Spyderco Forums

as it was used in the older Spydies vs. the newer ones?

I (and maybe I only) find the older VG-10 blades far easier to get a ...really... sharp edge on.
Any difference at all in hardness?

This is same user
same sharpening system (Sharpmaker)
same technique

My gen3 Endura and 2 Delicas get hair popping sharp in no time at all.
The 4's seem more temperamental and don't respond to the 40 degree microbevel.
I sharpen the newer ones solely on the 30 degree stones to get them really sharp.

Weird question I know. But it's how it ...seems... to me.

:confused:

That sounds more like an edge angle issue.

But how would edge angle differ just between different versions?

The early ones seem to "take" the microbevel and it actually ...improves... the edge just as stated in the Sharpmaker video.

a mystery

No Pyrite, I have the same impression: I have a lot of old Spydercos from Japan, and I have the same feeling: different hardness, better on old models...
Weird question I know. But it's how it ...seems... to me too
I will try to do some testing with a durometer at work...

This is a simple case of work hardening. While you're at work, they're getting hard.

Perhaps your newer knives still have weakened still from the factory sharpening and the older ones do not? I don't know how much use your newer knives have.

Pyrite wrote:But how would edge angle differ just between different versions?

Easily...they're ground by hand and not by a machine, and are subject to a certain degree of variance. You can find examples of the same version/generation with slightly different grind angles or uneven grinds. A few of my knives have a slightly steeper grind on one side (My CruWear Manix comes to mind)...it doesn't bother me because it's a user and with sharpening will straighten out over time and it doesn't affect the performance (And if it was a safe queen it wouldn't be discovered in the first place). They also changed the blade shape slightly between the 3rd and 4th gen Delica and Endura, and they may have changed the heat treat very slightly as part of their CQI (Constant Quality Improvement). There are also quite a lot of other more minor factors that could be at play too.

I could buy "certain degree of variance" if it weren't so universal with the different generations.

I have 4 "old" ones and 5 "new" ones and it is the same story for all of them.
I have a new Delica FFG that I reprofiled to chisel grind and that one sharpens easily and to the same "scary" sharp as the older ones with the V-grind.
I also have a stainless Delica 4 that just would not ...hold.... an edge so I sent it to Kelley's for conversion to serrated.

I just think the older ones may be higher HRC even if minor.

This reminds of the guy that pitched a hissy fit and demanded that Sal CATRA his Tuff because it wouldn't hold an edge to his satisfaction.
After much excitement and a great deal of speculation Sal returned a verdict that the edge angle on that knife was much higher than typical.
The moral of that story is that you many think that there is a problem with the steel, but sometimes it is something completely different that makes the difference that you are observing. If you really want to know the knife hardness it can be measured.

Fancier wrote:This reminds of the guy that pitched a hissy fit and demanded that Sal CATRA his Tuff because it wouldn't hold an edge to his satisfaction.
After much excitement and a great deal of speculation Sal returned a verdict that the edge angle on that knife was much higher than typical.
The moral of that story is that you many think that there is a problem with the steel, but sometimes it is something completely different that makes the difference that you are observing. If you really want to know the knife hardness it can be measured.

Seems to me an unfair comparison. The OP isn't acting anything like the guy with the Tuff issues. He is merely seeing a consistent difference between his current gen VG-10 and older gen VG-10. Nothing wrong with asking questions.

Pyrite wrote:I could buy "certain degree of variance" if it weren't so universal with the different generations.

I have 4 "old" ones and 5 "new" ones and it is the same story for all of them.
I have a new Delica FFG that I reprofiled to chisel grind and that one sharpens easily and to the same "scary" sharp as the older ones with the V-grind.
I also have a stainless Delica 4 that just would not ...hold.... an edge so I sent it to Kelley's for conversion to serrated.

I just think the older ones may be higher HRC even if minor.

So are you saying that once you reprofiled the "new" VG-10 it sharpens just as easily as the "old" VG-10? That tells me that it all comes back to edge geometry and not steel hardening differences, otherwise the "new" VG-10 wouldn't act like the "old" VG-10 just from a reprofile.

jabba359 wrote:

Fancier wrote:This reminds of the guy that pitched a hissy fit and demanded that Sal CATRA his Tuff because it wouldn't hold an edge to his satisfaction.
After much excitement and a great deal of speculation Sal returned a verdict that the edge angle on that knife was much higher than typical.
The moral of that story is that you many think that there is a problem with the steel, but sometimes it is something completely different that makes the difference that you are observing. If you really want to know the knife hardness it can be measured.

Seems to me an unfair comparison. The OP isn't acting anything like the guy with the Tuff issues. He is merely seeing a consistent difference between his current gen VG-10 and older gen VG-10. Nothing wrong with asking questions.

True.
What reminds me of that other thread is that the other guy was completely convinced that there was a difference in the steel in his old Tuff compared to his new Tuff.
Sound familiar?

Pyrite wrote:as it was used in the older Spydies vs. the newer ones?

The foundry could have made a subtle change in the composition but I don't know how we'd find out.
For example I've heard rumors that S30V has been slightly modified since it was originally introduced, but I don't if that is true.
In any manufactured product there are tolerances in the specifications and as long as they run within that range they can call it the same material.

Is this what the Spyderco forum has degraded to that new members are mischaracterized and subjected to ad hominem attacks simply because they actually criticize a product.

Here is the reality of the situation : http://www.spyderco.com/forumII/viewtopic.php?t=64818" target="_blank

-the customer had a number of Spyderco knives, including more than one Tuff.
-he could not get one Tuff to match the performance he expected based on another Tuff and other steels
-he requested a CATRA test (or similar) to verify if there was a problem

The reason why he posted here and asked for the CATRA test was likely influenced as I suggested it because this forum used to be a non-shill forum where people could actually ask questions and critique a product and not be vilified for it.

All that posts like the above do is convince people to have problems not to post them here and simply complain/rant about it in other areas where Sal and Spyderco don't see them and can not correct the problem and misinformation if possible.

Congratulations, you are doing far more harm to Spyderco than even an invalid complaint.

I like objective observations. I could say more but I won't.

Cliff Stamp wrote:Is this what the Spyderco forum has degraded to that new members are mischaracterized and subjected to ad hominem attacks simply because they actually criticize a product

Exactly, Cliff.

Rather than a single person with an individual mind critiquing another individual with a specific situation the only other rational conclusion is that we collectively are thinking as one, like the Borg from Star Trek. You will all be assimilated, bid farewell to your loved ones and appreciation for pop music. Beep...boop....beep...

Anyways...back to the OP:

I'm not really sure, honestly. I don't think the difference would be noticeable and have to think on average any tweaks would be for statistical betterment rather than detriment.

I don't own any Endura/Delica3's but my brother's G10 Delica4 came with an aweful edge in that we tried over and over to set a decent bevel and it simply wouldn't get sharp. It's anecdotal of course and something that could have probably been fixed with a bit more skill but that blade probably touched the Sharpmaker for 4 hours. Thinking back it surely was more of a case-by-case example than anything global.

Indeed, back to the OP ... It is possible there is a steel change, it could come from something as simple as a different brand of thermocouples are being used now and they tend to run slightly hotter or something equally small. It could be complete unintentional and just a change in some piece of equipment. It isn't like it lasts forever, manufacturers go out of business and new products get used.

I would suggest however before concluding it is the steel to try to make the geometrical differences as small as possible because the influence of geometry is much larger than steel.

The other thing, and this might sound silly to you, but it is a stark reality - if you believe there is a difference you will see it, observer bias is so strong that entire methodologies are built to try to get rid of it. You can check this by asking someone else to sharpen two of the knives and see if they have the same observations that you make.

Have you sharpened your older ones considerably more? I find on some of my knives that as I get deeper into the steel the edge retention gets better. Maybe removing some of the steel that was weakened during the grinding/sharpening process at the factory.

Cliff Stamp wrote:Is this what the Spyderco forum has degraded to that new members are mischaracterized and subjected to ad hominem attacks simply because they actually criticize a product.

Here is the reality of the situation : http://www.spyderco.com/forumII/viewtopic.php?t=64818" target="_blank

-the customer had a number of Spyderco knives, including more than one Tuff.
-he could not get one Tuff to match the performance he expected based on another Tuff and other steels
-he requested a CATRA test (or similar) to verify if there was a problem

The reason why he posted here and asked for the CATRA test was likely influenced as I suggested it because this forum used to be a non-shill forum where people could actually ask questions and critique a product and not be vilified for it.

All that posts like the above do is convince people to have problems not to post them here and simply complain/rant about it in other areas where Sal and Spyderco don't see them and can not correct the problem and misinformation if possible.

Congratulations, you are doing far more harm to Spyderco than even an invalid complaint.

Thank you. I need say no more.

Cliff Stamp wrote:Is this what the Spyderco forum has degraded to that new members are mischaracterized and subjected to ad hominem attacks simply because they actually criticize a product. .......................................... Congratulations, you are doing far more harm to Spyderco than even an invalid complaint.

Blerv wrote:Rather than a single person with an individual mind critiquing another individual with a specific situation the only other rational conclusion is that we collectively are thinking as one, like the Borg from Star Trek.

Doc Dan wrote:Thank you. I need say no more.

Ouch... I guess I should have left out the part about the hissy fit, and the comparison to Pyrite was not apt. Sorry.

I think the main thing is that Sal and crew really do value that kind of input and they see it as useful information. Sal is very active on here and often very responsive and it is not just about providing great customer service which they do but also about free and honest testing and evaluation by end users. This kind of input gives them the information they need to continue to improve and address problems and the information is free to them. Due to the fact that they are always trying to actively improve, feedback of any kind is important.