeball Mk 1" methods. Up until the modern age, the really top notch smiths COULD eyeball the steel and get pretty consistent heat treat. I would be interested in seeing how Huawei does it, for example. We have seen some recent examples from Gen2/Legacy that got down-rated by KoA for being too soft, which suggests a manual heat treat that wasnt quite up to snuff.
Be interesting to see!
|
|