To take up a couple of points:
For most people exactly the same 'guesswork' goes into a Scandi grind as any other, and there are comparatively few owners who can consistently keep the correct angle during long term use and care, regardless of how the knfe was originally ground.
Show me a consistent number of people who can easily keep a consistent 30 degree (for the sake of argument) edge over a couple of years of sharpening on Scandi knives. Some will end up at close to 40. Others will go finer. Some will take off more on one side...
Just as they would with any other grind. Having a flat bevel does not mean a person can keep it that way over long term use and care.
OK, this one is subjective as well.
I bought a Kaj Embretsen knife years ago in Norway and it is a lovely little Scandi. It also has a secondary bevel, as does a Harald Sellevold I bought at the same show the following year.
While they aren't necessarily right, they are both natives of the countries from which Scandi ground knives hail and they are both very, very (insert and infinite number of very's here) good knifemakers.
Yet both knives had a secondary bevel. Try laying that flat on a stone.
My favourite little Scandi is by Lennart Martenssen and it is Scandi ground with a small, secondary bevel.
The jury is very much out on this point - some Scandi ground knives have a true zero edge while others have a secondary micro-bevel which grows over time and during ongoing sharpening.
A true zero ground edge encourages, by default, chipping.
Please don't anybody argue this point to any great extent - it's a simple matter of physics coupled with steel structure at knife hardnesses.
And here's the rub - if you can sharpen a Scandi or a flat/hollow/convex blade, you can certainly get your head around any of the others given the time and inclination.
A badly sharpened edge is lousy no matter how its ground, and for every person who finds Scandi easier to sharpen, there are jst as many who get on well with any one of the alternatives.
A sharp knife is a good knife no matter how it is ground.
And the ability to sharpen is a good skill, no matter which knife you prefer to use.
All of this is entirely subjective and it all falls down to one common denominator: personal preference.
I like all knife grinds although I have a preference for one.
What I don't have is any grounds to say this is best because, or one does this while another does that because...
That's because it's only best to me, because I am comfortable with it - it's my preference. It doesn't make me right or wrong.
But that preference and sharpening ability is what ALL knives rely upon, regardless of how they were ground.
Strengths and weakness inherent through design flaws and material choices fall way down in the list of priorities to the one governing factor in today's knife buying (and owning/using) worlds: personal preference.
Most of the above is general observation which followed the two points I quoted made by Shinken. It is certainly not directed particularly at him.
Shinken said:
For most people exactly the same 'guesswork' goes into a Scandi grind as any other, and there are comparatively few owners who can consistently keep the correct angle during long term use and care, regardless of how the knfe was originally ground.
Show me a consistent number of people who can easily keep a consistent 30 degree (for the sake of argument) edge over a couple of years of sharpening on Scandi knives. Some will end up at close to 40. Others will go finer. Some will take off more on one side...
Just as they would with any other grind. Having a flat bevel does not mean a person can keep it that way over long term use and care.
Shinken said:
OK, this one is subjective as well.
I bought a Kaj Embretsen knife years ago in Norway and it is a lovely little Scandi. It also has a secondary bevel, as does a Harald Sellevold I bought at the same show the following year.
While they aren't necessarily right, they are both natives of the countries from which Scandi ground knives hail and they are both very, very (insert and infinite number of very's here) good knifemakers.
Yet both knives had a secondary bevel. Try laying that flat on a stone.
My favourite little Scandi is by Lennart Martenssen and it is Scandi ground with a small, secondary bevel.
The jury is very much out on this point - some Scandi ground knives have a true zero edge while others have a secondary micro-bevel which grows over time and during ongoing sharpening.
A true zero ground edge encourages, by default, chipping.
Please don't anybody argue this point to any great extent - it's a simple matter of physics coupled with steel structure at knife hardnesses.
And here's the rub - if you can sharpen a Scandi or a flat/hollow/convex blade, you can certainly get your head around any of the others given the time and inclination.
A badly sharpened edge is lousy no matter how its ground, and for every person who finds Scandi easier to sharpen, there are jst as many who get on well with any one of the alternatives.
A sharp knife is a good knife no matter how it is ground.
And the ability to sharpen is a good skill, no matter which knife you prefer to use.
All of this is entirely subjective and it all falls down to one common denominator: personal preference.
I like all knife grinds although I have a preference for one.
What I don't have is any grounds to say this is best because, or one does this while another does that because...
That's because it's only best to me, because I am comfortable with it - it's my preference. It doesn't make me right or wrong.
But that preference and sharpening ability is what ALL knives rely upon, regardless of how they were ground.
Strengths and weakness inherent through design flaws and material choices fall way down in the list of priorities to the one governing factor in today's knife buying (and owning/using) worlds: personal preference.
Most of the above is general observation which followed the two points I quoted made by Shinken. It is certainly not directed particularly at him.
