Words of Wisdom from Bob Egnath

[John Lindsey]

This site is dedicated to the late sword maker Bob Egnath.

http://www.engnath.com/public/manframe.htm

Here are some of his quotes:

Always work with the cutting edge away from you, unless you enjoy having stitches put in.

Never grind after a meal that includes broccoli, cabbage or Brussel sprouts. One burp inside the dust mask could have near fatal results.

A word of caution. Any blade can be broken, no matter if the back is soft or hard. Metal may have flaws, or the idiot factor may have simply taken over. Japanese blades do not have the springy qualities of European swords. They bend, easily. People often try to do really dumb things with swords. It's part of the masculine thing.

I have nightmares about a blade loosening in a handle, sailing into a crowd of spectators.

The fact these blades are a fair copy of an ancient Japanese sword has absolutely no magical effect. In fact, it almost invites accidents when people try things that they should know are wrong. Please, don't let me hear that you've had a serious accident with one of mine.

I had a guy spend some time at my counter one day, explaining how expert he was with the use of the Katana, or Japanese sword. He decided to show me the proper, chopping stroke, using one of my boldly curved, Tachi blades.. The ceiling was high enough, and there wasn't anyone else around, so I said he could demonstrate. This fellow tried an overhead stroke. With a tremendous yell, he swept the blade way back over his head in the backstroke. Then he let out another, different sort of yell. He'd wound up so far on the backstroke that the tip of the blade went about an inch and a half into the top of his right bun. Never did come back to show me how the rest of it went. Moral of the yarn. Anyone can do some Errol Flynn stuff with a button tipped foil, but when you're messing around with two and a half feet of sharp steel, you'd better know where it is, all the time.

[Joss]

Man, this is probably the best bladesmithing site I've ever seen... Jim Hrisoulas' book sales are going to grind to a stop! ;-)

JD

[Dan Harden]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but!

Bob, while being a wonderful and sharing craftsman, was never a bladesmith. He took billets of steel and simply ground out the blades. So does Scot Slobodian.


Jim H. your other reference, is a bladesmith of the highest caliber.

There simply is no comparison of skills.


John

Excellent commentary by Bob huh? I hear he was willing to share with anyone who called and needed advice as well.

Several of his comments are strangely familiar...hmmmm

His comments on the bend-ability of Japanese ken VS European swords; while being true "historically",is not 100% accurate categorically (and I know he would agree with this). His statement doesn't take into account the research and work of several "smiths" who were his seniors in this field.
Several American makers make spring tempered bodies with hard edges. All done with very nice Hamon. I have seen a 200+ pound man shoved halfway across a room when the blade "sprung back" on him while trying to bend one of my blades. We are not perfect and it doesn't happen all the time. We have lesser and better ones too. But enough of us have perfected our skills to say that a new level of performance can and should be expected of a Japanese (style)Katana (at least American ones).
I say Japanese "style" for the simple reason that we are not Japanese. For arts sake, buy an authentic Japanese blade. You simply cannot beat them for beauty in combination with a servicable blade and one that will appreciate in value.
For optimum performance (if that is your thing)in a Japanese "style" blade, I would call on an American. We use better steel and better heat treat methods


Dan

P.S. I noticed several references to a phone number on Bobs site. Please realize that Bob passed away this past year. It is possible that his family has decided to keep the site "up" in his memory. I do know that his son worked with him on occasion. That being said, if the lines are still active, please do not call asking for Bob.


[Edited by Dan Harden on 10-27-2000 at 03:48 PM]

[Earl Hartman]

Dan:

This is harking back to the old "Stainless Steel" thread, but I have a couple of questions.

Much comment has been made regarding the stiffness, and thus the tendency to take set bends and/or break under stress, of Japanese blades, and the springiness of European blades.

I realize that due to modern scientific advances in the understanding of metallurgy and access to better materials and methods, it is no doubt possible for a modern smith, of whatever nationality, to make better blades, from the point of view of practicality, than medieval smiths.

My question has to do with the reasons for the "stiffness" of Japanese blades and the reasons for the "springiness" of European blades, and I want to confine the era under discussion to the period(s) when swords were actually made to be used as weapons.

Should I assume that the Europeans made their blades "springy" and the Japanese made their blades "stiff" for specific reasons, or should I assume that this was a result of inferior materials and techniques on the part of the Japanese smiths and superior materials and techniques on the part of the Europeans?

It seems to me that although a harder blade will keep a keener edge, the edge doesn't help much if the sword will either bend or break under use. Thus, when designing a weapon, I must assume that the smith would opt for durability, since his customers, whose lives depended on their swords, would demand it.

I am already aware of the high quality of Viking steel (and was aware of it prior to the most recent discussion) so there is no need to go over that again. My question has to do with the general relative quality of medieval European blades vs. medieval Japanese blades.

Also, were the Viking sword making techniques used by the medieval Europeans (I am under the impression that case-hardening was the usual method of manufacture inmedieval Europe)? If not, why not?

Also, I hold no particular brief for one point of view or the other. I like a good broadsword or rapier as much as I like a good katana.

Earl

[Dan Harden]

Hi again Earl

I understand your long preamble. :)


As a caveate I would say that NO work on this topic can be definitive. There were too many variations in each regions methods and too many variations in the individual smiths knowledge. Just look at the era *WE* live in. With the internet, books, seminars, and all the techical data available. We STILL have;
lousy smiths
lousy smiths on their way to becoming good smiths
(everyone has to learn)
good smiths
great smiths
great smiths who have bad days
Bad smiths who have an occasional great work.
If all their work were to survive, you would have quite a cross sectional study of work to compare. How could you use it all to define *this* Era?

Therefore, my comments are by no means meant to be definitive either. There is too much that is unknown. We are only dealing with the examples that have survived and been submitted to refiting and/or testing.
So, That being said.

Considering the era; lets look at the quality of the weapon juxtaposed to its intended use.


Japanese steel: Crucible method in conjuntion ith cementation processes.
Made with Smelted ore that needed to be refined by forge folding and or carborizing/decarborizing to make a somewhat even distribution of carbon for the cutting edge. Very often had a soft (low carbon)inner core.
Inherent beauty as a result of the forging process.

Heat treat method : Differential hardening due to clay coating

Results:
Hard edge, soft back.
Very soft inner core (not allways)
Excellent to Good shock absorbtion,
Medium to poor ductility. Takes and "sets" a bend.
The body is relativly stiff due to the tapering as well as the pearlitic body.

Uses:
Used against occasional armor
(they made more obtuse angles edges for this or dulled them for the intended use)
and soft flesh.
(Not much to say there)

Manufacture to use comparison: Excellent

______________________________________________________


Viking steel: Process speculative (crucible and or cementation).
Made with Smelted ore that needed to be refined by forging to make a somewhat even distribution of carbon for the cutting edge?? Very often had a soft (low carbon)inner core. Folded and sometimes twisted on itself. Hard outer edge, wrapped around the core all together different from the Japanese style of wrap.
Inherent beauty as a result of the forging process.


Heat treat method : Differential hardening due to the low-medium carbon core. NO clay needed.

Results:
Hard edge, soft to spring tempered body core.

Excellent shock absorbtion,
Excellent ductility. springs back from a bend.
The body is stiff and flexible due to the tapering as well as the spring tempered martensitic body.

Uses:
Used against occasional armor
(Obtuse angles, edges unknown) Hell of a war blade
and soft flesh.
(Like butter)

Manufacture to use comparison: Excellent..

_____________________________________________________


European steel: Cementation product up to mid seventeen hundreds.
Made with carborized iron that needed to be refined by forging.
There were various methods used to carborize the steel and then to fold it. Processes known as Blister and shear respectivly. It is unknown when the blister and shear processes were actually founded only when they wrre revived.
To make a somewhat even distribution of carbon for the cutting edge. BLister steel was folded to homogenize the carbon distribution.
Inherent beauty as a result of the forging and Fullering (bevels and concave surfaces)process.


Heat treat method : A through hardened piece, that was then drawn back to a spring temper. I have not heard of *ANY* Differential hardening processes that were done on European steel.

Results:
Medium, spring tempered body AND edge. Poor edge retention.

Excellent shock absorbtion,
Excellent ductility. springs back from a bend.
The body is stiff and flexible due to the tapering and fullering as well as the spring tempered martensitic body.

Uses:
Used against occasional armor and soft flesh.

Manufacture to use comparison: Excellent
for armor
(the edge won't crack..
for flesh ..
its STILL harder then flesh don't you know:)

_____________________________________________

WOOTZ steel: crucible
Smelted product that needed no refinement by forging. Forging was done at low temperatures to maintain a dendritic structure. (No further comment)
Very HARD. VERY (with a capital V) flexible
Inherent beauty as a result of the Smelting and *Correct* (very important term in this case) forging process. The original Damascus steel. Indian in origin and then named after the trade route city it was commonly found in.

Heat treat method : Not hardened in any typical sense. The body is not all converted to martensite. (No further comment)

Results:
Hard edge, hard body, spring tempered back.
Excellent shock absorbtion,
Excellent ductility. Srings back.
The body is relativly stiff due to the tapering as well as the structure of the body.

Uses:
Used against occasional armor. Known to cut European swords in half.

and soft flesh.
the ONLY swords that will cut through silk when dropped over it

Manufacture to use comparison: Undeniably Excellent.

______________________________________________


Earl
Again, I shudder at sounding to definitive here. Use these as examples only.

You called the Japanese swords "stiff." I would say the definition of stiff belongs to the spring tempered steel. It will resist bending better then the Japanese product. Its ability to bend right back I would call stiffer as well. In other words, the *resistence* to bending out of shape I would call stiffnesss.
Maybe you are thinking of a soft steel that sways to and fro but bounces back? That is NOT the case here.
If it takes a 200+lb weight lifter with a two foot pipe; all of his might to bend something and he gets thrown half way across the room for his trouble...that would satisfy my definition for stiff. His too, he bought the blade

Bending, while cutting grass, would not! I would call that too soft.

You also mentioned case hardening both in this letter and in the "stainless steel" thread. It would be more accurate to use the term Cementation. These steels were carborized very deeply. Many people reading your words will draw an inaccurate comparison to a 32nd of an inch case hardened tool. These steels were carborized from 1.50 or so on the surface to .50 or so in the center. They were then folded to homogenize the carbon. I know of no process where a smith had a surface case hardened steel, and said "Done."

Hope this helps

Dan




[Edited by Dan Harden on 10-27-2000 at 05:38 PM]

[Dan Harden]

You know Earl,

I gotta say, I think this is one of the best questions I have ever been asked about steel. I do not believe I have ever heard or read of the comparisons placed on paper like I did here either. You really made me pause. I wish I could take more time to really think about this.

hmmm...

Dan


[Edited by Dan Harden on 10-27-2000 at 05:54 PM]

[Earl Hartman]

Dan:

Thanks. That's pretty much what I was looking for, but still a few things cross my mind. Bear with me for a bit.

Leaving aside Viking and Wootz steel for a moment (no arguments on the qualities you have mentioned), the situation seems to be:

The Japanese smiths went for a better cutting edge and thus sacrificed the springiness of European steel and the resulting durability. The Europeans, on the other hand, felt that the springiness, and thus the durability in a fight, were more important than the ability to hold an edge.

If this is a fair approximation, I still wonder: were these choices conscious or not? Is there any evidence that the Japanese smiths said "Hmmm...I know that if I forge it this way I'll get a better edge, but the sword is more likely to bend or break. However, if I go for a springier blade, it will be more durable, but it won't hold an edge as well. Hmmm...what to do, what to do....Well, I guess I'll go for the keen edge."

Or, was it a result primarily of the fact that the raw materials avilable in different places lent themselves better to one forging method or the other? Or was it a lack of knowledge on the part of the smiths, the Japanese not kowing how to get the springiness and the Europeans not knowing how to get the keen edge? Or did the blades develop the way they did because of the methods of fighting and types of armor in use in the different areas? I just find it kind of hard to believe that a smith would deliberately make a sword that was more liable to bend, crack, or break, no matter how sharp it might be, if he knew how to make one that didn't. Especially if you are fighting in armor, durability is going to be far more important than a razor sharp edge, as evidenced by the fact that the Japanese deliberately dulled their blades somewhat when they were fighting against an armored opponent. The other important issue, of course, is how the blades will fare in repeated blade-to-blade collisions.

Also, why were the Viking sword making methods not used in continental Europe? After all, the Vikings were all over the place, establishing settlements from Vinland to Constantinople, and everyone must have known of their blades. Why didn't the meieval European smiths use their method since it was so obviously superior?

Earl