The Deacon wrote:If the SWICK was stone washed, then I'm definitely for satin, since I thought it looked terrible. Reminded me of the old galvanized garbage pails from back when I was a kid.
I agree with The Deacon, it reminds me of a galvanized calf bucket. Havn't handled a Swick yet, but I'd avoid stonewash with my budget...If I'm going to spend the cash (which I will), it'll be on satin.
griff76 wrote:I agree with The Deacon, it reminds me of a galvanized calf bucket. Havn't handled a Swick yet, but I'd avoid stonewash with my budget...If I'm going to spend the cash (which I will), it'll be on satin.
I felt the same way until I actually received my first Swick. I wouldn't all of the blade to be SW, but some more please.
I, personally, prefer the "satin" over the "stonewashed"(not to mention the name takes me back to the very questionable fashion choices I made in the 80's). I really prefer the "blued" finish on some knives(my pistols as well)b/c there are sometimes you don't want something "flashy" catching somebody's eye...
For those with galvanized feeling :) - do you base your opinions on Swick solely? I don't want to offend anyone (namely Sal and Spyderco crew) but maybe stonewash as present on Swick isn't done exactly how it should be.
Picture can be confusing but based on post #17 pics Swick isn't reflective at all - this is somewhat DIFFERENT type of finish
I'm repeating myself but check this.
jaislandboy wrote:like Huugh mentioned, from a stealth point of view, either stonewashed/beadblasted finishes reflect less light than satin.... :rolleyes:
That wasn't what I tried to say. I mentioned that there is not a unity in what actually IS stonewash finish, or more likely that it doesn't need to look like unfinished (or galvanized) steel.
Actually stonewashed finish (in form I'd prefer) is/can be more reflective than say (satin? (looks almost like etched (like carbon steel exposed to acid :confused: ))) finish present on BM Gravitator (and as you can see, more reflective than CF BG-42 Military as well):
huugh wrote:For those with galvanized feeling :) - do you base your opinions on Swick solely?
Can only speak for myself, but no, not solely on the Swick, only 50%. I have also seen a stonewashed Sebenza and found its finish equally unattractive.
I performed little search concerning stonewash and found this term rather inconsistent.
E.g. benchmade states stonewashed and "tumbled" as separate types of satin finish.
Camillus describes EDC's type of finish as "satin" although it's obviously not typical satin finish one would expect.
Also it gets sometimes mistaken with beadblasted or sanded finish.
I'm not good photographer, however I tried to picture EDC's blade to show that it had to have been finished to relatively high degree BEFORE it was stonewashed (ref: "akin to primer on an auto"), it also has (not very clearly visible, only under specific angle and tilt) vertical grind lines similar to (not so high grit) satin:
(I had to use flash so please excuse crappy pics): grind lines 1, grind lines2 it is quite reflective - that isn't something one would achieve by stonewashing raw steel, is it?
"Cheap looking" is often a matter of knowledge and experience.
What "looks good" to one with much knowledge of what is hard to do or simple to do, will be different from those that have less understanding.
Of course what "looks good" is not an objective discussion.
Swimming across the English Channel is more difficult to achieve than swimming across the pool. that's why the more difficult task is considered a "higher" achievement.
The following is something that I wrote quite a while ago.
"Like most people in the knife industry I have learned my lessons from
masters before me and I have always respected their knowledge and opinion.
I have been in the industry a long time and I have known more than a few
such masters.
The question of quality is one that I would like to explore. I've done this
in the past but I'm still confused.
About 20 years ago at the Guild Show I was speaking with Mr. Kuzan Oda,
probably one of the finest grinders I've ever met and he said "people don't
pay attention to quality anymore. “Look at grind lines for example”, he said. “If
you're going to make a hollow ground knife and you are going to have a grind
line then it needs to be crisp, it needs to be sharp." He took one of the
knives off his table and he said "See this grind line, it is crisp and
sharp," and he actually scraped his fingernail with the grind line! All I
could say was "Whoa!" There's no substitute for performance and this was an
example of quality grinding that I had not seen before.
I was at the hammer in in Duboise, Wyoming in the early '80s and Mr. Bill
Moran was talking about the quality and the performance of the forged blade.
I was leaning about martensite, hard and soft, differential heat treating and convex grinds. I watched Mr. Bill Moran take a knife that looked like an old cheap wooden handled kitchen knife and he went through a series of cutting tasks that I'd never seen before and I'll never forget. Again it was something
that was hard to do that was done well. Quality in the performance of cutting.
When Mr. Frank Centofante was the quality consultant for Spyderco he would
say "the quality is in the detail, Sal". “The fit and finish is where parts
come together”. He would hold up two knives and he would show them to our
people and he would say, "Can you see the difference?" “If you can't see the
difference, then you can't perform the craft”. “First you have to learn to
see quality before you can do quality”. I learned a great deal from Frank, a
good man, leader and great knifemaker.
Quality is or should be (?) something that’s hard to do and you have to extend effort to learn to do it well, shouldn’t it?. Doing it well would be an indication of quality?
And now, I look at a knife that has tumbled parts, stacked and stepped
construction, nothing really fits together, everything has been stepped.
Corners on locks are rounded off from tumbling. Cheap to do and requires little skill.
As a manufacturer and knife designer, my first thought is "pretty cheap to make".
Then I hear people talk about the knife and they say “this is a quality knife”, and a little bell in my head goes “ding” ... can you have cheap and quality in the same product? By cheap I mean cheap to manufacture, not cheap in dollar value. It is easy to do and requires no skill. Has the arts and crafts part been eliminated? Is the definition of quality changing? I look at one of our models like the Manix, Kopa or the Caly 3 where a great deal of effort is made to polish the spines so they fit together. The locks and blades have no rounded corners on the locks where they fit. This type of fit and finish takes a great deal of skill and effort.
Quite confusing".
It is just my opinion, so don't flame me, but I believe that quality comes from skill and effort. The greater the skill, the better the quality.
Sal, I respect you and your knowledge as well as your products. Please don't take this as I don't respect your standpoint.
I see you don't consider stonewash something that would require a skill to do. Something not worth a Spyderco?
Once you have quoted Mr. Chapman's motto: "Simplify, then add lightness". And that Spyderco makes a knife for work, not for show.
You are interested in sports cars so let me use it as an example - does it lower the quality of a sports car if it has simple, cheap and easy to do door handle or flashy door wing mirror button for door opening (like e.g. TVR)?
I don't think so. And I don't think :spyder: wouldn't be able to show the knife is of extraordinary quality even if it utilized "the cheapest finish possible" :)
(although as I tried to show, if you polish the blade and after that you stonewash it a little - it gains best from both worlds - attractive and not showing scratches;
making this still seems to me to be more expensive (as one could stop with polished blade only) but I'm not experienced in this field so I'll stick to your opinion)
I hope I didn't waste too much of your time with my posts. Keep up good work.
While I always admire Chapman's philosophy for performance, I must admit prefer Toyota for reliability. My Lotus only has to win the race, my Totota must get me to work day after day. :)
I guess my dislike of the appearance of the "stonewahsed" finish is influenced by my mfg knowledge. Probably my loss :confused:
I'm not opposed to tumbling as long as the blade is full flat grind, no grindlines. It's very difficult to achieve sharp grindlines and tumbling just softens them. Frank Centofante tumbled a Military blade for me. I've had the blade on my desk for 10 years. Frank doesn't remember how he did it and 3 companies have tried, but could not duplicate the finish.
I think I'l like to tumble some VG-10, but I'd like to do a very fine, but still matt finish to try to show the grain of the VG-10.
"Maidenhair" is considered the hardest to do, highest quality finish, because it is so difficult to do and requires great grinding skill.
If I do the steel mules, they'd more than likely be coarse tumble or "stonewashed".
