Thread: Wootz and stuff

Hey Shavers. True I've had Japanese razors on the brain lately.... with the little tamahagane talk going on etc. I thought to cast my steely gaze upon other razors of the Orient.
(I have seen a few Chinese razors on ebay.)
This was a culture that developed steel technology very very early.

Then there is the middle east, Persia et al with their famous damascus. aka wootz. there is an ancient steel of mythic proportions... swords that could cut a falling silk scarf and all that story telling.

Does anyone follow archeology close enough to have any info on the barbering tools and habits of these ancients?

hooo!!!!1!1!! this ought to get interesting.

I too am very interested! I hope someone here knows!

I've seen antique "chinese razors" on eBay. They usually go for like $10 lol. Same as THIS. Anyway, that's pretty much all I've got.

I don't have any personal experience with Wootz, but I remember reading an excellently researched and authored article on it where they claimed Wootz was indeed a good steel, but not a wonder steel and very different from our current varieties.

The big difference (says the article) is that Wootz is a soft steel that binds together many extremely hard carbides. It isn't heat treated as regular steel is, so it's structure can be much more segregated. The author claimed that the carbides were in fact hard enough to scratch glass, but that the overall Wootz blade would have been somewhat dull in comparison to modern steels. They claim that the advantage Wootz had (for swords etc.) was that the carbide grains acted like saw teeth, cutting through flesh and remaining sharp for long periods of time while the soft "binder" steel was shock absorbing and tough. It was said to have been great for combat swords but not so much for more delicate tools.

I'd like nothing more than to have the means to play around with the stuff some day, but for now internet research is the best I've got.

Here is what the Wiki has on Damascus and down page Wootz. I seem to recall a thread saying that Joe Chandler was doing some sort of Wootz Damascus ?

Wootz and damascus are two entirely different steels. Damascus is pattern-forged while wootz has the pattern without hamering layer upon layer.

Originally Posted by Kees

Wootz and damascus are two entirely different steels. Damascus is pattern-forged while wootz has the pattern without hamering layer upon layer.

While true it is not exactly that simple. This is because orrigionaly damascus steel was wootz, and modern pattern welded steels are from an attempt to replicate the visual effect of wootz.

Originally Posted by Kees

Wootz and damascus are two entirely different steels. Damascus is pattern-forged while wootz has the pattern without hamering layer upon layer.

Not arguing the point but in the Wiki definition for Damascus they have a portion devoted to Wootz. They also have a separate definition for Wootz but it covers the same ground.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

I don't have any personal experience with Wootz, but I remember reading an excellently researched and authored article on it where they claimed Wootz was indeed a good steel, but not a wonder steel and very different from our current varieties.

The big difference (says the article) is that Wootz is a soft steel that binds together many extremely hard carbides. It isn't heat treated as regular steel is, so it's structure can be much more segregated. The author claimed that the carbides were in fact hard enough to scratch glass, but that the overall Wootz blade would have been somewhat dull in comparison to modern steels. They claim that the advantage Wootz had (for swords etc.) was that the carbide grains acted like saw teeth, cutting through flesh and remaining sharp for long periods of time while the soft "binder" steel was shock absorbing and tough. It was said to have been great for combat swords but not so much for more delicate tools.

I'd like nothing more than to have the means to play around with the stuff some day, but for now internet research is the best I've got.

Mr. Baldridge, which article is this? Is it online?

My understanding of Wootz Damascus steel comes mainly from The Key Role of Impurities in Ancient Damascus Steel Blades by Verhoeven, Pendray, and Dauksch. More Wootz links can be found here, I found it a good place to start my studies. Googling the names of any of the makers or researchers in this field, or the Central Asian name for Wootz, Bulat, also yield a large number of resources. If anybody is interested, that is.

Based on my limited knowledge, I think Wootz Damascus steel would be a superior steel for a cut throat razor as would any steel with carbides, like Silver steel. The ancient Wootz swords were soft but swords often are. I read about a Russian or Ukrainian smith that was hardening Bulat knives he made out of his own stainless Bulat into the high 50s and low 60s. The carbides are also very hard, especially the vanadium carbides so responsible for the patterning. So hard, as a matter of fact, that they can't be properly measured for their Rockwell hardness. Not only could a Wootz blade be hard but I believe that honing and the carbides would result in "teeth on teeth" edge, like a shark's tooth, that slice the hairs like a knife with larger serrations cuts rope. What is the mechanism that is cutting the hair, otherwise? It isn't being split at an atomic level, steel can't be sharpened so sharp.

If my little theory about carbides is true, I wonder what size of teeth is optimum for most hair? I wonder what this could mean for the very fine hones. If you need the teeth to be of a certain size, rather than as small as possible, it might be more advantageous to stop honing at 12K? Lots of questions only a microscope can answer.