What's the history of SR metallurgy over the past 200 years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Indeed, nowadays if you're an expert in nuclear, biological, or cyber weapons you're really valuable. Some things haven't changed much.

As a related example - there are a number of first rate scientists who suddenly disappear from the publication stream - their work gets 'classified' and some bits show up only decades later.

---

Nuclear, not so much. At least, in some cases. A former colleague had a ukrainian wife who under the soviet regime designed triggers for 'instant sun' devices. Now she's unable to work in that field because only a handful of countries are in a position to do research in that area, and she's trusted by none of them. Or at least, not needed enough that they'd make it work. The countries who do research in thermo nuclear weapons have enough scientists of better repute.

I just found a few tidbits. During the early 1900's Sheffield and Solingen factories started using the tool steel recipe now referred to as "silver steel" (see UK specification BS-1407). It has a carbon content of up to 1.0%, while most other manufacturers then, and still are, using 0.6%. Higher carbon content requires lower tempering point and enables a better polish appearance. This is why the lower quality blades have more of a satin appearance. It's interesting to note that one of the only companies who still follow that recipe is Theirs Issard.

thanks, this link led me down the road i was looking for

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tallm

I just found a few tidbits. During the early 1900's Sheffield and Solingen factories started using the tool steel recipe now referred to as "silver steel" (see UK specification BS-1407). It has a carbon content of up to 1.0%, while most other manufacturers then, and still are, using 0.6%. Higher carbon content requires lower tempering point and enables a better polish appearance. This is why the lower quality blades have more of a satin appearance. It's interesting to note that one of the only companies who still follow that recipe is Theirs Issard.

---

TI has been using a newer alloy for a number of years now. I forget the exact designation for it. The Sheffield Silver Steel marque is no longer etched on their blades for some time. I've got both the older Silver Steel and the newer, and one is as good as the other IME, as far as edge holding is concerned. I certainly would never lump TI in with "lower quality" blades, nor many of the other vintage blades that are marked 'Silver Steel.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

TI has been using a newer alloy for a number of years now. I forget the exact designation for it. The Sheffield Silver Steel marque is no longer etched on their blades for some time. I've got both the older Silver Steel and the newer, and one is as good as the other IME, as far as edge holding is concerned. I certainly would never lump TI in with "lower quality" blades, nor many of the other vintage blades that are marked 'Silver Steel.'

---

OK. My current Sheffied blades aren't labeled with any steel name. I'm still leaning how to estimate their age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tallm

... This is why the lower quality blades have more of a satin appearance...

---

No, it is not the reason. It was to cater to the taste of someone who did not like a mirror finish. Unsurprisingly, this subject has been done to death more than a few times too, on this site. The same steel was either 'glaze finished' (aka blue-glazed, emery abrasive, fine, wooden wheel lapped with leather esp. walrus hide) or 'crocus' finished (aka 'black polished' - hard cutting iron oxide plus wax plus suet on a wooden wheel lapped with lead).

Regards,
Neil

[QUOTE=Neil Miller;1373884]No, it is not the reason. It was to cater to the taste of someone who did not like a mirror finish. Unsurprisingly, this subject has been done to death more than a few times too, on this site. The same steel was either 'glaze finished' (aka blue-glazed, emery abrasive, fine, wooden wheel lapped with leather esp. walrus hide) or 'crocus' finished (aka 'black polished' - hard cutting iron oxide plus wax plus suet on a wooden wheel lapped with lead).]


interesting, thanks for clarifying

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

TI has been using a newer alloy for a number of years now. I forget the exact designation for it. '

---

I have no reference handy, but I read in an interview with a TI rep that they use a steel for which they piggyback their orders on the order of an industrial company who uses it by the ton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

I have no reference handy, but I read in an interview with a TI rep that they use a steel for which they piggyback their orders on the order of an industrial company who uses it by the ton.

---

I thought the newer TI's used something called carbonsong C135 ?

Joe

Yes, TI uses something they call c135, from the 1.35% carbon content. They started mass-production 7 years ago and soon after switched everything to that steel. They are part of Sabatier and that probably makes access to steel much easier because they can piggyback on the big orders.
The part that it's made for a much bigger customer and they get a tiny piece was in one of the press releases around the first batches with the new steel - basically they marketed the exclusivity of their new steel.

Here's the post from 2007 where Lynn relays what they told him:
http://straightrazorpalace.com/vendo...tml#post125266

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

No, it is not the reason. It was to cater to the taste of someone who did not like a mirror finish.

---

I was under the impression that higher carbon content resulted in a better mirror-polish. Is this correct? This reason I ask is that one of my WB blades (with higher carbon content) polishes very well, while some of the others don't.

That might be true, but that still does not make your original statement true, ie the satin finish a d the mirror finish were performed on the same steel - the steel composition of the razors finished with a satin finish was not inferior or different to that with a mirror or crocus finish.

Silver steel was and is used for its bright appearance, but it was by no means exclusively used for razors, and it could, in common with all steels, be finished in a variety of ways.

Like I told you when you first started, go by facts and ignore personal beliefs, even though they are your own. You aren't exactly knowledgable enough about the subject to 'imply' anything - yet.

Regards,
Neil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

ie the satin finish a d the mirror finish were performed on the same steel

---

OK, I understand. Thanks for explaining

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

You aren't exactly knowledgable enough about the subject to 'imply' anything - yet.

---

I was just reporting the information I found

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Yes, TI uses something they call c135, from the 1.35% carbon content. ...

---

There is nothing wrong with using a hyper eutectic steel (meaning a carbon content greater than 0.85%) as long as it is heat treated according to the specific recipe for that material. In this case, given the mass purchase and likely adaptation of the heat treatment shop to the new regimen, it was a good economic decision for T-I to do. It simplifies production and produces a consistent salable product. A simple business decision.

But for a small shop maker who has to take small lots of, as found, steel and use much less sophisticated equipment (mostly) there are tradeoffs and potential differences in performance because of the lack of high grade consistent equipment and materials. There are always trade offs until you can reach a critical mass in production.

But that doesn't mean a small shop can't make good stuff. It does not mean that the latest greatest large volume of steel is the absolutely best razor/blade. They made trade offs at the high end too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tallm

OK, I understand. Thanks for explaining


I was just reporting the information I found

---

Sorry - I took your explanation that you were '...under the impression...' at face value.

If that isn't the case, than the source you found is questionable.

Regards,
Neil