Like the majority of people here, I have always tended to avoid the cheaper steels when I could, especially Chinese cheap steels like 8cr13mov. Then I bought a Kershaw Atmos which has an 8cr13mov blade, largely because I loved the design and the action. It was cheap, but was really well made for its price, and I bought it despite the blade steel. Well, I have been using it a bit, and the blade steel seems to work fine. Does it hold an edge forever? Of course not, but for a light to medium use EDC knife, I have been quite pleased with it. And I haven't noticed a drastic drop-off in the edge retention compared to something like a Delica with VG-10. Then I started hearing about other people who use knives with 8cr, 420HC, AUS8, and other similar steels, who mostly seem pretty happy with the performance. Today, I came across this video, in which a guy tests S30V, 1080, and 8cr13mov in real life rope cutting and cardboard cutting tests, and he found no discernible difference in the performance or edge retention. So my question - has blade steel emphasis been a marketing ploy to a certain extent? How much real life advantage does a so-called super steel really offer? I have knives with nicer steel, and of course they work fine, but they will all go dull after being used a lot, no matter what the steel is. The cheaper steels will go dull probably faster, but I am not sure how much of that is just due to preconception and bias on my part. They all go dull, but the expensive steels are generally harder to sharpen. I will still probably avoid the "lesser" steels, but I think that will be more due to the fact that knives that use the cheap steels are just generally inferior overall in terms of fit, finish, action, etc., rather than due to pure blade performance and edge retention.