Hi
yes....currently my thinking is leaning towards being historically accurate..... after all, why should we make new standards for crucible steel when there were already some in place...
i realize that what i'm trying to put forth is against the grain but something has to be said for crucible steel.... from what i understand, wootz/poulad was crucible steel made in the middle ages tradition.
I believe this post to be important to collectors, also !!!
-can you imagine if your shamshir, tulwar, kilij, with fabulous waterings... truly wonderful crucible steel...... if it was tested for carbon level and was found to have .8%....... under the current definition it would be declared " Not Wootz/poulad "
-- the value would be much less.... but yet....it still is an excellent steel, strong enough to do well in combat.... beautiful to look at.... and has interesting waterings
-yes....it is abit troubling..... so this is why we have to ask questions when scientists come up with subcatagories and redefine materials.
-from what i've been reading and rereading... the ancient catagories of crucible steel was about the surface waterings (color, pattern, region etc)
maybe i'm over reacting.... but it is definitely worth looking into
Greg
those blades are strange.... sometimes you can have some non-patterning surface decarb... and this will etch into black blobs.... but can be ground out...
- it maybe that the etch was off...... sometimes the etch will do crazy things
- lastly...... this is a long shot...... but it maybe that these blades were roasted for a very long time dissolving some of the dendritic network.....
i've noticed in the past that long roasts will give you a larger and wandering pattern..... much the opposite of the dendritic look..
so...it maybe that....but i'm truly reaching here..... .. way out !
|