# *** Y-N-F FTW: The Real Wabi-Sabi Shady



## ModRQC (Mar 20, 2021)

Monday, March 1st 2021 – 10 PM







Thursday, March 4th 2021 – 4 PM






What happened ?


----------



## ModRQC (Mar 20, 2021)

So, for a basis to what comes next, here are two things to keep in mind:

1st - all three units were Mabs Yo. I will not directly compare to Nash or Denka or pretend I know anything about them, perhaps a few passing comments to similarities I’ve seen in pictures/specs but never observed first hand.

2nd – as you’ll see, I have a firm inclination for one type of TF: Yo with finger notch and forward balance. To explain this, I’ll say that I despise the Wa TFs: that cheap looking narrow neck deters me more than their shittiest Yo. Finger notch completes the experience for the Yo, and in a sense, does so in a way that I’m not sure I would appreciate say a Morihei TF with absence of it – fine finish or not. Since I don’t like the bulk and prices of their 240mm units and know their 180mm are neutral balanced, and given the small price difference between 195mm and 210mm lengths, I’d be inclined to prioritize the latter.

So when anyone says that people buying TFs are completely brainwashed by either legendary steel or sheer popularity or simply overstating them because they need to defend their purchasing it, well… yeah, I’m not. To me a TF is a question of ultimate comfort and equilibrium: basically either a Mabs or a Denka fitting above inclination. Not saying other TFs are no good, just that I’m genuinely not interested.

Here I bought a 150mm petty in a combo deal, because I do need a good petty. However, it’s mostly the price it landed me the Gyuto that unleashed the impulsive buyer in me. Still I really thought the petty could be a TF knife I would like, since it was rather tall at 34mm. But I felt no kind of magic handling it.

I had a Mabs already, not so long ago. Sold it when deciding I should get a Denka. I went into a lot of other knives prior, and while I really wanted a Denka, I was starting to just miss the Mabs – a lot. At one point it became compulsive, I had to have another Mabs, more than I wanted the Denka. I was even down to look at them on TF direct instead of the Denka I intended to purchase there. Saw the Canadian combo, compared with Direct, and the deal was good enough for me to grab it.

Specs grid for both:


*MAKER / SERIES*​*Teruyasu Fujiwara Maboroshi*​*TYPE & LENGTH*​*Gyuto 210mm *(March 2021)​*STEEL & BLADE*​*Shirogami #1 Stainless Clad*​*FINISH*​*Tsuchime*​*WEIGHT / BALANCE*​*211g / +20*​*HANDLE MATERIAL*​*Pakka / Full tang with bolster*​​​TOTAL LENGTH​344​BLADE LENGTH​216​EDGE LENGTH​*214*​​​HEIGHT AT HEEL​*51*​HEIGHT AT MID BLADE​45​HEIGHT 35mm TO TIP​29​​​*SPINE*​*THICKNESS*HEEL​*3*​MID BLADE​2.4​35mm TO TIP​1.8​10mm TO TIP​*1*​​​*THICKNESS OVER THE EDGE*​@ 10/5/1mm (Choil=False)HEEL + 10mm​1.2 / 0.7 / 0.2​MID BLADE​1.4 / 0.8 / 0.2​35mm TO TIP​1.2 / 0.7 / 0.1​TIP**​1 / _0.6_ / < 0.1​_Keeps over 50mm tall @ 30mm forward heel; full 50mm high still @ 45mm forward heel_*First unit - Sept. 2020: *_341 / 216 / 212 … 53 / 43 / 26 … 3.1 / 2.3 / 1.7 / 1.1 … +20 … 207g_



*MAKER*​*TF Mabs *​*TYPE & LENGTH*​*Petty 150mm*​*STEEL & BLADE*​*Shirogami #1 Stainless Clad*​*FINISH*​*Tsuchime*​*WEIGHT / BALANCE*​*119g / -10*​*HANDLE MATERIAL*​*Pakka / Full tang with bolster*​​​TOTAL LENGTH​272​BLADE LENGTH​154​EDGE LENGTH​*153*​​​HEIGHT AT HEEL​*33*​HEIGHT AT MID BLADE​22​HEIGHT 35mm TO TIP​20​​​*SPINE*​*THICKNESS*HEEL​*2.7*​MID BLADE​1.8​35mm TO TIP​1.7​10mm TO TIP​*1.4*​​​*THICKNESS OVER THE EDGE*​@ 10/5/1mm (Choil=True)HEEL + 10mm​1.7 / 1 / 0.1​MID BLADE​1.6 / 0.9 / 0.1​35mm TO TIP​1.5 / 0.8 / 0.1​TIP**​1.5 / 0.8 / 0.1​


A note on balance point: it’s been a couple of times I came across some mild incredulity concerning the blade forward weight of even a 210mm Yo TF. Yes, most J knives with Yo handles featuring a bolster have about neutral balance, even 240mm units (at least that I could experience firsthand, and there were a few), and no matter the weight (which is usually 160-180g ballpark for 210mm units).

Misono Swedish C 240mm weighed at 241g with a neutral balance still. It had a quite bigger handle/bolster than Misono Swedish C 210mm, which weighed at 168g with same neutral balance. Deep Impact 210mm was a refreshing Yo with some space at the neck and balance just forward the bolster, not quite forward but much more welcoming of a pinch grip than most still. It weighed at 181g – BUT Masahiro VC 210mm weighed at 180g with mid-bolster balance, so the DI was indeed a bit special weight notwithstanding.

Old Mabs balance:





Actual Mabs balance:




_Kanji tells no lies, this is a different unit alright. You can see one of the flaws that made the first Mabs handle worse than the actual: one rivet slopped with the grinding. However I’d rather have the old one’s Kanji on the new one - and old one’s handle flaws with it, I wouldn’t care. Getting ahead of what is discussed in the next two posts – to each his own when it comes to points of focus in criticism._

The old Mabs 210mm was a bit more shy, I seem to remember 18mm forward as measured but I always round these up or trunk down for sakes of clarity. So, for an obvious example, that either +2 or -2mm would be declared neutral. The actual Mabs 210mm a tad more generous, and I can offer more precise measurements: dead center of finger notch is 7mm forward the heel, and balance point 15mm forward the notch for 22mm forward balance as measured. Both felt the very same in hand, and both had about the same weight. Variance with this forward balance will thus concern lighter and heftier than usual Mabs – but from TF direct specs, I guess both units I experienced could be on the heavier side. From some reports of KKF, 180mm Yo TF would tend to hit neutral balance, 195mm units more than probably have a bit of a forward balance, I would suspect about just forward of the (imaginary in some cases) notch or so, and the 210m probably might more typically settle around +15mm.

_Note: sorry for shadier pics of the next post… but I thought they would convey the settings well – me casually unboxing and assessing my new knives on a late evening with a glass of excellent red wine as sole company._


----------



## ModRQC (Mar 20, 2021)

*OOTB assessment*






Handle

With those two:

the petty handle had a lot of the expected flaws; the Gyuto’s is mightily well done in TF world, still it has a couple of the typical inconsistencies. What I remarked directly out of the box is that my first Mabs gyuto had rivets spaced evenly, whereas this unit presents with the two close/one further back design.

What I’ve seen globally:

all three units had some or all of what I will call typical TF flaws: somewhat uneven bolster inconsistently polished, welding deforming the spine out of the handle, traces of welding leaving dark lines where bolster meets neck, scales not fitting perfectly/epoxy showing especially where they meet bolster, rivets not fitted perfectly, general handle grind not carried consistently, traces of epoxy on the full tang, and other small stuff of the likes. When they pretty much are all cumulated in one handle, like the petty here or my first Mabs, it can look pretty awful. Will still feel fine though. Any of them “should” have been done better when comparing to the bulk of Yo I’ve seen. But… none of the other knives can hold a candle to the next point.

What is it, really:

Where TF shines to me is within my inclination (Yo – notch – balance forward), and the first thing about these Yo handles is how they differ from the average Yo: both handle and bolster are of a slightly slimmer design, the handle itself a bit on the longer side for blade length, and the bolster sloping/slanting to blade is less abrupt and angular than any. Those are all slight differences, but they make for a tremendously comfortable hold. I can take a good deal of imperfections for a Yo handle that is just like that, because basically there are none others, and I must say that _despite_ the inconsistencies, this particular design seems to be quite rigorously maintained, with both my Gyutos presenting the same characteristics, and both the most ergonomic Yo I ever held indeed.

Some other Yo knives were rather comfortable (Misono and Deep Impact 210mm stood out, especially the latter, as discussed in the last post), and the rest were good enough, but with most there’s always something: bolster is too angular, slanting to neck too abrupt, handle too bulky, space at neck inexistent making a pinch grip feel cramped, etc. 

The substantially long and wide neck/finger notch combo to a TF yo work together to turn a pinch grip into complete fusion – with forward balance the most interesting presentation of it. The result is somewhat magical – really: find me any other 210mm Gyuto that weighs over 200g while feeling nimble like a midweight. The Mabs does this without sacrificing any advantage of its heft, nor any of its impossible nimbleness – and as such stands somewhat better than both.

Some of that magic is the sort that’s hard to explain and might be personal to me: somehow I can still feel the bolster weight coiled reassuringly into my fingers as much as I can feel the balance at pinch forward the notch, and the whole grip area thus feels even more substantial while giving a very neutral impression, basically distributing the weight so that the extra heft seems completely lifted off – until the blade falls into food.



Blade

With those two:

the petty is the most ill-ground piece of steel(s) I have ever got to meet first hand. It is just terrible: there’s some kind of grinder compound beveling beyond the actual grind (basically, on the therefore defaced faces), overgrinds all around and faceting at the heel, bottoming out with an inconsistent edge bevel that looks straight out of a first timer on stones, where at the heel it is even kindly threatening to collapse from both the overgrinding and oversharpening. I don’t think any of the faults were deadly to the knife on the long term with proper care of the dangerous points, but it needed a tremendous amount of work right OOTB and looked a mess. 








The actual Gyuto was the most nicely finished blade of the three, where contrary to my first Gyuto, the choil and notch are perfectly smooth, there’s a basic chamfering of the spine that does just the amount of difference for some additional comfort, and we have a professional looking consistent edge bevel with a quite sharp apex for OOTB use.





One thing that again struck me OOTB about it was a rather different profile than my first, somewhat Santoku-ish tall forward and “half-snubbed” nose. If you look at the specs grid above, where I included bottom notes with additional details concerning the Gyuto, notably the specs of my former Mabs of the same length, you can see how different a profile must be so that a knife starting 2mm shorter at heel is still 2-3 mm higher at mid blade and 35mm to tip. I don’t dislike it at all, nor did I dislike the other, and they basically feel the same, but even with this particularly well-done blade to a well-done handle, we finally land on something quite inconsistent. And with TF, the problem in assessing inconsistencies is: what should be the base model? 

What I’ve seen globally:

I’ll just say that under various faults in grinding or even cutting to shape, Mabs are rather very consistently forged knives, which is an impression lingering with me even counting that poor petty SOB here. Thickness of spine at heel and tapering true to form on all, real geometry tapering from heel to tip, steel feeling very hard but also surprisingly tough even when brought quite thin, taking a wicked edge (not without some additional efforts because of sheer steel hardness, but still easy) and holding it splendidly well.








_Spine: petty (left) and Gyuto (right)_

The grinding is the rather inconsistent part – duh! For one thing, the differences between both Mabs gyuto I experienced, or even more explosive, between petty and gyuto here, are indicative of (at least) two entirely different persons doing the job, one with higher skills and higher level of care towards finish, one a poor artisan content with overgrinds, faceting, inconsistent edge bevel looking like noob work with very similar oversharpened areas at heel, tip and belly (former gyuto and actual petty). Possibly sharpening is not done by the grinder: then I’d suspect two different “sharpeners” also.






What it is, really:

I’ve heard of units that cut splendidly well OOTB. But after three of these I suspect it is rather rare. Most common is what you’ll hear TF dismissive members say: for the price, other knives have pretty good steel, better F&F, and better performance OOTB. Easily. There is just no denying that.





_Choil: petty





Choil: Gyuto_

I established, from mine units to other choils/grinds I’ve seen often enough in various vendors and KKF pics, as well as some other KKF members reporting crucial measurements close to mine average, two points that may tend to impact pure cutting performance with several TFs OOTB:

- rather low and thick shoulders (average bevel 15mm high)

- thick behind the edge averaging some 1.4mm @ 10mm and 0.8mm @ 5mm at the thicker points.

Will obviously vary from unit to unit, and the knife is no bad performer OOTB. One’s experience with it will vary with cutting techniques, most used area of the blade, and what is being cut. I personally call a knife wedgy when it can’t halve a standard size yellow onion properly in push cut - from serious suction to serious actual wedging. Many geometries will oppose resistance there and that’s okay with me as long as additional momentum suffices, but not when the cut requires blunter force.

When I had the first Mabs back in September, I hadn’t experienced many knives to be so tremendous and had found it to perform very well, except for definite wedging tendencies. Half a year later, having bought and sell quite a few splendid performers OOTB, or reworked others to such greatness, I found pure cutting performance with the new Mabs quite ordinary, even though the very same ballpark than the last. However, I’ve found seldom knives to stand equal to “my Mabs” in terms of what I’ll call “greatness of use” – so I could truthfully say I’ve found TF performance to be about best I could hope for OOTB with both gyutos. Greatness of use is not something you can entirely grind out of a knife: it’s there for you or it’s not. Where to draw a line of universal truth, I really wouldn’t know. I just know mine.

The petty here was sent back to vendor, pretexting its various faults, and bargaining that I would keep the combo deal price on the Gyuto. Once that secured, it was pretty convenient to send it back. Tempting to start work on it too, though – I still need a petty, and any to fit my requirements is bound to cost like 2/3 of the Mabs anyhow, so there were arguments of not wanting to go through the hoops of a return that also made sense – among which, having some additional fun. What really sealed its fate though is feeling no magic at all when handling it. Mind you, I don’t expect no big pang out of any shorty, but it’s plainness was a black hole threatening to engulf the Gyuto’s extraordinary substance.


----------



## Carl Kotte (Mar 20, 2021)

What’s the punchline? Plz tell!


----------



## ModRQC (Mar 20, 2021)

That decided and arranged, I could bring all my focus over the prodigal son – which would still prove more or less so. The next posts will detail more of the F&F OOTB, as well as the thinning sessions necessary to have it performing to my standards.

Without further ado, let’s look at the general F&F of this Gyuto a bit more closely:









Going well with a full view… The blade and grind don’t show anything much to complain about, so let’s concentrate on the handle…







Well done overall…





Usual flaws: scales not fitting very well where connecting with the bolster, and some leftover traces of epoxy here and there on the tang, which also looks slightly deformed nearing the bolster from the top and bottom. Mind you, when looking at this level of details, I’ve seen a lot of sh!t with a lot of Yos, but with TF Mabs you’re about sure to hit some…











However, ground pretty evenly, without sloping through a rivet like both the petty and my former Gyuto…





My treasured absence of flaw – welding of the bolster without deformation, would it be the shape of the bolster, or the spine out of the handle. Bolster is mirror polished adequately enough, but more importantly when handling, is very smooth and the sharper angles rounded perfectly.

If I was to score F&F alone on this unit’s handle, not tuning down any of my spite, it would get 7/10, with basically the misfit of the scales at the bolster my only lasting gripe, but still a general lack in refinement would basically make any higher score seem somewhat wrong.

Really happy with this one Gyuto F&F particularly – for a TF knife. But to be honest, I’m angry at the upper kanji being half erased already OOTB:





Well… to each his own when comes a particular point of focus in criticism. Petty had a truer kanji… Old Mabs too. You know what I think about it all once carefully weighted, by now.


----------



## ModRQC (Mar 20, 2021)

Let’s start, for comparative purposes, with the original choil shot of my former Mabs back in September:





And then here’s one original of the actual Mabs:





Finally my usual profile montage for the new unit:





Probably the most interesting montage my multiple reviews led me to create; but that or any choil shot cannot nail down the geometry tapering of the knife.

This unit is somewhat weirdly thickening a bit from about 20mm forward the heel to about 70mm, then tapering past mid blade down to the tip. It sure is not exactly welcomed, but it doesn’t change much with performance, especially where the heel started thinner than average Mabs measurements, and where the bulk of the thickening happened before where grip is naturally driven by notch and forward balance. So for the active part of the edge, it was about the same thing as my last Gyuto.

I didn’t take as specific – and consistent with all blades – behind edge measurements back when I had the first, but remembered having given a ballpark on some thread, so with a bit of logic… 



ModRQC said:


> Geometry ideally needs some thinning here with multiple measurements along the length averaging 0.4mm thickness just above the edge, and 1.4mm thickness at 10mm above the edge.



And while we’re there, a recall of my rudimentary experience in thinning the first Mabs, back when I was rather… inexperienced:
Serious Project: Maboroshi thinning

So the first unit had just as thick shoulders – hidden by general thickness of the main bevel – as well as the low bevelling, and was much thicker right behind the edge overall while the usual 1.4mm 10mm up. Similar wedging experience, slightly worse, both within the ballpark I provided in the last post. And thinning right behind edge with the main bevel, as I had done the first unit, didn’t yield much improvement, so thickness behind the edge is rather secondary to (many) a TF main problem.

What is more deranging about the thickening with the actual Mabs, would I OCD on having an “even” grind, is that it’s quite difficult to only thin a segment of a blade, since when putting pressure at any point you will naturally also thin behind and beyond that point, and then you need to equalize the work done on the whole bevel. I thus mostly worked until any point was within a ballpark of good performance, applying more focus about middle of thickening area, but just so.

All that said – pics time!

Had the blade marked with only one idea in mind: hit the shoulders to start with and convex to edge, trying to only minimally touch behind the edge, and giving a special focus upon the thickening. As said, thinning just the main bevel/behind edge with the first unit, wedging was barely improved upon at all. Going at the shoulders first and convexing them to edge yielded a much clearer improvement in cutting tall denser produces, even where behind edge measurements were very much alike from this one to the former one after thinning.





You’ll see that here I also made a point to show the polishing progression, because I had the time to take pics at leisure that day, but that’s more a testament to a TF without overgrinds than any interest into the actual progression. However why not combine things we like to see together?

Counting my first strokes to appraise the grind were focused on the shoulders, and only but a few of them, the blade road with this unit was picked upon the stone very naturally:





Precise progression was Sigma 240:





…then quickly through Cerax 700:





… and Imanishi 1200:





Then, some #3000 sandpad smoothing – making sure it would flow well through food but not aiming for a perfect finish yet. From how the Tsuchime was compromised you can see that from mid-blade to tip, I let the blade road get wider and wider until thinning the whole width of the blade, from about 40-50mm to tip forward.






Results, as already mentioned, were nice enough out of that first work. Time to work more readily behind the edge.


----------



## ModRQC (Mar 20, 2021)

It was also time to work on the handle a bit as well as touching up choil and spine some for sakes of thoroughness, but I did so rather lazily since there wasn’t much to say against anything with that unit. 





Also reproduce what I had done with the Shi.Han aiming to “sharpen through” its own heel upsweep (just got there with the Shi.Han after a good few visits to the stones for thinning and sharpening) but keep a useful remnant of it to avoid board digging at heel, and keep a bit of the original “rocking back” momentum I liked to work with: a rounding of the heel, about 2x2mm up and forward, does it discreetly.





_Shi.Han – with no upsweep anymore, but still a faint trace of the heel rounding I gave it, mainly the choil part of it._

For references to the original upsweep with the Shi.Han, a few pics in my original review feature it prominently:

Full Review: Shi.Han 52100 Gyuto


Back to the Mabs: this time around, blade road polishing progression had an additional step: Ouka. I was now looking for a quick but true working finish.









Contrast is not excellent with Ouka but good enough, especially where I find contrast a rather moot point to consider with polishing stones since I’m not intending to have a display piece (who would buy a TF as such?), but use the knife – patina will make the contrast! It might become a more important point with SS clad/core for some, but I wouldn’t personally bother anyhow. Just as I don’t mind the few stray scratches Ouka is prone with for working finish: after so much time spent worrying maniacally over finish in the beginning, and having poor skills and inexperienced means of reworking them, I now aim at a working finish for general appeasement of the eye, but more importantly, a fluid experience with food – stones do texture much better than sandpaper. Stones are also faster, to get that superior texture and results looking way better too than sandpaper Migaki with a lot more stray scratches.








For “evening/hiding” the Tsuchime alterations, a fast progression of #400/#800 automotive hard backing, then a quicker still #1200 sandpad done freehand; then #3000 sandpad applied all around, just enough to have a consistent smoothing. Sandpaper is indeed best used to hide and blend, not recreate.









I took good care of NOT having a uniform scratch pattern on the Tsuchime out of the sandpaper prog – I didn’t want it to migaki, but rather look rustic and unpolished, and sort of blend with what was left of the original finish, where original grinding marks are still clearly visible too anyway. Results work under most light, while in some settings the mid-blade area and forward are clearly deprived of anything much original but the random, rather subdued, hammer marks and some remnant spots of characteristically Nashiji texture Mabs have. That’s still what an easy to work with finish means to me: it really took quite a hit, to look so complete again under varying angles, with less than 10 minutes spent with sandpaper.

Closer handle shots:


----------



## ModRQC (Mar 20, 2021)

I don’t know if the actual grind is final.





_Choil shot – misleading because of aforementioned…_





_Heel rounding – see how that behind edge goes thin, still with a dirty sharpening and 10+ preps and some bamboo at times it’s stays strong and mightily tough and quite sharp, but what I like even better is the…_





_Grid choil shot… same as first but griddled to show consistency left vs right side._

It sorts of stands in between my Shi.Han, and some Sanjos I’ve had. Feels deadlier – perhaps from quite harder steel – and nimbler than most of those (of course, Sanjo means Yoshikane would likely win nimbleness). Some of the blunt, sheer weight headstrong determination of the Shi.Han, and rounding into the cut as such (mine convexing applied on both), feels harder than Hinoura W#2 or Toyama B#2 (both I would peg about 2HRC lower at 63-64), more refined cutting sensation than either Shi.Han and Hinoura, not unlike a Noborokoi but blunter. Nice food release overall. I’m liking it a bit too much where it is – been using only it for two weeks, automatic reach, forgot all about the other ones, even my recent and beloved Tanaka Yohei.





_Not unlike Mitsuaki Takada – Yohei – grind here but beefier… Yoshikane ballpark beefier while less wide-bevel-ish and laser-ish, feeling closer to Shi.Han in cut while never as shoulder-strong._



ModRQC said:


> _I'd take TF Yo profile _*[but]* _let Shi.Han forge it like old-school 52100 of his though, and have Mitsuaki Takada give a convex to edge grind while he's suddenly inspired by Yoshikane geometry._
> 
> *...*
> 
> _Whoa... comeback to reality is harsh. I'm a moron without a clue. _



Or am I?

But I’m open to take it up into further states of thinning too and test from there: from a bit finer, Yohei like indeed, to perhaps laser-ish Kono HD2 alike, but possibly more an in-between state I would be liable to settle upon. Still… actual grind is highly pleasing, and I might cling to it for a while… and start a head to head competition with the Shi.Han to see which wins my 210mm workhorse Gyuto soft spot. But while the Shi.Han will forever be a workhorse 210mm, the Mabs could be anything from where I stand. It could be almost as laser-ish as a Kono HD2 with a great deal more power behind, or stay almost as headstrong as Shi.Han for a much nimbler handling. I’m not sure which of the extremes or anywhere in between could not be good.

TF Wabi-Sabi

Page 13  – all sorts of grinds, and I’m not surprised each owner made a proud stand of his. A (Yo-Notch-Forward) TF just can be better at any smart grind than most other knives – and can be easily dealt with as a wide bevel as much as in a full convexing, or even quite readily turned into something more exotic. Not so thin is not always a bad thing – there is much space left there to work any way one likes his best grinds to be.

A look at convexing:














And thinning results – follow-up of the original grid.


*THICKNESS OVER THE EDGE*​@ 10/5/1mm (Choil=False)HEEL + 10mm​1.2 / 0.7 / 0.2​MID BLADE​1.4 / 0.8 / 0.2​35mm TO TIP​1.2 / 0.7 / 0.1​TIP**​1 / 0.6 / < 0.1​*... after thinning*​*(1st session) ...*HEEL + 10mm​1.2 / 0.7 /* 0.1*​MID BLADE​1.4 / 0.8 /* 0.1*​35mm TO TIP​1.2 / 0.7 / 0.1​TIP**​1 / 0.6 / < 0.1​_1st thinning focused 15-25mm over the edge:_​_shoulders thinned and convexed to edge..._*...after thinning*​*(Actual) ...*HEEL + 10mm​*1.1 / 0.6 / < 0.1*​MID BLADE​*1.2 / 0.7 / < 0.1*​35mm TO TIP​*1.1 / 0.6 / < 0.1*​TIP**​1 /* 0.5 */ < 0.1​_2nd thinning focused 0-15mm over the edge: __ also fine tuning convexity + general symmetry_


Actual offhand specs: 212/51/209g


----------



## ModRQC (Mar 20, 2021)

Took above pictures of the 1st stage final finish after some rather quick final sharpening two weeks ago to test it in a prep afterwards.

Those below were taken yesterday with a dozen preps’ patina on it just for kicks:











I’m happy I listened to my most inner impulsive me, and got “my Mabs” back, even though it may look a rather weird move. It’s only two of them I’ve had but I can say any of them Gyuto 210mm could become or less likely might already be “my Mabs”.

I think I was able to impart, for whom interested enough to read through, the real takeover of Mabs, and to some extent, TF. It is clear from my review that a Mabs can come into an almost nothing to almost everything wrong form, and from there just take ANY splendid form. It’s a true tapering, tremendous HT canvas, and possibly the best of White’s best you could decide to choose from.

Or summing my experience, a *W*hite *T*eruyasu *F*ujiwara *Y*o*-N*otch*-F*orward , despite the inconsistencies, is going *FTW* to many extents.

Mabs - 1st unit - September 2020









_Mabs - actual unit






_


----------



## Carl Kotte (Mar 20, 2021)

Great work! $1413!!!


----------



## ModRQC (Mar 20, 2021)

Carl Kotte said:


> What’s the punchline? Plz tell!



Fully deserved I did this...

«Sorry to interrupt »




Carl Kotte said:


> Great work! $1413!!!


----------



## tostadas (Mar 20, 2021)

Did you consider buying the "cooking set for men"?


https://www.teruyasu.net/products/cooking_set_maboroshi.html



One of the best product names ever


----------



## IsoJ (Mar 20, 2021)

Man, how about 50 words summary for those who read only books back covers?


----------



## M1k3 (Mar 20, 2021)

IsoJ said:


> Man, how about 50 words summary for those who read only books back covers?


Something something...TF still doing his signature notched scales/ridged tang western handles.


----------



## big_adventure (Mar 20, 2021)

IsoJ said:


> Man, how about 50 words summary for those who read only books back covers?



You can cover it all with a nice, quick : *WABI-SABI!!!!!*


----------



## big_adventure (Mar 20, 2021)

@ModRQC - great, dangerously detailed post as always.


----------



## DavidPF (Mar 20, 2021)

IsoJ said:


> Man, how about 50 words summary for those who read only books back covers?


Summary:
Selective forgetting, intense focus on particular details that have been carefully chosen to avoid making the cognitive dissonance worse, and the many distractions provided by the planning, administration, and labour involved in running an ad-hoc rescue service for abandoned half-finished knives, can almost make a person stop regretting how much money they just wasted. 

Almost.


----------



## lemeneid (Mar 20, 2021)

Great job documenting everything. And nicely thinned too. TF is indeed the epitome of wabi sabi, but nothing cuts quite like it.


----------



## Carl Kotte (Mar 20, 2021)

lemeneid said:


> Great job documenting everything. And nicely thinned too. TF is indeed the epitome of wabi sabi, but nothing cuts quite like it.


How do they compare to your new Dalman?


----------



## ModRQC (Mar 20, 2021)

50 words summary were the subject of the Wabi-Sabi thread. Here I was rather interested with the larger sample - summary of which, 50% of TF Mabs will have you want to send it back from where it came. There you are.


----------



## ModRQC (Mar 20, 2021)

DavidPF said:


> Summary:
> Selective forgetting, intense focus on particular details that have been carefully chosen to avoid making the cognitive dissonance worse, and the many distractions provided by the planning, administration, and labour involved in running an ad-hoc rescue service for abandoned half-finished knives, can almost make a person stop regretting how much money they just wasted.
> 
> Almost.



TL;DR


----------



## OnionSlicer (Mar 20, 2021)

DavidPF said:


> Summary:
> Selective forgetting, intense focus on particular details that have been carefully chosen to avoid making the cognitive dissonance worse, and the many distractions provided by the planning, administration, and labour involved in running an ad-hoc rescue service for abandoned half-finished knives, can almost make a person stop regretting how much money they just wasted.
> 
> Almost.



So we're just gonna **** on people's long, detailed reviews and call their purchases a waste of money, right in the knife reviews sub-forum? I really don't think that's helping anyone or making KKF better.

@ModRQC I appreciate you putting in the effort to describe your first-hand experience for us.


----------



## ModRQC (Mar 20, 2021)

Thanks to @lemeneid and @OnionSlicer for being adults.

@Carl Kotte was within his right to BS me some!


----------



## ModRQC (Mar 20, 2021)

@M1k3 that was hilarious!


----------



## McMan (Mar 20, 2021)

OnionSlicer said:


> @ModRQC I appreciate you putting in the effort to describe your first-hand experience for us.


^^ Big +1 here. 

I enjoyed seeing such thorough review and documentation of the process. It was really nice to see the review of the OOTB as a starting point and then a discussion of how things were addressed/changed/fixed from there.

@ModRQC keep up the good work! Your reviews are an asset to the community!


----------



## Boynutman (Mar 20, 2021)

Really interesting write up, and super nice results! (but hey, what happened to the sticker?!). I just bought my 1st TF Mab 210. What you show and write is almost identical to my impressions of my sample. For some reason this is my first gyuto that actually feels like a cow sword (so contrary to a misguided earlier thread that claimed otherwise I now know that this translation must actually be correct).

2 questions:
- Compared to your earlier Mab project, what would you say is the biggest difference to this 2nd effort? Looks like you had less reserve and went further with blending and raising the bevel shoulders, do I understand that correctly?
- Also, the edge of my sample has a light up swing near the heel, not really a flat section. I think I also see that in your pics. What is your take on that, did that affect handling/cutting at all, and did you leave it, or did it perhaps disappear by itself when thinning?

Thanks!


----------



## ModRQC (Mar 20, 2021)

1- Yup, but also convexed this one. First one I had followed the "wide bevel". Thinning behind the edge is not enough with these, for my tastes. Not saying YOU will feel the need to do such a thing. Other way to deal with it I could have gone with is pushing up the shoulders a good deal.

2- Many TFs have that upsweep heel. You have to distinguish a steeper upsweep at the very heel that is visually obvious, and a general upsweep that more or less affect first 10-20mm. Both are possible for a same unit. The steeper upsweep, if only that, I would just round - basically removing any edge of the upswept part. For the more general upsweep, I will "sharpen through it".

See:


ModRQC said:


> View attachment 119307
> 
> Also reproduce what I had done with the Shi.Han aiming to “sharpen through” its own heel upsweep (just got there with the Shi.Han after a good few visits to the stones for thinning and sharpening) but keep a useful remnant of it to avoid board digging at heel, and keep a bit of the original “rocking back” momentum I liked to work with: a rounding of the heel, about 2x2mm up and forward, does it discreetly.
> 
> ...


----------



## Boynutman (Mar 20, 2021)

Thanks!


----------



## lemeneid (Mar 20, 2021)

Carl Kotte said:


> How do they compare to your new Dalman?


Dalman is not wabi-sabi enough


----------



## ModRQC (Mar 20, 2021)

lemeneid said:


> Dalman is not wabi-sabi enough



Nothing an angle grinder can’t fix.


----------



## btbyrd (Mar 22, 2021)

This thread is great! Thanks for documenting and sharing both your initial experience with these knives as well as the process you went trough to tune them up.


----------



## Boynutman (Apr 6, 2021)

@ModRQC, how did this work out in terms of food release? I am assuming that convexing will have some detrimental effect (compared to the original sharper bevel shoulders), or is this negligible?

I hate it when carrot planks get suction cupped to the blade.


----------



## ModRQC (Apr 6, 2021)

Boynutman said:


> @ModRQC, how did this work out in terms of food release? I am assuming that convexing will have some detrimental effect (compared to the original sharper bevel shoulders), or is this negligible?
> 
> I hate it when carrot planks get suction cupped to the blade.



Interesting question to answer. I'd say you're sort of right on the whole, but that there's much more to this than sharp vs convexed shoulder.

In your carrot planks example, my geometry would benefit you since I do not have a flat cutting bevel anymore vs a "wide bevel". However, since in two specific Mabs case, I've seen "wide" bevels being only 15mm wide or so before the transition, then yes any carrot over that height was probably released better with the original geometry. Any cut into a shallower carrot - or more appropriately, shallower segment of a bigger one - and the convexing to the edge should yield a negligible improvement. As it should with many shallower produces.

For taller produces generally, the old geometry would yield better release. Then again, if you want to thin those Mabs I've had experience with to something that really improves food separation, you would have to raise those shoulders quite a bit, or live with a tradeoff of better general release (Mabs are indeed good at it OOTB) for poorer separation - more suction.

Details aside, from geometry OOTB to thinned geometry in this specific case here, I'd say negligible positive impact as much as negative one, but the tradeoff for flow is much better than the original wide bevel, or most wide bevel I tried. The more you have a produce inclined to benefit from the sharper shoulders of a wide bevel, the more it may be inclined to suction wedge, but when you cut shallower stuff, you have a rather sucky bevel still.

To me convexing is always a superior tradeoff to wide bevels, but there were many instances of wide bevels that, outside some more momentum needed with some cuts, were splendid performers with great release too. 

All these were 20mm + wide bevels with rather rounded shoulders.

Easier work with the Mabs would have been to push the shinogi up respecting the wide bevel configuration. Fastest work to improved flow is convexing, if you're already at ease to do some.

They're generally thick enough behind the edge that you could probably also try to play the in between game of rising the shoulders just a bit while thinning the wide bevel AND then convexing it as you get near the edge. I thought about it quite some, but my first idea prevailed in the end as I generally favor convexity. I can tell you from my work on my Shi.Han that it does work very well to sort of cross the wide bevel geometry with convexing to edge, but the Shi.Han naturally had bevels almost 25mm wide, so I could to date mostly thin and convex within it without pushing the shoulder up much. Shi.Han is thicker too, which although may not appear logical, in its case sort of makes a magical blend of release and flow. Shi.Han's 52100 can also take all the momentum you'll feel inclined to impart it even with a crazy acute edge, and I wouldn't go so far with a Mabs. 

Hope it helps. If it doesn't, hope I didn't waste too much of your time with the long answer.


----------



## Boynutman (Apr 6, 2021)

Thanks, much appreciated! I will start out by thinning a bit (the ootb edge is a bit clunky) and see how I like the performance with the current bevel before deciding to embark on convexing. But it is good to know there is some margin to play with.

PS. damn you're up early considering you're accross the pond!


----------



## MarcelNL (Apr 6, 2021)

probably late, CA is west coast where it is night (almost 2AM now)


----------



## ModRQC (Apr 6, 2021)

Probably up very late, I’m far east and it’s almost 5 AM here. Must leave for work at 8h30. Have the best of three hours to sleep now.


----------



## ModRQC (Apr 6, 2021)

ModRQC said:


> Probably up very late, I’m far east of Canada and it’s almost 5 AM here. Must leave for work at 8h30. Have the best of three hours to sleep now.



FIFM


----------



## big_adventure (Apr 6, 2021)

Boynutman said:


> @ModRQC, how did this work out in terms of food release? I am assuming that convexing will have some detrimental effect (compared to the original sharper bevel shoulders), or is this negligible?
> 
> I hate it when carrot planks get suction cupped to the blade.



I have not noticed worse food release on my Denka after pretty massive thinning that also changed the shoulders from "sharp TF" to "convexed." It goes through everything pretty smoothly and releases pretty well. It's not the _best_ blade I have at either of those things, but it's quite good at both.


----------



## ModRQC (Apr 6, 2021)

I agree with the above. I should say the actual geometry on mine is highly similar in feeling to the original geometry, which was the goal since it's a good middle ground. Mainly it's flow that improves a good deal, but there's still enough bulk where the shoulders were that it's not so different. Might bring it to a thinner stage, I love where it is but feels in cut so much like my Shi.Han that I feel they're redundant. Since the Shi.Han is original workhorse and best of the two that way, TF Mabs could be more freely repurposed. If I ever do I'll surely leave some impressions about it.


----------

