Talk:Bladesmith

Metalworking Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Craft
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Craft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of craft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CraftWikipedia:WikiProject CraftTemplate:WikiProject CraftCraft articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I reverted to the version before the addition of info about katana strength due to blade curvature. There are many myths surrounding Japanese katanas, and if anyone wishes to add anything about them I feel we should talk about what to add first, and make sure we're adding accurate material.

The article is totally unsourced and reads like it was cobbled together by a bunch of adolescents. Frankly I would suggest deleting it except that I hope someone somewhere actually knows something about the topic.75.183.86.60 16:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way - I'm sorry you feel that way, Mister 75.183.86.60. I'm not sure why you are commenting if you aren't "someone who knows something about the topic" but it is your prerogative. As a part-time bladesmith, I wrote 95% of the article myself, using the myriad sources that I drew upon while learning the craft. It would have been great if perhaps an ABS Mastersmith had taken up the task of writing the article, but as none did, I took it upon myself. I agree that I should reference sources, and I hope that I will soon have the time to do so. Meanwhile, this article will at least offer direction and insight to those who seek it, regardless of what you think of it, Mister IP man with no login name. -- Kazrian

I concur with Kazrian's comments. The article does not look like garbage to me. If you do think it is, please indicate what is wrong with it here or edit the article yourself.

• Personally, I think that the specification of particular grades of steel (which are not defined in WP) is inappropriate, at least until their definition appears in WP.
• The material on movies is correct. Welding across a break would leave a point of weakness, to reforge a broken sword it would be necessary to pile the fragments, weld them together, and forge a new sword from them. This merely illustrates the ignorance of film makers.
• I am far from sure that what is said about arrowheads is right. Medieval kings ordered arrowheads in large numbers from smiths; these needed to be of iron in order to pierce chain mail or armour. I can believe that pewter arrowheads were used for hunting, though I have not heard of this before.
• I would hope that Kazrian can provide his sources, if only by listing a bibliography at the end. Otherwise the contributuions are libale to be categorised as
  WP:OR and removed. Peterkingiron 09:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I clarified the bit on "arrowheads" -- I was referring to cast arrowheads, not forged arrowheads; many people ask me how to "pour steel arrowheads like they do in Robin Hood" and this is false, steel arrowheads were forged, not cast.

I also added a Bibliography section. I hope to provide specific citations in the future but right now I just don't have the time. Kazrian 11:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i am 16 years old and i have been bladesmithing for only around 2 years however i do know my fair share about the art. i find the site fairly good and the only problems i found are in the movie section. In the highlander movie although it isn't very well done he actually does reforge the blade not welded one on. the handle easly would have been removed and refitted. also if he didn't reforge the blade why do you think they had the scenes with the soccerors blank( the block of steel) with would have been made for a high quality metal that was folded many times to make it much strongerdue to the complex crystaline structure the procedure made. also since it is a movie was probalbly enchanted or something. Also in the lord of the rings even though the Narsil was welded back together and in real life that would render it fairly useless the reson i think that they would have to is because it most likely had magical properties or something to that effect making it the reson why it was the kings sword to begin with. Also since it is a movie to the vast majority of the adiance the remaking of it rather than the repairing would have been much less dramatic. Any way these are my opionions if you disagree i don't really care. i just thought the more diversity of the opionons will make the page more interesting for people who think otherwise. and also the part about duncan filling in the cracks really makes absolutly no sense and i agree with you on that matter. Also i know my spelling and grammar is extremly bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.186.115.58 (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey im 16 also and ihave been blacksmithing/bladesmithing for about 8 years yes 8 years since i was seven. now I belive this page is good for information but the section on highlander ---> "Another incorrect example of bladesmithing is presented in the movie Highlander III: The Final Dimension. Connor Macleod breaks his Masamune katana and must re-forge it using a block of steel left by the sword's original maker. Some feel that it is implied that he 'fills in the cracks' of his sword blade due to the short amount of time in which he repairs his sword and the difficult shape of the steel block he uses as his material. However, realistically, in order for his blade to be full strength, he would need to completely remake the blade from scratch, and reset it into the handle. There is no way to 'fill in the cracks' of a broken blade with new steel short of forge-welding, and a forge-weld in the middle of a blade like the Masamune would arguably decrease its strength considerably." now for one if you notice in the movie Connors blade completley disintigrates leaving only the handle so he goes of to scotland and digs up his blacksmithing gear. as you notice he tries several times but cannot get it quite right but then i cant remember her name comes with the billet of steel left by masamune and as seen it falls and chips the ceramic tile without sustaning even a scratch noting that it is considerably hard. now if you new anything about japanese swordsmithing you would know that when they start of the peice of metal starts of in much the same ways so "the difficult shape of the steel black" is comlpetley wrong as it is, as it should be noting that the director did reasearch unlike someone who wrote this section. also he ends up re-forgeing the blade and like the previous comment he simply refits the handle and any idiot excuse the language would know that you dont just get a sword and weld it together and you certainly dont fill in the cracks not that there were any as the sword was obliterated and in conclusion this section is completey wrong and like the previous comment leaver sorry for any spelling or grammer mistakes --Stonewall92 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speculation about the reforging of Narsil. This article is supposed to be informative -- discussion like that belongs in a Lord of the Rings article. Kazrian (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC) i agree not garbage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2910:3A10:18C3:559A:30F3:619D (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since Japanese forging techniques (tempering, folding, differing hardness, cross lamination, etc) comes from China, I've added brief descriptions of Chinese and Korean swords. Also removed parts of Norse swords. It is also highly unlikely that a sword would have an iron core with a steel outer jacket. Intranetusa (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the addition of Chinese and Korean sections. I disagree that swords would not have iron cores with tool steel contact surfaces -- this type of construction makes sense and is described in several books as being used by both Norse and Japanese swordcrafters - I will spend some time tonight to find some citations by page number. Kazrian (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Japanese/Chinese/Korean sword smith uses a soft 'steel' core with a hard 'steel' jacket. I just don't see why they would use iron when they could take that iron and create much more durable steel. Intranetusa (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak of oriental swords, but a common practice in the west was for the body of a blade to be made of wrought iron with a strip of steel welded along the cutting edge, or for a layer steel to be sandwiched between two layers of iron. An iron core with steel surface (as opposed to cutting edges) sounds improbable. I have seen a typology of knives according to the materials in their cross-section, but do not know a reference for this. In the west, steel was a difficult material to produce, and much more expensive than iron; accordingly, it was only used where necessary. For this purpose, there is probably little difference between knives, scythes and swords. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the following bits, for clarity and accuracy; 1. The term "Damascus" is not incorrect in referring to pattern welded material. The term "Damascus" and "Damascened" are used to refer to various techniques and materials. None are incorrect. 2. Norse swords- The "Norse" people were not well known for their production of swords, so much as for their use of them. I have provided rudimentary citations from very key sources. I'm sorry if my citation technique is a little rusty. 3. Cast pewter arrowheads- Where are the records of cast pewter arrowheads? This subsection is largely an irrelevance. I recognize that people might need to be set straight about cast arrowheads, but is the swordsmith section the place for it? I haven't removed it, but I have removed reference to pewter arrowheads, for which there is no evidence, either in this article or in the archaeological record.

Concerning this article being garbage- it isn't. It's good that this stuff is getting on Wikipedia, and nobody is going to get it right the first time, all the time. More power to those who make the effort.Bhasmanath

1. "Damascus" is incorrect in that our modern "Damascus steel" is not the same as the Damascus steel of the Middle Ages; I do agree though that in present day "Damascus" has become sort of an accepted lingo for pattern-welded. With that in mind, I added a sentence that just states that modern Damascus is not the same as the stuff from the Middle Ages to avoid creating confusion.

2. Not sure about this "Norse were not known for production of swords" concept; I had a citation there stating that Norse people had advanced swordsmithing techniques. As your citation is based on a sword archaeology book and mine on a bladesmithing book, I'll defer to the historic one, but I would really like to see at least one more collaborating source on that point. Kazrian (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to the Indian/Middle Eastern section regarding Wootz and Damascus steel. It still needs work but I inserted some sources in there so it's coming along.Kazrian (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the reference to the term "Damascus" being inaccurate in pertaining to pattern welded material. The India/Middle Eastern section needs a lot of work, but it's not reaslly my forte, so I'll leave it to some other pedant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhasmanath (talk • contribs) 00:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt the article mention that norse swords were made by taking 3 long strips of metal twisting them and then shapng them in to one blade. 209.244.31.42 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two topics

• I think they should be merged but I disagree with some things in the knife-making article so I will probably rip them out or reword them if and when I merge the two. Kazrian (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- The knife making article is a poor one, and a good deal of its text can be lost in merging. The target should certainly be this article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Change the title of the merged article to "blade making" (or keep it as "bladesmithing", but I like the sound of "blade making" better because it relates to both previous articles) and I think you've got yourself a good article. Elm-39 (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The two are not the same thing. Bladesmithing is a specific term used in the making of knives. It refers to forging or pattern-welding a blade. Knife makers utilizing the stock-removal method (grinding) are not bladesmiths.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 12:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is completely redundant with bladesmithing - bladesmithing includes knife making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.235.8 (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Knife making is a subset of bladesmithing, but most of the process overlaps. I think Mike's interpretation of "bladesmithing" is far too narrow, however a note can be made that in the narrow context bladesmithing only refers to forging and pattern-welding (if a ref can be found to support that statement). Wizard191 (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going by the definition laid down by two organizations governing knifemakers and their work, which has trickled down throughout the cutlery industry. See The ABS Homepage. The Bladesmith is defined as forging or patternwelding of knives, you cannot become a member of this Society unless you submit a forged blade for evaluation. Whereas the Knifemaker's Guild includes Stock removal and those who forge blades. I have been an Honorary Guild member for 5 years. I am not a member of the Bladesmith Society because I have not forged a blade (yet). Don't believe me, check the literature or ask a knifemaker.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I have to agree with you. There's a big difference. When I started this page (knife making) in Dec 2005, it was my intent to keep knife making and blade smithing or forging separate. They are related only in that they are two vastly different methods of manufacturing a knife. So far, all my knives are by the metal removal process, and soon I hope to start a line of forged blades. I know of a lot of ABS graduates who would be offended to be simply labelled "knife makers", since their art is significantly different from what I do. My apologies to everyone reading this page. If I had kept up with this article, we would not be having this multi-tangential discussion. This was supposed to be simply an article on knife making. --User:ltcray —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Edit to add, if anything you could make a better argument for moving Bladesmithing into Knife making, I would support such a merge at the risk of the other article becoming too unwieldy again, because Blade smithing as defined here and in numerous sources and by charters of both the Knifemaker's Guild and the ABS is a subset of knife making.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the associations and societies about bladesmithing use the term to mean something very specific (note that neither of the links you supplied gave the definitions you listed, but I'm taking your word for it), but that is not the only thing the term means. Websters defines it as, "A sword cutler",[1] which is probably what the general population of readers would think it to mean (perhaps this viewpoint can be backed up by the fact that the wiktionary entry essentially states the same as the Webster entry [2]). Ultimately, my point here is that you can't constrain the context of the article to such a narrow definition when a wider definition exists. See

WP:UNDUE. Wizard191 (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree, respectfully of course. On the subject of links here is the intro from the ABS page: "The American Bladesmith Society, Inc. pledges to diligently, reasonably and responsibly work exclusively for the purposes of promoting and advancing the art and science of the forged blade and other implements." I could spend all day posting links to every ABS Mastersmith and have them tell you the same. The difference is noted among actual knifemakers who make knives for a living is that 90% of the time if you say Bladesmith, a stock-removal guy will correct you. If you say it around a bladesmith who forges blades, he'll correct you 100% of the time. However it is correct to refer to both as "knife makers" or "cutlers". Yes, Webster defines it as a "sword cutler", however that is the only definition it gives and it is an archaic one. You are correct, The Guild does not specify on it's website, but it does in their publications. Check Google, check the sources used in each article, maybe to Jon Q Public who has 6 knives in his kitchen drawer and one on his workbench it all means the same, but to those of us in and around the cutlery industry as makers, resellers, collectors, etc...the two are vastly different terms.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've thought this one over and see what you mean in the larger sense. The article does include information on sword making and if someone were so inclined to include information on axe making, scythe making, and awl making...I'd have no problems with it. However, I think knife making still rates its own article, particularly with regard to the stock removal method. There are some makers who use that method for the manufacture of swords, axes, and what not, but it's a much smaller margin than those who forge those tools.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything based merely on the definitions of the Amercan Bladesmiths Society would merely refer to theri POV on the subject. Knives, swords, scissors, scythes. sickles are all blades (or have blades) and would come within the term "bladesmith", whether ABS accepts them or not. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be merely based on ABS's definition, that's what printed references are for. I guess equating the craftsmanship that goes into a forged blade with pieces of potmetal machined in sweatshops in China and India explains the decline of this art in Europe.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another reference to back up my point: [3]. It states that (1) bladesmiths and knife makers are synonymous, and (2) they can produce knives via many means, not just forging. (3) It is a recent reference, as it was published in 2006. As such, your definition is not the only legitimate definition. Remember, our Wikipedia policy

Correct, and if you read the rest of that article or actually attend that class in Texarkana, it's only concerned with forging. I learned long ago Wiki is not concerned with truth or fact. I can't wait to see the superb article that results out of this debate.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you too the later part of that section out of context. It states "Those who are seriously interested in a knife making career might consider attending the Bill Moran School of Bladesmithing...this course cover hand forging of blades." Therefore the school/class is about forging knifes, however it's not stating that's all bladesmithing.

LOL...You are right in that if we spend as much time improving the article as we are discussing it, it would look pretty good =) Wizard191 (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I wasn't taking it out of context, because that school is sponsored by the ABS, FYI here is a college that offers a program on knifemaking:[4], note they do not call it bladesmithing. It's frustrating because I know exactly what you mean. I can see how the general public can interchangibly use the two terms, especially on the European continent where knife ownership is heavily restricted, let alone manufacture of knives is a vanishing art. However, among present-day knifemakers, bladesmiths, collectors, purveyors, etc; the two terms are very different. I'd say that the influence of the ABS also bolsters this distinction. I don't say this at the expense of stock-removal makers...many of whom are extremely talented craftsmen who's machine work allows them to produce pieces worth multiple thousands of dollars(Loveless, Walker, Emerson, Onion, etc); nor do I hold up the ABS as the Ten Commandments of knifemaking, as quality of work goes deeper than "forged vs machined". If you want to spark a real debate...go into the whole machine vs handmade argument with a group of knifemakers! One of the drawbacks of lengthy discussions is they often take up time that could be improving the article, and in my opinion, both of these articles need a hell of alot of work. Knifemaking for example, had no citations at all until I added the Loveless references yesterday. Just a thought but maybe each article could be worked on until it's accurate and coherent?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how you are the only one that holds your viewpoint I recommend you work up at least an introduction that can cover both viewpoints of a "bladesmith" and explain a bladesmith in the context of a knifesmith. Perhaps from there we can straighten out these articles. Wizard191 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have huge problems with both articles to be honest and have not been a primary contributor to either. If there's no other objections, I'll try to work both of them to be more coherent.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I look forward to your progress. Wizard191 (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll always be a fan of putting in the work over arguing semantics!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the following, it can be added after it's rewritten and sourced properly:

For instance, in the beginning of Conan the Barbarian, Conan's father, upon forging his sword, quenches the orange-hot blade in snow. In truth, this action would probably crack the blade. Sub-zero quenches (that is, quenching a blade at forging temperature in a medium that is extremely cold, such as snow or liquid nitrogen) are useful for newer alloys, such as stainless steel, but most other high-carbon steels must be quenched in some sort of oil or a brine solution to avoid cracking or warpage.

Another incorrect example of bladesmithing is presented in the movie

While the statements may indeed be accurate, WP has veered away from including every reference to a subject in popular culture in articles. Accordingly, I consider it undeirable that any (or mcuh of this text should be retored to the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm having a similar problem on the Carlos Hathcock article. Weirdos keep inserting every reference of a sniper shooting another sniper through a scope into that article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally included the Conan portion in the article to clear up popular bladesmithing misconceptions; it probably doesn't belong here anymore but perhaps it should be placed in a separate "Bladesmithing in popular culture" type of article that could include those references, otherwise the information will be lost. I do think it is important to clear up popular culture misconceptions in some way, whether it be here or in a related article. Kazrian (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this section just seems like someones snobbery here theres no mention of what the misconceptions are or anything like that 81.147.139.156 (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a detailed description of how blades are made. The depiction in Lord of the Rings of the reforging of a sword certainly does not represent what would have had to be done. This is not snobbery: it is the result of a lack of research by the film-makers. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is there is no list of actual myths, which gives the appearance, that the author is just being snobbish and calling someone wrong, without providing any info. you know nothing about fixing magic swords :) 71.194.44.209 (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drop forging misconception

Do we need this? Does anyone seriously confuse casting and forging in this way? Especially drop forging vs. "droplet"? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not believe we need this. This article's lead paragraph links to forge, where the essential nature of forging is promptly and clearly described. Until a source appears for "sometimes confused with casting" the section should be removed. __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and it's gone. (Ignore confusing edit summary— there was an unsaved null edit involved.) __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great bit, just great... saying that the Germanic people borrowed the method of pattern welding from the Romans... To begin with, the Romans had borrowed it from the Celts in the first place, along with the technology for chainmail and other metallurgy bits... and to boot the Germans had been close neighbours to the Celts for centurie, since it was them who pushed them West and repopulated the vacated areas (which is why so many Ancient Celtic sites, starting with Halstatt and La Tène, are currently in Germanic population area)... so, in the absence of reliable sources on the subject, and that means most Greek and Roman historians are out since they tend to see the barbarians as borrowing culture from them, I strongly doubt the Germanic peoples even needed Roman mediation to learn metallugical advances from the Celts.--Svartalf (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the term "Bladesmith" a modern term for a certain type of knife making practice? From my reading of this article and the talk page I get the sense that the term is used to distinguish between the practice of making knives from stock material and making knives through hot working (the same way the term "terrestrial television" was invented after the fact once satellite television began being used). If this is the case, does it make sense for this article to focus so heavily on the historical practice of bladesmithing (e.g. the bladesmiths of ancient Japan) when historically these practices would just have been referred to as knife making? Instead, in my view it would make more sense for the article to focus on the modern practice of the craft.

BirdmanOfHorseradish (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]