Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
On one hand here it sounds like there was a secondary stage in processing the steel from ingot into wootz, while on the other, it was more to the original process which carried into the wootz stage through the control of the temperatures and cooling.
Obviously still not fully understanding , can you guys clarify further?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Emanuel
Just a quick clarification. As I recall from Ann Feuerbach, Richard Furrer, and other smiths, the watering in wootz, or the dendritic structure, was inherent to the ingot. The structure is primarily due to the cooling rate of the crucible at the time of production. Nothing to do with forging method of the tool or blade. .................................................. .
Not all crucible steel ended with the crystalline pattern as there was a relatively high failure rate due to poor temperature control.
|
Emanual, my understanding is that crucible steel, if properly forged, could show a watered pattern, and the fact that not all crucible steel showed a watered pattern was due to the forging process not being done properly. You can not seperate the two things, just because the steel had the ability to show a watered pattern did not mean every item made from the crucible steel would show a watered pattern, it had to be forged in the right manner or the pattern would not show. The poor temperature control that kept the crucible steel item being forged from showing a watered pattern came during the forging process.
I other words, if just any blacksmith pounded out a blade from a hunk of crucible steel the blade would not show a watered pattern, it took someone with the exact knowledge to forge a blade that showed a watered pattern.
Here is an example that shows the complexity of reproducing the watered pattern using modern steel meant to replicate crucible steel.
Blades Guide to Making Knives, Joe Kertzman, 2012