Blade finish: Stonewash vs Black Coating

H

High King

Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
235
I would like some opinions (pros/cons) regarding the Stonewash finish vs the black coating on Emerson knives. Of course, going purely off aesthetics alone, it'll boil down to personal opinion.

But as far as uses and convenience or maintenance, are there any reasons why I should go for one over the other? I've seen a lot of videos of the particular models I want, namely the Persian Tactical, CQC-15 and Super Commander, but most of them are for something called a Satin finish? What's the difference between a satin finish and the stonewash? Both seem like they have an exposed metal blade. Sometimes the video description calls it a stonewash finish, but the reviewer says satin.
 
Last edited:
A 'Satin' finish, will most likely refer to the earlier models that used Cerakote finish. The satin Cerakote will scratch off however.

Stonewashed is the newer finish that is sometimes referred to as 'satin', but that term can be deceiving. The beauty of the stonewashed finish is that it resists corrosion and hides minor scratches. As well, the stonewashed knives compliment the wonderful precision grinds on your Emerson.

The black finish, designated by 'BT' after the model on the end of the box, is more of a tactical finish, which hides reflections and adds some extra protection to the blades. That said, it will scratch and wear through in certain areas through knife usage.
 
While the recommendations will be overwhelmingly in favor of the stonewash (myself included), it should be noted that the primary grind is left with a fairly high grit satin finish that actually shows scratches quite easily. Only the flats are stonewashed.
 
I'm at the point where it does not matter. I have a 7B Blk blade and that works just fine.
 
I just found out that every Emerson I want is out of stock from KC for the foreseeable future... Oy vey.
 
Lycosa said:
I'm at the point where it does not matter. I have a 7B Blk blade and that works just fine.
Click to expand...

Same here. They both cut just as well. I find myself alternating between finishes with new knives. Stonewashed horseman, Black 7, Stonewashed 10. That means the next Emerson will be coated.
 
I have 2 knives sofar 1 coated 1 stonewash, the coated one for me needed more break in time then the stonewash one that opened very smooth right out of the box. Is this normal or just the luck of the draw on my 2 knives sofar?
 
Michael B Beall said:
I have 2 knives sofar 1 coated 1 stonewash, the coated one for me needed more break in time then the stonewash one that opened very smooth right out of the box. Is this normal or just the luck of the draw on my 2 knives sofar?
Click to expand...

Probably just the luck of the draw, Michael. That said, if there is a difference, it should be slight.
 
I have 2 satins, 1 black. I typically wear dark blue jeans, and one thing I love about Emersons is that even with a shiny satin blade, the flat black pocket clip on the black G10 makes my knife very discrete while carrying in the pocket. It almost disappears against the dark blue. The shiny blade will sit on the inside so it can't be seen. This only applies to pockets though.

My vote is satin. It highlishts the grinds so well. Even my wife, who is sick to death of me showing her my knives, made a comment about how beautiful the blade was. I think that says a lot.
 
I have had both, and prefer coated blades, not because they look tacticool but because you get an extra level of protection on your blade and like others said, nothing says badass like a black blade scratched to hell and back from use , but to each his own. they both cut things, The problem I have is I carry my knives to work and I sweat a lot, I mean a lot and my satin finished emerson's have developed rust before, so now I tend to stick to coated blades, for just that reason.
 
I am always hard pressed to pick coated vs. non-coated. Allen has a valid point, that Emerson has addressed on their website information. Fortunately, I don't have a rusting problem, so I am free to choose a non-coated blade when I want.
 
I have always liked non coated blades better except on some knives. I like stonewashed on Emerson's. When I get a CQC-15 I will get a stonewashed version.
 
Allen R. said:
I have had both, and prefer coated blades, not because they look tacticool but because you get an extra level of protection on your blade and like others said, nothing says badass like a black blade scratched to hell and back from use , but to each his own. they both cut things, The problem I have is I carry my knives to work and I sweat a lot, I mean a lot and my satin finished emerson's have developed rust before, so now I tend to stick to coated blades, for just that reason.
Click to expand...

The "problem" is that I don't have to worry about rust. I was planning on buying them for safe-queening, so they would've been getting lots of tender loving care. If rust from usage were an issue, I'd go with coating simply for added protection, as you mentioned.
 
My CQC-15 is stone wash but the grind appears to be done after that treatment where as I've have seen other manufacturers like Hinderer, strider, etc. grind first and then SW on the grinds. I'm curious about this discrepancy myself as I've been told the stone washing is a hardening process and blades should not be modified afterward.

My other Emerson only comes in black :D

OBS.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top