Thread: Kamisori addiction

I think we're getting the blue steel kanetaka and the iwasaki mixed up. At least some of iwasaki's steels have swedish steel and some have White II.

White #1 and White #2 are very close to what tamahagane would be if it was perfect, except their carbon content and quality is a lot more consistent and they are a lot easier to produce. The best tamahagane should still be better for keeness if it is in the same hardness level and carbon content, though.

I think the influx of swedish and english steels in the early 1900s was pretty instructive, but it may have been more of a cost issue than anything else. In the tool world, some of the english steels bring the next highest price to tools that have genuine tamahagane for their cutting edges, but So mentioned in several places (I don't know if on his website, but I think on Harrelson Stanley's) that tamahagane was overrated in woodworking tools. Razors get less adhesive and abrasive wear, though, so the comparison might be different.

I still haven't seen anything definitive about tamahagane - how it holds up in durability or how absolutely sharp it gets compared to white #1 and #2, or assab K steels, I'm wondering if you didn't tell people what was in a razor if they could tell the difference. In woodworking tools, there were gobs of tools labeled Tamahagane that just had mass produced carbon steel in them. I don't think iwasaki would do that, but he may be forge purifying steels to take things out of them and make them more like tamahagane.

The finest steels made in the US and england in the crucible steel process were probably as good or better than tamahagane, and the legendary status of the japanese swords is attributable more to the construction methods than the steel, at least in relative terms to western swords.

I'm as guilty as anyone for spending money, though, but I do wonder if I could tell the differnence between the stuff I spent a lot on vs. the mass-produced vintage US steel or the yasugi steels.

Originally Posted by DaveW

I think we're getting the blue steel kanetaka and the iwasaki mixed up. At least some of iwasaki's steels have swedish steel and some have White II.

White #1 and White #2 are very close to what tamahagane would be if it was perfect, except their carbon content and quality is a lot more consistent and they are a lot easier to produce. The best tamahagane should still be better for keeness if it is in the same hardness level and carbon content, though.

Iwasaki uses Swedish carbon steel that then he modifies somehow. He does not use White steel, white steel is not at all close to tamahagane in performance, speaking from personal experience. White steel will never take HRC 65-67, tamahagane does with no issues. According to Iwasaki Whit e steel is not high enough quality for them to use.

Originally Posted by DaveW

I still haven't seen anything definitive about tamahagane - how it holds up in durability or how absolutely sharp it gets compared to white #1 and #2, or assab K steels, I'm wondering if you didn't tell people what was in a razor if they could tell the difference. In woodworking tools, there were gobs of tools labeled Tamahagane that just had mass produced carbon steel in them. I don't think iwasaki would do that, but he may be forge purifying steels to take things out of them and make them more like tamahagane.

I have both Swedish and Tamahagane Iwasaki western straights and I can tell you there is difference.
The tamahagane is full hollow it is in the HRC 65 range, I can flex the edge with a nail but there is absolutely no chipping when honed. It is very wear resistant compared to standard solingen or sheffield steel. The Swedisn steel Iwasakis I have are in the HRC 62 range hollow as well and also pretty tough to hone but easier than the tamahagane one. I have honed a lot of white steel kamisori and they hone easy compared.

White steel is regularly in the RC #65/#66 in top line chisels. Many of the makers claim that their white #1 chisels are 65/66, and their white II chisels are 64/65.

I'd suspect if the tamahagane retained its edge well, it would be chip resistance and not wear resistance if there was relative superiority to yasugi white #1. Abrasive and adhesive wear are avoided by three things - hardness, carbon content and carbides. The advantage of true tamahagane should be chip resistance due to small grain structure and sharpenability at high hardness due to absence of carbides. It is what makes good white #1 so good in bench chisels, but no better than common blue steel in bench chisels. (white steel isn't uncommon, but well done white #1 isn't that common).

If iwasaki's swedish steel kamisori are 62 hardness, it is likely because they do not have the carbon content to bring them to the hardness that white #1 chisels are brought to, but they could make a white #1 razor that would be the equal of tamahagane. The problem with doing that is white #1, like tamahagane, is difficult to work with. Not surprisingly, because white #1 is little different from the highest carbon content tamahagane.

Swedish steel that is below 1.2% carbon content would be easier to work with and promote the idea the tamahagane was far better than any mass produced steel, but it is more likely just a bad comparison because the smiths don't want to work with white #1 or forge purified white #1 that plane makers and chisel makers are willing to work with. I don't blame them for that, it would make a razor that was harder to sharpen than swedish, which is the easiest sharpening japanese steel that I have come across. but that ease in sharpening is probably due to the hardness and not properties of the underlying steel.

The absolute hardest item I have ever dealt with is a white #1 plane made by kikuo kanda, it is so hard that even though it's white steel with a watestu backing, it's fairly difficult to sharpen. And the lamination isn't overly thick, it is just charcoal forged, very high carbon and incredibly hard. It would make a superb razor. If I had to guess at hardness, it is probably 66/67, it has to be on the border of being fragile due to the hardness.

Originally Posted by mainaman

I have honed a lot of white steel kamisori and they hone easy compared.

Presume they are white #2 kamisori, where the maker has chosen to leave them fairly soft (60-62 hardness)? I have white II chisels that are claimed at 65, and I have white II chisels that a friend and I put on a hardness tester and found to be 61. There is a huge gap in their performance and ease in sharpness just due to the difference in hardness. Esepcially on natural stones.

Just to clarify here, we are only talking about the Kanetakas. When I purchased the Iwasaki, I also ordered an Iwasaki choice stone to go with it and only honed it on that stone. The results were wonderful and the Iwasaki took an edge with no problem.

Right, back to the blue steel, I think the best method is still to clean it up with a synthetic stone and then give it a whack with the natural stone to remove the harsness from the deep grooves the synthetic stone will leave.

Originally Posted by DaveW

I think we're getting the blue steel kanetaka and the iwasaki mixed up. At least some of iwasaki's steels have swedish steel and some have White II.

White #1 and White #2 are very close to what tamahagane would be if it was perfect, except their carbon content and quality is a lot more consistent and they are a lot easier to produce. The best tamahagane should still be better for keeness if it is in the same hardness level and carbon content, though.

I think the influx of swedish and english steels in the early 1900s was pretty instructive, but it may have been more of a cost issue than anything else. In the tool world, some of the english steels bring the next highest price to tools that have genuine tamahagane for their cutting edges, but So mentioned in several places (I don't know if on his website, but I think on Harrelson Stanley's) that tamahagane was overrated in woodworking tools. Razors get less adhesive and abrasive wear, though, so the comparison might be different.

I still haven't seen anything definitive about tamahagane - how it holds up in durability or how absolutely sharp it gets compared to white #1 and #2, or assab K steels, I'm wondering if you didn't tell people what was in a razor if they could tell the difference. In woodworking tools, there were gobs of tools labeled Tamahagane that just had mass produced carbon steel in them. I don't think iwasaki would do that, but he may be forge purifying steels to take things out of them and make them more like tamahagane.

The finest steels made in the US and england in the crucible steel process were probably as good or better than tamahagane, and the legendary status of the japanese swords is attributable more to the construction methods than the steel, at least in relative terms to western swords.

I'm as guilty as anyone for spending money, though, but I do wonder if I could tell the differnence between the stuff I spent a lot on vs. the mass-produced vintage US steel or the yasugi steels.

I think i read somewhere that modern steels outperform Tamahagane in many respects. With my kitchen knives, its no longer the case that carbon steel is better or harder than stainless, nor are forged knives always better than stamped knives. Technology has closed the gap making mass produced quality much more attainable.

As for the Tamahagane, I believe for its time, it was the best steel and still rivals many quality steels today. Tamahagane is still special from a cultural and historical aspect and is still very valuable. Much the way high-end mercedes are still highly sought after when an Acura could be more reliable with many of the same luxury features.

Another difference is that Tamahagane is only used by the top makers and as such there is a discrepancy between the workmanship of a white steel razor and a Tamahagane (not all makers can get Tamahagane in Japan). So with the forging technique and tempering skill all combined we end up with a better razor.

This is just my opinion and belief though. On a side note, I have a Tamahagane razor coming in soon and I'll be able to better compare it against white, blue, and swedish steel razors.

In applications where wear resistance is the issue (like in planing wood), tamahagane is left behind. For that matter, so is white #1. They are considered finishing planes, because they have a small grain structure and leave a nice surface. But super blue steel and the like, and now powder HSS will plane many more feet of wood before dulling because of the wear resistance provided by the carbides. They are probably easier to heat to high hardness than white #1, too, especially in a commercial environment in large quantities.

I would like to see someone making a white #1 kamisori that wasn't too expensive - and up to proper hardness, but that is probably a lot to ask. Even in the woodworking world, most places producing a lot of something don't like to work with white #1, at least not without charging a lot to do it. There are a lot of better quality makers that will run the hardness of white II up pretty high in tools intended to impact something.

I wonder if anyone has ever done a study of what makes a razor wear, if it is adhesive/abrasive wear or if it is tiny chipping (which is what generally does in chisels).

I see a lot of descriptions of tamahagane with suspect #s of shaves listed behind them. Kzeroukai competitions let the water out of the bathtub in terms of planing (the adhesive wear is something that purified steel cannot resist), but razors may not wear the same way as either, and maybe not even as an in-between kind of thing.

Nevertheless, if the swedish version is 62 and you do get a version of any type of steel that is properly hardened to 66/67, you'll likely be very pleased with it.

Originally Posted by DaveW

I'd suspect if the tamahagane retained its edge well, it would be chip resistance and not wear resistance

from what I have seen it is both, no chipping and kind of a pain to sharpen. I have also seen some other Japanese razors that are made from Hitachi Tamahagane that are also really hard and take some effort to hone, but I have not honed enough of each kind to speak for differences.