Here are notes to add context to the CK response.ferider wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:58 amJust for the records here on the Spyderco forum, it’s instructive to see how CollectorKnives followed up on LTK’s reporting low HRC Lionsteel knives with a 3rd party verification witnessed by the tester quoted by LTK, how this tester took down his Instagram account, and how LTK has yet to respond:Pelagic wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:39 amThat pretty much sums it up. LTK and the people in his group are doing a huge service to the community.
No one is claiming HRC is everything. Like LTK said, you CAN have bad cut tests results with high hardness. But acting like HRC is irrelevant is beyond disingenuous. While Buck pretty much nails their HT on 420HC, there's no excuse for it outperforming ANY M390 in any blade.
Production M390 - Expectation vs Reality?So for S90V Crucible’s HRC recommendation matters (for improved toughness), but for CPM-20CV it doesn’t ?
1. Tester arranged third party verification with the lead at Peters blade division.
2. They discussed methodology and equipment, and confirmed that each were as they should be.
3. They tested the Dom, which didn’t match prior hits. They retested it to confirm.
4. Per the CK writing, they also tested a previously untested Lionsteel sample. Result was as described.
5. They tested multiple other previously tested, non-Lionsteel samples, and confirmed matching results on each.
6. In light of one anomalous sample, multiple confirmed results, and having level set on methodology, equipment, maintenance standards, calibration, etc, they were unable to collectively determine why the Dom hits were off, and concluded that further exploration of the sample was in order.
7. Our guy and the gent from Peters parted as friends, and may get together on verification again in the future.
The deletion of social media accounts is for work discretion reasons, not integrity issues.
LTK has a response coming.
The doc is updated with Peters hits on the two Lionsteel samples they hit.