Metallurgy of old steel vs. new forged blades

Hello,

I have a question to the "metallurgists" of our board.
Sometimes it is stated, that old forged blanks are especially good (also vintages blades...).
You can read for example "this is made of over 50 year old blanks ....therefore the steel is especially fine and even...etc."

Frankly I can not understand the reason why?
Why should it not be possible with today's technologies to produce alt least the same "quality" steel or even better?

Do you have a explaination or is this a question of philosphy?

Regards
hajo

Helo Hajo.
Some years ago I saw a program on TV. It was about blacksmithing. The guy there said that you can't weld two modern pieces of metal together in the old fashion way without lot´s of chemicals. As for the iron up to around 1900-1920 it was clean enough to simply heat and hammer together.
The quality of the old iron was wide higher than today.
I also made a visit to the Vikingmuseum located at Roskilde in Denmark. There they told me that they built a replica of a Vikingship they had found in the Roskilde fiord. The nails were almost intact after 1000 years or so. When they should nail the replica together they couldn´t find nails in that quality, exept from a small American steel manufactory. They were the only one that could provide iron of that pureness as the old original nails were made of. It was almost 100% pure iron and there was almost none rust to them. They were of course also boiled in tar.
So the conclusion of this is: Today it´s probably to big of a cost to produce that sort of iron.

No doubt better steels can be made with today's technology. The question is why go to the expense and trouble when what they have works fine. I think the performance of a TI made today is just as good as one made 50 years ago. Would you want to pay say twice the price and get no increase in performance?

Good question Hajo.

For the most part that time period was the break point between the end of the cycle of "handmade" steels and the big industrial shops being run more scientifically.

Think of it this way. Sheffield steels were known for their quality worldwide and up the point where they stopped making fine cutlery steel in 100lb crucibles, there was a consistent effort to grade materials and reduce contaminants in the crucible before the smelt occurred. The other part of this problem is that metallurgical sciences were still fairly hit or miss as to which ingredients/alloys had an impact on the steel output. They all knew that Swedish ore was the best in the world (at the time) and that's still true, but simply because the native ore veins are without significant contamination by alloying elements that interfere with making a "clean" steel.

Now, moving past WWII when steel production ramped up considerably and recycling of old steels became routine. You can find all sorts of stuff on a chemistry specification sheet from a modern factory (40 ton ladle) production run that has no impact on the metal's specified intent according to the metallurgists working for the steel mill "it meets specs" for construction or for the customer's intended application. However, those minor alloying elements like old car parts etc, circuit boards and so forth that did not make it past the cleaning process at the recycling yard go into the ladle too.

The modern factory metallurgist accounts for those elements by adding others to the ladle for enhance deoxidation or to enhance the formation of the slags, e.g. draw out those contaminating elements that could alter the steel's specifications. This can be a very complicated ballet at the hot ladle, until the as-calculated-process is complete. One example is aluminium "killed" steel where Al is tossed in to the ladle in a known quantity and will really do a fine job of improving the melt, slag reduction, cleaning, and that specific amount is intended to be entirely burned away by the time they go to pour the ingots leaving none of the aluminium behind. Sometimes engineers do not realize that things don't work as they believe their textbooks tell them.

Flaws/cracks in the refractory coating of the ladle can trap small amounts of this or that and it works its way into the next pour and so on. My best friend purchase 10K pounds of a mill run to his specification, iron carbon etc. They delivered it to him and he went straight to the shop and made ten valuable blades (time/energy) and they all blew up in the heat treatment. He called for the spec sheet from the mill and there were things like Californium and odds and sods in there that no one would read as "clean" steel, but according to the metallurgist at the plant, "it met the intended specs" for iron and carbon and the other alloys that the textbook said would be equivalent to what he ordered. Except, at the practical application point of intended use, the entire heat treatment regimen had to be re-learned because all that crap, in such tiny amounts, changed everything.

Ullmencott has stated the other reason very clearly. It's too big of a cost to give a d*** about doing it right the first time. However, there are a few companies moving into the CPM world where the products are intentionally very clean, and expensive, and there are enough buyers who care to insist.

I've had a good deal of fun learning to make my own steel, as have some others, for purity's sake. It's a hard way to achieve what the steel mills could do if they were interested, but the only way I can control what they don't care about any longer.

Your assertion that it is philosophical is true and the explanation will be heavily weighted by economy of scale. Some of us still ask Why, even as we invest in the hard work of knowing how philosophy feels at the practical application point. d

What I heard about old steel is confirmed in the above post.
Old steel is purer, less impurities mean better quality of the edge, less prone to oxidation, may be even the heat treat process is easier to control and more consistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ullmencott

The quality of the old iron was wide higher than today.

---

This is interesting. I don't know much about metallurgy but ..... years ago I was doing ironwork (steel erection) in the Mesabi iron range of Minnesota. At that time, in the 1970s, taconite pellets were the iron ore being mined. This is a relatively low grade ore that used to be a waste product of the high grade hematite ore that was mined for the first 50 or so years of the iron range until it was depleted. In the '60s/'70s it became cost effective to process the taconite into pellets to be made into steel. Not the quality of the hematite though.

So what I'm getting at is it is quite possible that the raw ore available in the distant past was of a higher quality but was used up. Like I say, I don't know much about this topic, so I may be wrong.

The thread brings to mind the iron foundry 50 years ago in the town where I live. It used to be down town and the melt boss was a geezer. You told him what you wanted the metal for and he went out to the yard and collected ore, car springs, a particular engine block a batch of tin cans and some railroad ion and made a 500 lb melt to spec. It had a cupola furnace and it was fed from the top and air was injected at the bottom. Its design, while a continuous process, allowed spaces between melts on heat days.
The molds were hand rammed so they could do a one off if you wanted a prototype and had a wooden form a bit bigger than the part you wanted.
Those were the days! The foundry has moved out of town and now only works with CNC machined mold and maybe one guy knows how to ram a mold in a flask.
Link to old style foundry practice:
Foundry Manual
PS a lot of metallurgy there too!
~Richard

You are right Jimmy, allow me to add that the taconite plant produces a pre-pellet iron powder that is 98% iron and the clays added to pelletize the ore reduce that to about 96%. The pellets "flow" better when loading the iron boats used to ship the taconite. That extra 2% clay will completely gum up an old style smelter of the like I build. I think the hematite was a little easier to extract and had less contaminants that had to be removed. The native ore is about 60%, one of the best in Nort America. MN also has the deepest shaft mine, at Tower MN, the Soudan Mine, I think maybe the only shaft mine ever made to dig up iron. You can weld right to the rock walls of the mine. All the others have been strip mines.

A lot of old metallurgy is being lost.

I use/prefer their iron for smelting because it is so very very clean. There are some suggestions that the MN iron and the like along the whole coast of the Great Inland Lakes is of similar strain to that found in Sweden. It may have also contributed to so many Scandihoovians moving away from the mother country to one quite near like it, with similar successful industries. :)

Thanks for the info guys. Definitely going to keep all this in mind when I start shopping around for blanks to try my hand at razor making. There is something about the "feel" of the steel from years past when shaving or honing to me. It's almost like they felt "denser/sturdier" for some reason; could be my imagination, but between the two new dovos I had (I sold both for more vintage stuff :p) and my pre 60's blades, there just seemed to be a different feel to the steel, the Dovos just felt lighter and more fragile, and just didn't hold the same edge like my others. This could explain some things.

The makeup and concentration of the ore has little to do with the final result. Taconite is around 30% iron, hematite around 60 and magnetite around 80+. However after processing it's the same stuff. It may take more processing to extract the metal from Taconite as opposed to any other ores but unless the refiner does a less than stellar job well, it's iron. Of course if the refiner takes shortcuts then the contaminants in the pellets will be high and eventually someone will have to deal with that.

Honestly, I think if there actually is a loss of Quality, the only reason is the market. Since straight razors became obsolete, it´s not really economical, to produce the steel that is fitted exactly for straight razors, so, as a SR-maker, you have to take the best you can get at a decent price. Back in the days, tungsten was often used in fine-grained steels. Vanadium has similar qualities, but vanadium steels don´t get so fine-grained. Anyway, vanadium is a lot cheaper than tungsten, so…

tok

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiddle

there just seemed to be a different feel to the steel, the Dovos just felt lighter and more fragile, and just didn't hold the same edge like my others. This could explain some things.

---

Reminds me of the old Case XX pocket knives versus the newer production. Take a 'TestedXX' (1920-1940) and it has a more elegant grind than the later knives. Thinner and more shapely. Even more than the 'Case XX' (1940-1965) which ain't half bad and the XX are more so than the XX USA ('65-70) and the later dot models. By the 1980s they look almost crude in comparison, though they are good knives. Same with old Martin and Gibson guitars, S&W and Colt handguns, Winchester, and other, rifles.

Pre-WWII the wages were so low that the companies could afford to allow more workmanship. At least I've read that as accounting for part of the difference. As wages went up productivity had to keep pace or the companies would have went belly up .... as many did. So something had to be sacrificed and it seems to have been the visual quality. Another thing with those older items, the guys that were doing it had probably served lengthy apprenticeships and been at it a long while. When they retired the crew that replaced them didn't have the same level of expertise. ..... Maybe ...... :shrug:

Totally irrelevant, but I have a gouge from my great uncle, who had a wagon factory in the late 1800s. It's easily the best gouge I have--I sharpen it, it's the sharpest one I have, and it's sharp forever. I always wondered why, and the idea that they were working with pure iron, not a composite of scrap, is an appealing one.

The story of the guy going out to the yard to pick a tin can here, an engine block there--the obvious take-away from that is that the first time someone does that, they're getting pure stuff. The person who's doing it 50 years later is getting everyone else's composite mess, the derivative of the same process, generations later.

Suddenly a Tim Zowada blade (or, alternately, something 150 years old) is seeming like a really good idea, isn't it?

Hello All,

Thanks a lot for you comments and detailed explanations - it was great fun to read!
That the reason is the "curse" of recycling and is always "potentiating" sounds very plausible.
(do not understand me wrong - in principle recycling is the right way-IMHO... maybe not for Str8-steel :D
I also understand now the guy who is looking for old train axes to hammer out his knifes ( I saw this on TV). It is also interesting that "hardening process" must be learned/adapted again... - but it is like everything in modern times - compromise of money- or at least "money" is tipping the scale. If our community is getting bigger and bigger... we may become interesting for the steel mills...:p
Best Regards
Hajo

Scientific methods aren't necessarily superior to traditional craftmanship. Iron ore from different origins have different "contaminants", viz trace elements.

I have been told that modern iron is made using both iron ore and scrap iron and scrap metal, where they used pure iron ore in the past.

A chemist’s job is to locate or design an original formula that performs within specifications. Then modify that formula with less costly raw materials to increase profit margins and still remain in spec.

Steel quality changes with varying standards and techniques, over time. Some is better, some is worse, as Mike said above. It also can vary considerably from batch to batch, from the same manufacturer.

While the quality of the steel is very important, the skill and integrity of the craftsman making the product is more important. Compare the products from those at the top of their craft to those who just don't care. You will see huge discrepencies in quality, form and function, even when the exact same materials are used. You will see this in any industry, trade, or craft.

Curious,Is it possible, on a small scale to buy pure known ingrediants and make your own steel?

I would just like to expand on what Tim Zowada posted. I do agree with what he said about the craftsman fashioning the end product. I would just like to add that this applies to how the raw materials are produced too.

Modern scientific automated mass production does not lend itself to craftsmanship in the production of the raw materials need by the end user craftsman. There are not many workers left in highly automated factories that could produce a product if the automation went off line. They have lost the "craft" of producing the product. They have lost the experience and incentive as well as the need and possibility to produce a superior product which exceeds the bare minimum specs called for.

Bob

Well, my opinion isn't worth much at all here, since I'm completely new to straight razors. However, I've often been engaged in a similar discussion regarding woodworking tools, where similar observations about steel quality hold true.

I've been told that the main issue is quality control. Metallurgy was much more hit and miss over a century ago. However, they would discard the misses. I've also heard about the purity of the raw materials being higher, but that that does not mean that equally high quality steel cannot be produced today - it simply requires more work to remove contaminants from lower purity sources. Few foundries have any reason to do that work.

High carbon oil-quenched steels of fantastic quality are still produced today, but only in small amounts by certain high-end manufacturers who have any incentive to do the work.

Strangely enough, I'd say that the finest O1 steel tools I own are Titan chisels manufactured in Tasmania in the mid seventies. They are better than any Sheffield or Swedish steel I have ever tried (except may the Swedish EA Berg, who might even have made razors too - not sure - softer but with a finer edge).

EDIT : I've just discovered that EA Berg made straight razors. Ooooh man I want one now. Maybe three razors (two straights and a SE) isn't enough? Can this be the first stage of the dreaded RAD?

I also come from a woodworking background and have worked with sharp blades for 40+years. Hammer forged blades are stronger and hold and maintain an edge better. I can not say if any razor manufacturers hammer forge these days. The hammer process aliens the grain structure to the actual shape of the edge. Grinding from a blank of steel does not.
Forging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notshaveready

I also come from a woodworking background and have worked with sharp blades for 40+years. Hammer forged blades are stronger and hold and maintain an edge better. I can not say if any razor manufacturers hammer forge these days. The hammer process aliens the grain structure to the actual shape of the edge. Grinding from a blank of steel does not.
Forging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

I'll be interested to see what metallurgist experts say about this very old controversy. I was talking to a custom bladesmith about this very thing .... hammer forging versus stock removal ..... and he said it is not that important. He hammer forges some and not others depending on certain variables. He said the heat treat is the more important issue. I personally prefer the hammer forged blade for the romance of it.

There have been videos posted of Dovo's workman using power hammers to forge straight razors .... maybe Theirs-Issard as well IIRC. Also a wonderful vid of a British man who worked for one, or more, of the large Sheffield mfgs, hammer forging pocket knife blades in a small cottage.

I've had custom blades that were made with stock removal (razors) and some that were hammer forged. I could not detect a difference in the end result. YMMV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdwardRoland

EDIT : I've just discovered that EA Berg made straight razors. Ooooh man I want one now. Maybe three razors (two straights and a SE) isn't enough? Can this be the first stage of the dreaded RAD?

---

Many an E.A. Berg is on offer here: rakkniv - Tradera.com Most vendors will answer questions in English, quality of stuff on Tradera is on average better than on ebay.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

Curious,Is it possible, on a small scale to buy pure known ingrediants and make your own steel?

---

You can melt and alloy steel with charcoal, a couple of flowerpots and a hairdryer. I think a problem may be that some additives may require controlled atmosphere and that's going to be hard to do in a backyard setup.

I am no metallurgy expert, but I will add my 2¢. I was watching this show where they were trying to improve old weapons, with new technology. They had an episode on katana making. They forge one with the traditional and ritual Japanese way with iron from a volcanic vein (lots of impurities). The modern katana was made by hammering a steel-vanadium rod. Turns out that for the intended purpose the traditional katana was better even when the iron was off lower quality. Having said that I think the reason for older razors are better off at least perceived to be better, is because manufacturing was better and it paid to invest the man hours to make a better products. I think that modern technology could yield a better steel. The question is, would it be commercially viable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rocarule

Having said that I think the reason for older razors are better off at least perceived to be better,

---

Having had a slue, like a couple of hundred razors, come and some go, I think some older razors are better than some new razors but, IME some new razors are as good as any old ones and some may even be better. Just my impression from honing a bunch of them and shaving with them. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

... about this very old controversy.

---

The time the steel mill has forged and rolled the 40 ton slab of steel down to the starting piece (4 inch by 24 inch by 20 feet) or rolled it down to 1/4 inch the typical starting point for a knife or razor, the amount of hand forging that arranges or rearranges any grain structure in that small a piece is insignificant for any claims of improved strength. This does not mean that if properly examined that the grain structure cannot be seen to flow around the corners so to speak where the maker manipulated the material, but the grain structure of steel does not function the same way that the grain structure in wood does.

I agree that the heat treatment is much more critical. I also agree with Jimmy that subjectively, at that fine an edge, it is doubtful that a human being could feel such a difference.

Eod7: your example is grossly oversimplified and on a practical basis of the thermal mass needed to make steel at that scale will be exceptionally inefficient. If you are referencing examples of using thermite to reduce iron in a couple of garden pots, well, the show is spectacular and makes more of a mess than a bloom.

Rocarule: I know all the American smiths who have participated in the history shows, and some of the Japanese as well. For the most part the producers have so muddled the information and the hype it is difficult to extract anything but sizzle when you have been looking for steak. I have said this before: I would fear a master swordsman (any school) armed with the most destitute rusty dull lawnmower blade (or a wooden stick for a really good one) more than a novice armed with the finest sword (metallurgical or otherwise) on the planet. Cutting is always about technique, the edge contributes an infinitesimal amount. as I said, the producers do not illuminate much of critical import.

If you shave better with old or new steel because you are more confident.... does the steel or the blade matter?

Seriously guys, I also like the "magic" behind the old ways, but, there are no conspiracies behind steel making. If nothing else, there is a huge competition.
The small differences in steel quality do completely change steel's characteristics. It's not about "it feels better" and "I prefer it". If there was anything wrong with steels impurities concentration, we wouldn't be talking about what it feels better now, but what looks, and if it can-can't perform like a metal now.
In 21st century, regardless of how old is the sharp instrument you use, percentage or carbon and heat treatment is 99.9% of what makes you like or dislike what you use.
And, I know about dendritic carbides and carbon nanotubes that can be present in vintage steels, but the rule is, if the blacksmith makes them in small scale, the newer and more expensive, the better.

Hello,

I had some discussion with Mr. Wacker about my new "best tradition" regarding this topics here. In Principle statements are the same as already said in this thread. Purity of regular steel is affected by "recycling". Producing same "pure" steel as in the past is possible but (very) expensive and you have to order too huge quantity as it can be used up by a small(er) company. Most importance therefore has to adapt/develop hardening and temper process to the "new" (less pure) steel.

Best Regads
Hajo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hajo

... Purity of regular steel is affected by "recycling". Producing same "pure" steel as in the past is possible but (very) expensive and you have to order too huge quantity as it can be used up by a small(er) company. Most importance therefore has to adapt/develop hardening and temper process to the "new" (less pure) steel.

---

A succinct summary of the problem, and good information from someone who knows the business.

The "new steel" is not of any less quality in terms of the chemical specifications. For structural work, it only has to hold up buildings or bridges. The minor chemistry will hardly affect a multi-tonne structure. For regular cutlery/razor/knife work, it might not matter if the whole blade is hardened as the new recipe for hardening will compensate for the non-specific chemistry. It may be of consequence when differential hardening or changes in the grain structure, like dendrites, are desired in the finished piece. Either way, the decision comes down to what the maker intends in the final product or how they were taught, and how the end user perceives the those choices as reflected in their perception of value.

It's an interesting process with a wide spectrum of variables. Not that the wunderstahls aren't interesting, but I'm still trying to learn to dance with very simple carbon steel.

correct me if I'm wrong, but does not Mr Zowada make his steels from scratch on occasion?

As have I, for a decade or so.

Here is my take on this subject ! Most blade smiths (people who forge blades) pay quite a lot of attention to grain refinement in the steels they use , mainly because in the forging process there is quite a bit of grain growth . On that same token , most people who do stock removal (grinding away steel to create the shape of the blade) just assume that the steel they buy is already in a state of fine grain ! This is not always the case !!! But taking this as a rule , the bladesmiths will generally end up with a finer grain steel and the finer the grain in the steel , the better the blade will perform (that is an absolute fact) . That all said , there are guys out there that will go the extra mile to ensure they get the best result possible no matter what process they follow . I personally to mostly stock removal as most of my razors are stainless (RWL34) and i have spent a lot of money and a lot of time to refine my heat treatment process to get the best results i possibly can . This includes a full soft anneal and spheridize (where needed) and a sub zero quench (taking the steel down to minus 80°c after the initial quench ! With the older technology steels like the 10xx series and W series steels , this is of critical importance , where as with some of the modern steels you do not need to pay anywhere near as much attention with it . Some of the more modern steels are superior to the older steels in just about every way , but this does not mean that the knives made from them are better than the old steels , it just means that they will perform better if they are treated correctly !
As for forged blades being better than stock removed blades , i do think that is a myth , provided they have both had the same attention payed on them ! This may be a whole big can of worms , but having spent many hundreds of hours going through the motions and doing tests and reading what other have done and having done a degree in metallurgy, i honestly believe this to be the case !

Correct RazorJack. If you start with good steel and treat it correctly, it will produce a good tool regardless of forged or stock removal. Also, if you start with good steel and treat it poorly, you will end up with a poor performing tool. I'd rather have a knife or razor that was made from 1050 and heat treated correctly, than a knife or razor made from the latest and greatest steel that was improperly heat treated.

As I've said in the past, I forge because the steel that I like to use is in the wrong shape and stock removal isn't an option. I'm also a big believer in the correct steel for the tool. My favorite hunting knife steel would make a pretty terrible razor.