Why Is N690 Fine For 1000$+ Customs, When VG-10 Isn't Good Enough For 200$ Spydercos?

[Sikael]

During a video by a fairly well-known, slightly controversial knife-maker, he made comments about VG-10 and N690co that somewhat typified the strange double standard that exists in the knife industry. Mentioning a couple Seki City Spydercos, he made some allusions to VG-10's sub-par edge retention, and suggested it was a decent steel that was good for less expensive knives, but not premium. Fair enough. I don't mind VG-10; it takes a very sharp edge, and has good-excellent corrosion resistance. But it's not one of the particle metallurgical steels that have become the new standard for high-end knives.

Later in the video, however, he refers to Bohler's N690co as one of the better all-around blade steels. I'll say now that I'm not trying to insult or embarrass someone for their opinions. There's nothing wrong with speaking your mind about likes and dislikes when it comes to materials, especially when you're a respected knifemaker. I politely asked him about the differences between VG-10 and N690co, but never got a reply. That's fine too. He's busy. But it's not just him.

Todd Begg uses N690co almost exclusively, on knives ranging from 700-2000$. If he switched to VG-10, I think you'd definitely hear some pissed off Begg fans. Curtiss Knives uses it extensively as well. For overbuilt, hard-use folders to be using a VG-10 equivalent seems a bit unlikely. It's definitely cheaper than the PM alternatives, though, and easier to work with. Whether or not those are appropriate criteria for a maker to consider when selecting blade steel, I can't say; I don't own knives by either maker, and that's an issue for a maker to take up with his customers, or vice versa. I will say that I'd love to own knives by Begg or Curtiss. I don't really like the Field Grade Begg models, but the Beggatti and Bodega 2.0 are great-looking designs. Ditto for the Large F3 and Cruze Evo by Curtiss Knives. I don't recall hearing a bad word said about either makers.

So what makes N690co better than VG-10? Their specs are almost identical, and because neither steel is a powder metallurgical, the percentages vary more between individual batches than they do between steels. The only notable difference is that N690co has a slightly higher percentage of Chromium. VG-10 is listed as having 14.5 - 15.5% Cr, and N690co is listed at 16.0 - 17.5% Cr. Without the homogeneity of PM steels, some VG-10 blades may have higher Cr levels than N690co. Then there's the question of whether an extra 1% chromium would yield any significant differences...

I don't know. I have no idea, because I've never owned an N690 blade. But I'd like to know if N690co has indeed been blessed with subtle powers, or if the trace elements make a noticeable difference. Even if that Bodega 2.0 is rocking European VG-10, it probably wouldn't keep me from buying. The 1300$ might, though.

Generated 11797271 times.

Name	Base	C	Cr	Mo	V	W	Co	Ni	Mn	Si	S	P	Cu	Nb	N	Tech	Maker	CC
N690Co(SE)	Fe	1.05-​1.07	16.00-​17.30	0.80-​1.10	0.00-​0.10	0.00	1.50-​1.65	0.00	0.40	0.40	?	?	0.00	0.00	0.00		Bohler-Uddeholm	SE
VG-10(JP)	Fe	0.95-1.05	14.50-15.50	0.90-1.20	0.10-0.30	0.00	1.30-1.50	0.00	0.50	?	?	0.03	0.00	0.00	0.00		Takefu	JP

 

[The Aflac Duck]

A good heat treat will go further than the letters and numbers printed on your blade. My Thorburns in N690 perform great, however I have a production knife with N690 that chips very easily. The cost of blade steel is a moot point when the maker is charging you for his time and effort.

 

[TravisH]

Todd Begg uses N690co almost exclusively, on knives ranging from 700-2000$.

Such a knife has more to to with the craftsmanship than the steel. Todd probably uses it cuz he thinks it's good enough. and/or just plain likes it. I'm sure if he made them out of VG-10, they'd still cost $700~$2000.

 

[knarfeng]

Such a knife has more to to with the craftsmanship than the steel. Todd probably uses it cuz he thinks it's good enough. and/or just plain likes it. I'm sure if he made them out of VG-10, they'd still cost $700~$2000.

I agree.
While N690 performs a tad better than VG-10, IMO the difference isn't enough to fuss over.

My own thought is availability of the alloys. I've seldom seen VG-10 on knives made outside of Japan. But Bohler markets N690 internationally.

 

[asdf12345]

Plenty of customs all the way from a few hundred dollars up to tens of thousands of dollars in price use a steel as basic as 154 CM or ATS 34. Of course many of these high dollar customs also use much more advanced steel. But generally with high dollar customs most of what you are paying is for craftsmanship, exclusivity and the name of the maker.

For production knives, where more of your money goes to performance, it can sometimes be frustrating to have a higher priced knife in a steel that doesn't perform as well, considering that many knives on the cheaper side are using great steels like S35-VN, S30-V and XHP. Since craftsmanship and exclusivity are no longer the main considerations, the argument at that point would go, why would I purchase a $200 knife in VG-10 when I could have a $50 knife in VG-10, or a $200 knife in M390 or S90-V.

 

[Misanthropia]

With custom knives, there isn't a commensurate increase in material quality based upon price. It's just how it is. Most makers tend to use the materials they know, and know well. That's why you see so much of the same blade steels (CPM-154, S30V). Not all makers are steel junkies, even though logically it seems like they would be.

 

[PURPLEDC]

well IMHO you really cant compare custom knives with production no matter if the materials are the same or different. Custom knives really to me isnt so much about what materials they use (within reason) as it is how those materials are executed and the limited exclusive nature of owning something that is hand made and unique. As such I think people expect more value out of a production knife than they do a custom. And while VG10 isnt a bad steel there will always be pushback if a knife company isnt going to evolve and offer upgraded materials expecially if prices rise. Some are all about the latest and not necessarily the greatest.

 

[daizee]

I think a lot of big-ticket customs don't get used... You see LOTS of REALLY FANCY blades in 1075, for instance.
The market isn't entirely logical. I think you've identified an interesting dip between exclusivity and ubiquity that shows up as marketing variations.

 

[bodog]

I think it's a fad thing. N690 hasn't made it to many low priced knives while VG10 has, so N690 seems more exclusive and can therefore sell more knives.

 

[ATwistedStaple]

I don't like the steel wars. Personally I'd rather have 8cr13mov than ZDP-189. I know it's crappier, but it also means that I have a lot less invested and I can get it hair whittling sharp in 5 minutes with stones. ZDP-189 takes ages. My favorites though are always your mid level stuff like VG-10. Sort of the best of both worlds.

Maybe we should encourage it. If Mr. Begg was to start cranking out $250 customs made of 9cr17mov I'd be on the wait list.

 

[strategy9]

.... The cost of blade steel is a moot point when the maker is charging you for his time and effort.

That's a huge part of the cost difference in many/most/all customs... Yes the cost of materials will be incorporated, more expensive materials will cost more to the consumer, but the cost of his(her) time and passion is where the true value lies.

As per performance, while theoretically yes, maybe somewhere, sometimes, every now and again under a blue moon a vg10 blade might have more chromium then a n690, I can assure you its very rare because when the batches are tested; a vg10 that high vs a n690 that low, both would be scrapped and repoured for falling out of spec. (We have scrapped batches that fall within spec, but not to our own or our customers standards)

Metal pouring is an art in and unto itself, and with the maximum threshold of vg10 still falling 0.5 short of n690's minimum content, it rarely ever happens. If it does, its NEVER at a reputable foundry. Even small half rate foundries (like the one I work in, lol) test every batch and stay in spec.

PM technology ensures a better mix and even distribution of the alloying elements, and yes you can pinpoint your percentages better with smaller particals vs billets, but those thresholds exist for a reason. Its hard to fall "out" of spec completely if your paying attention. And when you're about to bring metal(s) up 3000+ degrees, people tend to pay attention; Because non PM steel isn't quite as accurate (its still pretty darn close), they often leave some more wiggle room +/- but you can rest assured most every metal man out there pouring alloys is aiming for that center mark a bit on the high side, rarely ever falling outside of his ranges; every batch poured then, by any reputable foundry, (even smaller foundries) whatever the alloy or purpose of, is going to include test bars, which are just that, pulled aside and sent up for testing the steel of that said batch to make sure it meets specifications and criteria...

Also, yes, 1% of this or that really does make a difference in steels, it is why a lot of element changes come in fractions of a %, and even your main elements typically come in 1% incriments or less from steel to steel, because they change the makeup.
0.45 % carbon and 0.65 % maganese, added to normal soft iron (with ≤0.05% sulfer and phosphorous, like a pinch of salt and nutmeg in a cake mix) and you're making axe heads, machetes, or whatever with 1045 carbon steel...
The minimal difference essentially between 440a and 440c is 0.2% carbon (called 440b). With a maximum difference of 0.6%... Assuming its typically in a 0.40-0.50% range yet the two are on different planets in regards to their edge holding.

That all said n690 also has a slightly higher carbon threshold so the "worst" batch of 690 that will still pass testing will still have as much carbon as the best batch of vg10 that hit it's peak, which is important in regards to a blade's edge, plus slightly more chromium for rust retention: Your two main elements added to iron to make stainless steel.
That is important to note, and while the other elements aren't "as" critical they do still play a part, and your moly overlaps, looks like both shoot for just high of 1% slightly favoring vg10, vanadium theshold favors vg10 with minimal equality, your 3rd highest element however, colbalt favors n690, so again all that taken into account, it appears your worst batch of n690 that makes it through testing will still have as much cobalt as vg10, and slack on only a minute % of moly and van but its still in there. Pointing out once again that the aim is typically right in the center often with a bias leaning a bit towards the higher side (because you'd rather shoot high and fall a bit low but still hitting your mark then to shoot for center and fall out, because its near impossible to shoot a bit high but within range, and somehow wind up higher then intended unless something f'd up royally in the process: something "can" turn into nothing, but nothing cannot magically turn into something; if it's there it can in theory dissapate, but if it's not there then it's simply not there, it won't somehow appear).

Thresholds being in place to account for possible margin of error (and sometimes strict customer demands) without losing desired performability (because the %'s are such small increments, varients do sometimes occur in the larger presented elements, usually within the 0.1% range) and also pointing out that metallurgists who do the science of the %'s, and the gritty black collar pourers down on the floor, who play with molten "lava" for a living typically take their jobs pretty serious as the backbone of any foundry, so if the heat treatments are on par and as they should be for each, (another huge critical factor) one would assume the worst batch of n690 hitting all its low points of every element, would still be on par with a batch of vg10 that hit every single high point. And I assure you that rarely if ever happens (at any reputable foundry)... So n690 based on alloy is in fact a higher carbon, chromium, cobalt version of vg10, making it in essence a better steel for a fine edge but especially by way of rust resistance. Yes the difference will be small, especially too small for most folks to ever tell through simple usage, (unless you left them both outside in damp conditions, where guaranteed the vg10 will rust first and faster, to most folks either one would just be a "great steal" with little or no prejudice). If the heat treatments are proper n690 will outperform vg10 on the whole in every way. Maybe not by much, but it's in there, and It's not a knock on vg10 either, just simple science behind the 2 steels.

 

[Sikael]

That's a huge part of the cost difference in many/most/all customs... Yes the cost of materials will be incorporated, more expensive be materials will cost more to the consumer, but the cost of his(her) time and passion is where the true value lies.

As per performance, while theoretically yes, maybe somewhere, sometimes, every now and again under a blue moon a vg10 blade might have more chromium then a n690, I can assure you its very rare because when the batches are tested; a vg10 that high vs a n690 that low, both would be scrapped and repoured for falling out of spec. (We have scrapped batches that fall within spec, but not to our own or our customers standards)

Metal pouring is an art in and unto itself, and with the maximum threshold of vg10 still falling 0.5 short of n690's minimum content, it rarely ever happens. If it does, its NEVER at a reputable foundry. Even small half rate foundries (like the one I work in, lol) test every batch and stay in spec.

PM technology ensures a better mix and even distribution of the alloying elements, and yes you can pinpoint your percentages better with smaller particals vs billets, but those thresholds exist for a reason. Its hard to fall "out" of spec completely if your paying attention. And when you're about to bring metal(s) up 3000+ degrees, people tend to pay attention; Because non PM steel isn't quite as accurate (its still pretty darn close), they often leave some more wiggle room +/- but you can rest assured most every metal man out there pouring alloys is aiming for that center mark a bit on the high side, rarely ever falling outside of his ranges; every batch poured then, by any reputable foundry, (even smaller foundries) whatever the alloy or purpose of, is going to include test bars, which are just that, pulled aside and sent up for testing the steel of that said batch to make sure it meets specifications and criteria...

Also, yes, 1% of this or that really does make a difference in steels, it is why a lot of element changes come in fractions of a %, and even your main elements typically come in 1% incriments or less from steel to steel, because they change the makeup.

(...)

... So n690 based on alloy is in fact a higher carbon, chromium, cobalt version of vg10, making it in essence a better steel for a fine edge but especially by way of rust resistance. Yes the difference will be small, especially too small for most folks to ever tell through simple usage, (unless you left them both outside in damp conditions, where guaranteed the vg10 will rust first and faster, to most folks either one would just be a "great steal" with little or no prejudice). If the heat treatments are proper n690 will outperform vg10 on the whole in every way. Maybe not by much, but it's in there, and It's not a knock on vg10 either, just simple science behind the 2 steels.

That's a great analysis of the differences between the two steels; I know with some steels, like Becker-KaBar's 1095 Cro-Van, the inclusions of Chromium and Vanadium are less than 1%, but that's considered enough to improve performance. I've also just noticed that the proprietary equivalent for N690 is ZA-18, which was specifically said to be an improvement on VG-10. The differences between the proprietary equivalents, N690 and ZA-18, however, are roughly the same as the differences between N690 and VG-10. I don't think that changes the fact that, based on the responses above, N690 is apparently a better performing steel than VG-10, even if it's not a dramatic difference. The numbers between Elmax and M390 aren't all that pronounced either -- 1.7% to 1.9% C, 18% to 20% Cr, 3% to 4% Vanadium -- but they have very different reputations, performance-wise.

The concerns that have dogged Elmax illustrate a point made by a few people earlier -- that the blade steel specs often aren't as important as the heat treatment. Improper heat treats really gave Elmax a bad name that it probably didn't deserve. Issues like that aren't as much of a concern with custom knives; a proper heat treat and better blade geometry are -- hopefully -- something you'll get with customs that you can't be sure you're getting on a production knife. Much of the cost involved with custom knives is in time, labor and artistry (or craftsmanship, etc.). But when makers allow customers to choose blade steels like M390, S110V, Vanax, etc., you invariably see very significant increases in price, sometimes hundreds of dollars. It seems like lower priced, lower vanadium steels like N690, CPM 154, D2, and CTS-XHP are chosen by makers to reduce time and cost, not to increase performance. When you're talking about a beautifully hand-polished knife by Andre Thorburn, or a 3000$ GTC, it makes sense to use N690 or CPM 154 instead of something harder to polish like S110V. GTC's may be considered 'tactical folders', but no one in their right mind is taking a GTC into the woods for some survivalist camping trip, and I doubt you'll find any in Afghanistan... but I've been wrong before.

Maybe blade steel IS more important for a Spyderco or ZT than it is for a custom; personally, however, I'm not interested in buying a 1000$ knife using 8Cr13MoV or AUS-8, and I don't think any respected maker would try to use Chinese steel. It depends on the maker, obviously. I prefer the way Jake Hoback, Gavko, Direware, and Shirogorov offer a variety of high-end, high-performance steels, especially since they're makers that craft overbuilt, 'hard-use' knives (whether owners put them to the test is another matter). But N690 might be a very good steel, from the sound of it, and CPM 154, D2 and CTS-XHP have good reputations as well... they're just not in the upper-echelon of high-priced, high-performance steels. It's just a matter of what you think is important when you're buying a custom. If you value craftsmanship over materials, or you've had good experiences with N690co, or simply have a good impression of it, everyone's happy. As long as the customer does their research, and knows what they're getting for the pricetag -- always a good idea with 1000$ purchases -- it'll be worth it.

 

[AusLoX]

From what I've read there isn't much difference in cost between steels. So I don't think the steel is what's driving the price of these custom knives. I think the tougher steels require more work from the craftsman at times and might take more effort to sharpen, treat, and mold. I could be wrong but that's what it seems like to me.

 

[Sikael]

From what I've read there isn't much difference in cost between steels. So I don't think the steel is what's driving the price of these custom knives. I think the tougher steels require more work from the craftsman at times and might take more effort to sharpen, treat, and mold. I could be wrong but that's what it seems like to me.

Yes, as the price of the knife gets higher, the price of the steel naturally becomes proportionately less significant. What might be more expensive is a considerable increase in man-hours working on a blade of CPM S90V or S110V, compared with CPM 154 or CTS-XHP. It's no coincidence that as you look at the work of many excellent knife-makers, you see many who work almost entirely with one steel. Jason Brous and Greg Medford use D2 exclusively, Todd Begg and Curtiss Knives use N690co very regularly; by investing in larger quantities of one type of steel, they end up maximizing their profits. The more steel you buy, the cheaper it gets. Also, there's no doubt a comfort-level that develops when you use one steel, instead of switching from one variety to another, you become accustomed to it. On the plus side, these savings in cost can be passed down to the consumer.

But this aspect of buying the steel is important; Spyderco and Kai have the ability to buy far larger quantities of premium steels, hence, they can buy it at cheaper prices. But premium steels are a lot more expensive than you'd think. For just an idea, even amongst steels considered to be in the same range, prices go up quickly. This is from a .PDF price-list from Admiral Steel, shortened for clarity. The units being priced are for the thinnest (3/32") available, a 6" wide by 72" length. As you can see, CPM S30V is almost TWICE as much as ATS-34 and 154CM. These prices are for a purchase of 1-5 lengths, and a second one was given for 6 or more:

ATS-34: $210.19
440C: $156.34
154CM: $230.11
CPM S30V: $407.04
CPM S35VN: $395.18
CPM 154: $334.18

http://user-a01k56j.cld.bz/Jantz-Catalog-51#34/z

For a good comparison from another supplier, Jantz, a 5/32" x 4" x 36" piece of precision-milled steel in: D2 = $146.95. CPM 20CV = $299.95 (20CV is an equivalent of M390 and CTS-204P, a very high end steel, but less then S110V by a good margin. Still, it's literally double the price of D2. That would mean a severe increase in price for a maker like Medford to use better steel). CPM 4V = $253.95. CPM 3V = $257.95 (I thought 3V would be less than 4V... huh). CPM S35VN = $275.95. CPM S30V = $270.95. 154CM = $208.95. CPM Rex M4 = @$260.00 (No 5/32 avail., estimated). JUST FOR THE FLAT STOCK of CPM S110V, it is priced at $394.95; for the precision ground price I used for the examples above, it would be @$520.00. That means S110V is two - three times more expensive, and is a big investment for any knife-maker.

 

[Sikael]

A good heat treat will go further than the letters and numbers printed on your blade. My Thorburns in N690 perform great, however I have a production knife with N690 that chips very easily. The cost of blade steel is a moot point when the maker is charging you for his time and effort.

The heat treat should be a moot point, when you're buying from a custom maker. It's unfortunate when a messed up heat treat occurs in the production knife world, but there's no excuse for a custom maker fucking up a clearly documented process for the particular steel they're using. That said, those numbers that may or may not be on the side of your custom blade reveal a chemical composition that is absolutely vital to whether or not your knife can take a keen edge, hold it, and so on. If it didn't matter, we wouldn't be talking about it, and you'd be rockin' some very pretty Chinese steel. Whether or not you'd still be willing to pay >1000$ for the time and effort involved in making crappy steel look nice and behave itself -- that is the question.

I agree that craftsmanship is the most important factor, and time is the most expensive resource. But a custom knife deserves the best materials available. There's no excuse for cutting corners, once the price gets into the 4 digit range. Just my opinion.

 

[asdf12345]

The heat treat should be a moot point, when you're buying from a custom maker. It's unfortunate when a messed up heat treat occurs in the production knife world, but there's no excuse for a custom maker fucking up a clearly documented process for the particular steel they're using. That said, those numbers that may or may not be on the side of your custom blade reveal a chemical composition that is absolutely vital to whether or not your knife can take a keen edge, hold it, and so on. If it didn't matter, we wouldn't be talking about it, and you'd be rockin' some very pretty Chinese steel. Whether or not you'd still be willing to pay >1000$ for the time and effort involved in making crappy steel look nice and behave itself -- that is the question.

I agree that craftsmanship is the most important factor, and time is the most expensive resource. But a custom knife deserves the best materials available. There's no excuse for cutting corners, once the price gets into the 4 digit range. Just my opinion.

Plenty of custom makers use the latest and greatest blade materials. Mayo uses Stellite for many of his blades. Strider uses S110-V, S90-V etc. Marfione and Rexford commonly use Elmax. RJ Martin has plenty of blades in 204-P. If you want a high dollar custom with an advanced supersteel, there are many options to choose from.

I agree that customs could in general could move past CPM 154 and ATS 34 though especially considering the price of some of these knives. I would not want the options of 154 and ATS 34 (and other comparable steels like N690) to dry up completely, however, as some prefer them.

As far as Todd Begg's and Curtiss' knives in particular go.. I feel that they are midtechs as they are CNC made and with machine ground blades, and could stand to have a steel upgrade because of it. If I'm not paying for the extensive hand work it takes to cut and shape by hand in the first place, I might as well get a knife that offers a superior or at least comparable blade steel to production knives costing three or four times less.

 

[strategy9]

Yeah, in regards to my (lengthy) post about the production of pouring metal: while the metallurgic alloys are rarely out of spec when they make through production, messing up the heat treat is a far more common occurrence... Especially with some higher end steels that require more precise requirements and are less forgiving...

The guy making the steel makes sure the amounts of this and that are right... The guy way down at the other end who "sticks it in the oven" when its all said and done, he might get side tracked, caught up in another task, and 10 minutes too long, or someone else checks the oven and releases the heat early, it could ruin a heat treat. At the custom/specialty level they are right there ensuring the heat treat from start to finish, at the mass production level the heat treat(er) often sticks em in the oven and walks away to do this or that until its ready, way more room for error, and many of the exotics don't leave much room for error... They may still pass testing, alloy properties, HC, etc, but try to put an edge on it or have it hold an edge might be thrown off and far from ideal. Not that it happens "often" either persay, but a poorly heat treated batch is far more frequent a mistake in a large foundry.

Example, I work in a small investment casting facility, and while I would trust our old heads to pour any metal properly, I wouldn't trust our finishing department to rough grind properly let alone heat treat an exotic steel with any consistency.

 

[The Aflac Duck]

The heat treat should be a moot point, when you're buying from a custom maker. It's unfortunate when a messed up heat treat occurs in the production knife world, but there's no excuse for a custom maker fucking up a clearly documented process for the particular steel they're using. That said, those numbers that may or may not be on the side of your custom blade reveal a chemical composition that is absolutely vital to whether or not your knife can take a keen edge, hold it, and so on. If it didn't matter, we wouldn't be talking about it, and you'd be rockin' some very pretty Chinese steel. Whether or not you'd still be willing to pay >1000$ for the time and effort involved in making crappy steel look nice and behave itself -- that is the question.

I agree that craftsmanship is the most important factor, and time is the most expensive resource. But a custom knife deserves the best materials available. There's no excuse for cutting corners, once the price gets into the 4 digit range. Just my opinion.

Nobody is cutting corners with N690, it performs just fine. You're acting like it's cheap Chinese steel...

It depends on the knife, some knives are meant to be enjoyed as art and aren't "performance driven slicers". My customs in N690 haven't crumbled into dust from cutting cardboard. It's comparable to steels like 154cm and such.

Some steels that are "super", are also meant to be super hard, which equals more time spent polishing for the maker. A softer driven steel that still performs great allows the maker to offer good cutting performance, but also allows for more embellishments like mirror polishes or beautiful hand-rubbed satin finishes in a reasonable amount of time. High carbide steels take longer to work, and time is money; do the math...

Look at Rockstead, you're spending $1,000 plus mostly for the mirror polish and the very excellent heat treat.

 

[daizee]

The different in steel prices is well illustrated in the table above, but for big pieces like that, remember that the cost per blade is amortized across several pieces. The marginal increase for each blade is not that high. However, for makers who outsource their heat treating to reliable experts like Peter's, it is not cost effective to make ones and twos of each type of steel because you minimize your heat-treat costs by sending large batches of a single type.

As a relatively low-end custom maker, I've decided that CPM-154 will be my 'everyday' stainless, but you'll see me posting pictures of 154CM blades for quite awhile as I work through my existing inventory. So there many be other practical factors like that in play.

 

[wesmanthetiger]

I have a VG10 Spyderco Endura and an older Benchmade red in N690. I do not hard use or abuse my knives, but I like to know that I could if need be. Out of all the different steels I have had in knives the only one that has chipped along the edge is the Benchmade N690. Now maybe it was the grind or just the right angle, but I was cutting cardboard, and no it didn't have staples or metal in it. I still love the knife, but if I am going to pay a premium for a high end knife it better have a high end particle steel, S30V, etc. I'm not a steel snob, but if Chris Reeve sold a Sebenza in 420hc for over $500 would you pay that for it?