There would be no difference between a bar of monosteel bent over on itself multiple times and just an identical bar of the same monosteel used as is. As a matter of fact, the laminated one might be worse: the layers might not forge together to perfection without leaving defective spaces between them.
All mechanical damascus blades require steels of different carbon content: old European bloomery steel , Japanese Tamahagane, modern blades. Otherwise, there will never be a differential oxidation (damascus pattern) after etching.
Recommend the book by Manfred Sachse” On Damascus steel”.
The “pioneering work” of Anosov is, IMHO, overrated: Russian captain Masalsky witnessed Persian forges and published the description of their methods. Moreover, by that time Russians were already in Central Asian Khanates and unquestionably served as a source of information. Anosov indeed made wootz ( bulat) and learned the simplest rules of forging it ( low temperature), but the fine points of producing beautiful patterns by careful hammering were beyond him. He claimed to produce Kara Taban and Kara Khorasan blades, but in actuality all surviving blades from his workshop are of rather simplest Shams.
Yes, there are some blades with different wootz patterns. This was mainly to show the proficiency of the bladesmith. But a similar thing was done with malicious purposes: Russian officer Maksimov wrote a paper some 150 years ago in which he described bulat sabers made by “Asiatic smiths” out of broken blades forged together to sell them to Russian officers at high prices. Understandably, he recommended Zlatoust blades:-)
Yes, there are a few contemporary masters capable of forging “OK” bulat short blades. But there is perhaps only a single one able to make a long blade comparable to the best Persian or Indian ones: Georgian master Zaqro Nonikashvili. Google him.
|