# cleaver sizing cck--sugimoto



## chinacats (Oct 1, 2013)

The only cleaver I currently own is a CCK 1103 which I assume is a slicing cleaver or the approximate equivalent of a Sugimoto 6? I am interested in trying a few other inexpensive cleavers and would like to find the rough equivalents of a #7 and maybe a #22. My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that the number 7 is sort of an all around cleaver and the 22 is more of a meat/bone basher? What would be a couple of good inexpensive cleavers that might approximate the others in the series. Thinking that maybe the Dexter carbon here may be sort of the middle ground? Size isn't too important, but I like the size of my current 1103 so full size is fine. Again, please excuse my ignorance on the subject but I would like to try a few others just to figure out the usefulness of the other sizes/weights. I really like my 1103, but again I feel it is more of a slicer which is how I now use it.

Thanks


----------



## brainsausage (Oct 1, 2013)

Pretty sure #6 is 'standard', roughly 85-90mm X 200-210mm. That's a rough estimate on my part. Don't call me out on it, please.


----------



## Timthebeaver (Oct 1, 2013)

#6, 7 and 22 are all "full size" chuka, c. 220 x 110mmm


----------



## unkajonet (Oct 1, 2013)

Two Shibazi cleavers just arrived at my door today. Less than $30 total. Andy777 seemed to like them, so I'm giving them a shot.


----------



## Dusty (Oct 1, 2013)

The 11xx series of cck isn't a full size cleaver, they're a little shorter.


----------



## chinacats (Oct 2, 2013)

OK, learning a few things already, thanks for the heads up on sizing...I definitely thought my 1100 series was full size. I think what I really want to know may involve more of the thickness of the knife as I was under the impression that was the difference in the different sizes of Sugimoto's? In other words, I think the 7 is thicker than the 6 and the 22 is a beast? Does this relate to different blades in the CCK series or even the Shibazi? I looked at Shibazi and see--slicing knife, Chinese cleaver, filet knife, and chef's cleaver and heavy duty cleaver--the only ones I can make sense of are the slicing knife and the heavy duty cleaver but they look similar. Sorry for my ignorance but this is like looking at gyuto's for the first time.

Cheers



unkajonet said:


> Two Shibazi cleavers just arrived at my door today. Less than $30 total. Andy777 seemed to like them, so I'm giving them a shot.



can I ask where you purchased these, I've been looking here and they seem to be much more expensive--though still relatively cheap.


----------



## unkajonet (Oct 2, 2013)

http://www.tastepadthai.com/kitchentools.html

Just type "shibazi" in the search bar. There's also a coupon code. If it doesn't work when ordering, give them a call and they'll make the adjustment before sending it out.


----------



## gic (Oct 2, 2013)

How does the shibazi compare in quality/steel/sharpening ability to the CCK??

Seems like a great deal, thanks for sharing!


----------



## rickyro (Oct 4, 2013)

I don't know about CCK, but I did some homework about Sugimoto and Shibazi Chinese cleavers.

Sugimoto:
No 1, 2, 3 -- 220*95. With no1 thinnest (for slicing), no3 thickest (for chopping), no2 in the middle (general purpose)
No 6, 7 -- 220*110(or 112 as JCK put it). with no6 thinner, no7 thicker (even on JCK both are marked as 4mm thick, but the tapering are different I think)
No 30 -- 190*95, very thin

Shibazi:
full size -- 220*110
most slicers -- 205*90
smaller size -- 190*95

So you can observer quite a match between Sugimoto and Shibazi. But Shibazi has a lot more choices and has even larger size than 220*110 since Shibazi is a chinese company and making Chinese cleavers is its most important and critical job.

But the problem with Shibazi is that I found that their website totally sucks. You cannot find any Chinese cleavers from the English version. But even in Chinese version the latest products with clad steel are not listed.
http://en.shibazi.com/english/index.asp

shibazi F208 is the one most interesting for me. The new professional traditional wood handle series with composite steel. The core steel is something like 440C or Aus-8 with rated HRC as 59~60. 
F208-2 is the smaller size slicer.


----------



## rickyro (Oct 4, 2013)

F208-2 is rated as around 35USD from shibazi online shop located in Taobao (the most famous Chinese online shopping site, branch of Alibaba who may be going to do an IPO at NYSE or Nasdaq soon). But the lowest price from Taobao is around half of that.

The models that can be found from the other just cited website are low end models with softer steel (like Henckles mainstream steel I think)

F202 series is thicker suitable also for chopping chicken bones. But the blade is designed with two parts, the front part being thin suitable for slicing and the back part (close to handle) being thicker for chopping.

the size is 230*110.





Shibazi also has full metal handle professional series TP01. But I prefer the traditional wood handle.


----------



## chinacats (Oct 4, 2013)

Thanks for the detailed info on Shibazi rickyro! I had actually purchased two new Shibazi's this week to complement my CCK (mine's ~225 x 110 so I may have the model number wrong). I was looking for something heavier and bought a S2506-A which is listed as a heavy duty Chinese meat cleaver which has a more western style handle. I also decided to try a stainless handle one as well as a PO3 so will report back when they arrive. Total including shipping was ~$30 from the site unkajonet recommended.

Cheers


----------



## jaybett (Oct 4, 2013)

chinacats said:


> The only cleaver I currently own is a CCK 1103 which I assume is a slicing cleaver or the approximate equivalent of a Sugimoto 6? I am interested in trying a few other inexpensive cleavers and would like to find the rough equivalents of a #7 and maybe a #22. My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that the number 7 is sort of an all around cleaver and the 22 is more of a meat/bone basher? What would be a couple of good inexpensive cleavers that might approximate the others in the series. Thinking that maybe the Dexter carbon here may be sort of the middle ground? Size isn't too important, but I like the size of my current 1103 so full size is fine. Again, please excuse my ignorance on the subject but I would like to try a few others just to figure out the usefulness of the other sizes/weights. I really like my 1103, but again I feel it is more of a slicer which is how I now use it.
> 
> Thanks



Sugimotos are close to the ideal all around cleaver. With their strong distal taper they are thin at the tip and thicker at the choil. Slicing cleavers typically have a bit of flex. Not the Sugimoto, the distal taper, makes for a stiff knife. The handle is probably the best of a production cleaver. The spine and choil are rounded, in the right places. The cleaver feels good in the hand. It is easy to sharpen, and holds its edge. 

Fit and finish are on the rough side. It seems like Sugimoto spent time getting the areas right that are needed to make a cleaver perform. They are ugly ducklings, but they do work well. 

I'm not aware of any brand, including the Japanese ones, that are similar to a Sugimoto. They get listed from time to time, in the BST thread. At usually a very good price. 

Sugimoto 6 is a slicing cleaver. 

Sugimoto 7 is a chopping cleaver. 

Sugimoto 22 is for chopping poultry or fish bones. It measures 195mm x 110mm. 

The Sugimoto 1 is Sugimoto 6, but with a reduced blade height of 95mm versus 110mm.

The Sugimoto 2 is a Sugimoto 7, again with reduced blade height. 

Sugimoto 3 is a boning cleaver. 

Jay


----------



## Seb (Oct 4, 2013)

Thanks for the info!


----------



## rickyro (Oct 4, 2013)

jaybett said:


> Sugimotos are close to the ideal all around cleaver. With their strong distal taper they are thin at the tip and thicker at the choil. Slicing cleavers typically have a bit of flex. Not the Sugimoto, the distal taper, makes for a stiff knife. The handle is probably the best of a production cleaver. The spine and choil are rounded, in the right places. The cleaver feels good in the hand. It is easy to sharpen, and holds its edge.
> 
> Fit and finish are on the rough side. It seems like Sugimoto spent time getting the areas right that are needed to make a cleaver perform. They are ugly ducklings, but they do work well.
> 
> ...



Very clear comparison between No1, 2, 3 and No 6, 7.

But I found out the spine and choil of my CM4030 are not rounded at all. Maybe that's because the CM4030 is low end model and the price is less than half of No 6 and this process is omitted.

And the side opposite to choil (from the tip to spine) is not even symmetric, which means one edge is 90 degree and the other is around 120 degree.

And there are some glue remaining you can see from the connecting point between handle and blade. But since the handle is more complicated than a full tang- three rivet type and does bring the advantage of comfort, then the glue staff is totally understandable.






This is the distal taper Jaff is talking about compared to a Shibazi same width blade.





Generally, I think the f&f of CM4030 is quite OK. The major glitches are coming from the blade, such as not rounded, irregular angles in some edge. The other part is coming from the handle connection point with glue remainings. But Hiromoto AS is also not rounded, and the f&f of handle also has some small glitches.


----------



## rickyro (Oct 4, 2013)

&#20013;&#33775;&#24214;&#19969;&#12398;&#29992;&#36884;&#65306;
1.&#34180;&#20995;&#65306;&#12420;&#12431;&#12425;&#12363;&#12356;&#12418;&#12398;&#12434;&#20999;&#12427;&#12289;&#32905;&#12289;&#37326;&#33756;&#12289;&#21069;&#33756;&#29992;&#12395; 1&#21495;?6&#21495;?
2.&#20013;&#21402;&#20995;&#65306;&#32905;&#12289;&#37326;&#33756;&#12289;&#40165;&#12289;&#39770;&#12394;&#12393;&#12381;&#12398;&#20182;&#19975;&#33021;&#29992;&#12395; 2&#21495;?7&#21495;?11&#21495;?&#20304;&#25991;?No887?20041&#12290;
3.&#21402;&#20995;&#65306;&#39592;&#20184;&#12398;&#32905;&#12289;&#39770;&#12394;&#12393;&#12434;&#20999;&#12427;622-30W?3&#21495;?22&#21495;?20042&#39592;&#20999;&#12426;&#65306;22&#21495;

Google translation:
1. thin blade: Cut a soft meat, vegetables, appetizers. No. 1, 6.

2. middle thick blade: all-purpose for other meat, vegetables, birds, and fish. No. 2, 7, 11

3. thick blade: cut of meat with bone, and fish. No.3, 22. No 22 is especially thicker for chopping bones.

So I think No2, 7 is good enough for chicken bones and fish with bones. No3 is even thicker so more suitable for pork with not too hard bones cutting. In Chinese food, sometimes the bones are cooked together with meats so you don't need to separate the meat from bone but just need to cut them into small pieces.

But No3 is 4.5mm (220*95) thick. No22 is 6mm (220*110) thick, even stronger.


----------



## unkajonet (Oct 4, 2013)

gic said:


> How does the shibazi compare in quality/steel/sharpening ability to the CCK??
> 
> Seems like a great deal, thanks for sharing!



I haven't had a chance to use a CCK. I bought a Dexter not too long ago, and while it takes a nice edge, it needs thinning.


----------

