Just so we're clear here:
Take any person who can grind well, no matter the steel, put a nice thin edge on a blade, and if you give them a piece of "super steel" already cut to shape, and let Peter's Heat Treat it, they will produce a blade superior in performance to any ABS Smith using "non super steels".
This is the logical conclusion from what is being stated regarding the superiority of "super steels"
Similarly, if you're comfortable simply stating "super steels" are superior to what came before, are you as comfortable stating synthetic ropes are simply superior to man made ropes?
Without taking sides either I don't understand the confidence of such statements like "HCV steels will stay sharper longer / high edge stability steels will dull WAY sooner / they cut longer".
Those statements mean nothing without context and qualification.
What is dull to you? You can simply say when it won't cut, but that's like saying when a horse won't run...what is running? A slow trot? Full out gallop?
And while people will maintain a "cutting edge", by which they mean an edge that's not shaving sharp or phonebook paper cutting sharp is fine, how many of you are willing to accept such an edge from a custom maker on a blade?
I fail to see the difference between these statements and "German cars are more precision built / Japanese cars last longer / Italian cars are faster" Again they mean nothing without context and specifics.
Finally a specific comment to you Ankerson:
This is a graph from Catra itself having used their Catra machine (
http://catra.org/pages/products/kniveslevel1/slt.htm). It shows the edge retention trials of 6 utility blades randomly selected from the SAME box of blades, so assumably sharpened the exact same way.
The y axis is a measure of sharpness.
The x axis is a sum of the cumulative cuts.
You'll notice that after cutting from initial sharpness (the high starting point at the left) to roughly 13% of initial sharpness (5 on the y axis) produces a range of ~455-500. This is a range of about 10%.
Using a scale, your body, and different knives, with different edge thicknesses and geometries and heat treatments how can your results be so definitive? If such variation can be seen in 6 blades with the exact same geometries and heat treatments on a mechanized testing apparatus, how can your tests be that much more accurate and reliable to the point it can so clearly differentiate between steels?
If you could explain this I would really appreciate it. Maybe it's possible, but I still am curious how an arm can be more accurate than the Catra testing to the point you feel using your own data is such a concrete explanation of HCV superiority.
Likewise, with all the talk of biased used of science, what separates your own data collection from the same sort of bias, especially when you so often praise Phil Wilson and own lots of his products. I'm not saying the bias has to exist or that you are biased, but I feel the reasoning you are using to claim it in others data seems a bit sketchy based on your own circumstances and promotion. This is on top of knowing that some of the people who promote high edge stability steels as being superior at lower edge angles (again not at higher edge angles in abrasive media) can produce corroborating published research while I have yet to see you ever reference such material.
And by the way, it was Chuck Bybee of Alpha Knife Supply who commented on a flex test with Elmax. I do not remember if they reached 90 degrees, but he noted it was quite far.
As a final note, in the end, I'm just concerned with the absolutes people are throwing around with respect to steel superiority without being careful of context (in particular level of sharpness, blade geometry, expected materials, cut, etc). They seem dangerous to me with respect to the conclusions they imply.