takeda

That's like asking if a Corvette is worth it.  Or a pair of Reeboks.  Or Philly Cream Cheese vs store brand.  The short answer is yes- if you need a Takeda.  They're great knives- thin, light and sharp.  Of course, very reactive.  And sometimes not ground as well as you'd like.  Short of any qualifiers I'm just guessing if it will suit you.  But I guess if you're asking if it's competitive performance-wise with other knives in the same price range, and saying for the sake of argument that you're competent to maintain it, the Takeda will serve you well.  Again, assuming you know how to use it.

Crap...hoped to get thru this without using a derivative of "ass-u-me"....

Your question begs a lot of others.  "Worth it" is a very soft concept, and your skill level is only part of the equation.  In fact, your skill level as a sharpener is just as much if not more important. Also, you're unduly restricting the universe of good knives by limiting it to Takeda -- which is not only one manufacturer among many but represents a particular type of knife (san-mai aka three-layer) -- which may or may not be the best choice for you.

These remarks aren't meant as criticism of your choices in any way, but to expand your horizons a little before we get down to the business and pleasure of looking for that go-to gyuto you obviously want.  You certainly don't have to answer to anyone on this board about your choice of knives.  So, nor do they stand in the way of the basic principle:  If you want it, and can afford it, why not?   

BDL

I think it restricts it even more, BDL.  Sounds like he's maybe drawn not just to san-mai but the Kourichi finish.  Off the top of head, the most typical examples are Moritaka, Takeda and Carter.  And to the OP, understand I'm not trying to be critical...it's just an extremely open ended question.  Even if I knew you personally and worked next to you on the line it would be hard for me to surmise if a Takeda is worth it to you.  Certainly it's a fine knife, though.  If you like the "rustic" finish and the Wa style of handle it's a fine example of the breed.

BDL is spot on about sharpening.  Since it's carbon it will require a bit more care.  Aogami super will get very, very sharp but edge retention is a tad behind that of many tool and stainless steels.  Plus, sitting unused you can lose a bit of your edge to corrosion.  This isn't a deal breaker for me- I keep one AS knife in my work kit and I simply rotate thru them all.  I'll then sharpen maybe half my knives on week, the rest the next.

Maybe the real question here is whether the Takeda is worth the extra money compared to the Moritaka -- they're very, very similar but the Moritaka costs less.

I'm not a fan of san-mai knives at all, don't care for the very flat profile from either maker, and on top of that don't know enough about either to offer an opinion on what appears to be a very fine distinction.  Phaedrus knows more, but one man's opinion is hardly a consensus.

Why not join Fred's Cutlery Forum and ask around there?  I think you'll find a few people who have owned both knives. 

BDL

Well, I can't say a lot about the Takedas based on first hand experience.  But for my coin I'd buy the Moritaka- that's one I have used and enjoyed.  The few guys I know that have extensively used both tend to concur that the Moritaka is about as good for less money. 

Personally I like a very flat profile on a gyuto, the flatter the better.  In fact, I'm really thinking about getting a Moritaka Kiritsuke which is flat as a board.  Profile is one of the reasons I love my Akifusa so much.  I wish CarboNext suji was that flat.

Hi Spike - sorry to hi-jack your thread...

But... Phaedrus, can you expand on that statement a little for me, particularly re: AS? I'm trying to learn about steels, and which ones have which properties - carbon and stainless. As I currently understand it, white steel will take the sharpest edge, but is more suspect to corrosion and will not retain it's edge as long. Blue steel may not be able to get as sharp as white, but is more corrosion resistant and will hold it's edge longer. I still don't quite understand the nuances between white #1 & #2, or blue #1, #2 and super. All I know is that blue seems to be more expensive than white, and blue #1 seems to be the most expensive.

I've got a Moritaka 270 kiritsuke and I love it. The more I use it, the more I get into it. I can certainly see why BDL and others don't like san-mai and/or kurouchi, but for me the knife gets sharp, stays sharp, works well for me, and I like the feel of it. I just ordered a Moritaka 150 petty since I like their knives so much! I think they are a great value for blue super steel. Still not sure where I want to go long term - carbon vs ss. I'm trying to get a handle on which ss is "the best" and how that compares w/ blue & white re sharpness & edge retention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaedrus 

Aogami super will get very, very sharp but edge retention is a tad behind that of many tool and stainless steels.  

"Rockwell 'C' Hardness" can be very tricky as a knife metric.  Of the three types of measured hardnesses (impact, indentation and scratch), it measures indentation which is the only one not directly applicable.  All hardness measures are incredibly difficult to do accurately.  And finally, you're on to something with the comparison to ceramics.  Very hard knives tend to be chippy and difficult to maintain.

BDL

Hardness also impacts the difficulty of sharpening. Knives in the mid 60s are notoriously hard to sharpen from dull. It becomes imperative that you maintain the edge frequently rather than let it dull down.