Is it FAIR to compare Historical to Modern KATANA'S?

[@joshbone9888]

Test efficacy yes Test destruction no Art is art and there is nothing wrong with keeping something you find beautiful intact

[@mariusbendiksen163]

Yeah, don't break the sword for no good reason.

[@bradbrandon2506]

I agree

[@Pentagon6519]

For "science" it's ok to compare historical blades to modern ones. Consumers should know what a historical blade is capable of. However, it shouldn't be held against the historical blade that it didn't hold up as well as a modern blade when deciding its retail value unless the two blades are directly competing for the same use. So if a traditional was competing against a modern for functional use ie for combat then take into account the superiority of the modern blade. Otherwise it's like comparing a sports car to a truck.

[@m.h.6470]

You can't compare it with modern made swords, BUT you can show and highlight the shortcomings of traditional made swords! Essentially, you can prove, that swords like this are not necessarily better than modern swords, like most Japanese media would like us to believe.

[@SpiceCh]

Not sure japanese media ever claimed that historical swords are somehow better than what can be produced today any more than British media depicts longbows as better weapons than guns. I maintain that only few people actually believe historical swords to be "better" than what can be produced today, and those people are likely japanophiles or essentially the same people who unironically wish they had been born in medieval Europe

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

Modern Katanas are made with one block of steel just like Historical/Modern European Swords. Historical Katana did not have the tech necessary to create a high quality sword with one steel block. While Traditional Katanas are made akin to the Historical side but with better quality steel. They are comparable in that Historical Katanas will break faster than Traditional Katanas, which are far less durable than Modern Katanas. Other than this... There's no real difference between Traditional and Modern Katanas beyond personal preferences.

[@DanielMWJ]

​@@absolstoryoffiction6615No, that's not the case. Because they're made differently, with different grades of steel, they're going to have very real differences in their qualities.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

@@DanielMWJ The material difference will affect the result but the methodology is the same between Historical and Traditional Katanas. While Modern Katanas are made from one block if steel akin to Modern European Swords.

[@DanielMWJ]

@@absolstoryoffiction6615 It was specifically the conclusion that "there's no real difference between traditional and modern katanas" that I was objecting to. It doesn't get any more real than material differences.

[@makhmal1776]

I believe what you should definetly do is to give the audience the information you provided in this video and you should treat all of them equally. What the potential buyers want to do with that information is their responsebility. Love your content.

[@takuoku2546]

this is kinda unrelated but I remember watching a japanese tv show where they shot at a traditional katana with an m2 browning machine gun from like 5m away or something. I think it actually survived 7 or so shots on the same part of the blade. I was honestly surprised because I expected it to break in half from the first shot, considering how much power a 50bmg has.

[@sr71silver]

For the review I would say that it was never important to hold any sword to some kind of codified metric but rather to go through a series of test to demonstrate its quality. Basically your job is to standardize the tests, as much as you can, then show the swords going through each test and allow them to speak for themselves. After that it's up to the perspective buyer to make a judgement. For the Historical vs Modern comparison I'd say compare the sword against what it is meant to be and then be honest about the pros and cons those design choices. In this case acknowledge the differences from a modern spring steel blade but don't spend a huge amount of time on that. The main focus should be on how well it does at being a historically accurate replica. And of course general quality. On destruction just do what you want. It's your sword and either choice is going to annoy some people so there's no actual correct choice.

[@ThunderAngel27]

I would say do both. Let this serve some time in the Shadlands for cutting tests and what not. But potentially years down the line get your hands on a second historical accurate katana just like it, let the new one replace its role as cut tester and then decommission the original in a heroic send off....a destruction test.

[@selfconfessedcynic]

I like this as a middle ground 👍🏾👍🏾

[@josuesepulveda6850]

I like this!

[@leiterfurkundenzufriedenhe1884]

I swear I'm not a katana fanboy but please don't destroy it 😭 I love destruction videos but I feel like we already know well enough what will happen to that sword from the historical artwork alone! It would feel like throwing rocks at a painting just to see how many you need to get through!

[@riukrobu]

I feel you but it's not the same. Not exactly at least. A painting is a unique piece, and it's not meant to be used, only stared at. All of the destruction videos in this context are meant as experimental gainth of information. Testing its durability, although we can already infer that it's gonna be weaker than one made with more modern capabilities, would be an empirically proven knowledge.

[@leiterfurkundenzufriedenhe1884]

@@riukrobu I agree, the painting analogy is lacking but I've seen ppl comparing it to a sports car wich get's the point across way better! Let me phrase it this way, why would you crash a 500k sports car in a tree just to see what everybody knows is going to happen, we know exactly what material it's made of, if we really wanna know when it's going to chip and bend we can use pieces of that material or tools made out of high carbon steel to test it

[@riukrobu]

@@leiterfurkundenzufriedenhe1884 I see your point.

[@matthewrichards4078]

6:18 Actions speak louder than words bros. They sent that to you AND gave the dimensions/distinctions. IF they didn't want you all to FULLY test it like any other blade, you wouldn't have been sent it.

[@6th_Army]

See I want to agree with you. But beautiful sword.

[@matthewrichards4078]

@@6th_Army This group that uses the classic method- They've been reading and seeing people, 'claim' 'weakened' 'not sure of that today' 'can it really do that' Sent you one to fully test. The presumption of not sending your team another one is a bit odd. PLUS, if you fully test it? It can open the door for other classic method blade/armor/shield makers to ALSO send you authentic with modern sensibilities to fully test them out.

[@6th_Army]

@@matthewrichards4078 Ok please use English better if possible. That was harder to read the Spanish & I don't even know any Spanish.

[@matthewrichards4078]

@@6th_Army fixed it, sorry chaps

[@gaberegan5465]

I would take it to the very edge of what you can do without permanently damaging it, then compare that to a sword you're fine with potentially destroying to make the point.

[@theworldofcronis]

Please, A fair review without intentional destruktion

[@montecorbit8280]

Test it!! Test to destruction....preferably not. Testing that sword to destruction feels like wrecking a Ferrari when you're trying to test how fast it will go.... Did that make sense??

[@F-Sine]

I couldn't destroy it unless the company gave me a free second one to test. Maybe you could contact them and they have one that didn't meet some specifications for looks so they can't sell it and would be willing to donate it to your tests. It never hurts to ask these questions.

[@TheHornedKing]

Yeah, I can't decide either. I'm too conflicted.

[@NoSuchStrings]

What if traditional destructive test on both swords. Bone, hardwood, leather armor, meat, bamboo, rope, sandbag etc like on forge in fire where they study the weapon's background and make stress test based on what it is supposed to cut

[@jierdareisa4313]

I love ALL THE SHADLANDS videos!!!! ❤

[@CreepyMF]

me too

[@christianraymond9966]

Mee three

[@bretticus6722]

Really Digging this new channel Mate❤

[@ImperfectV01D]

You can compare anything to anything. What makes a comparison unfair is not the comparison itself, but the implications people would take from it. As long as you're careful and clear about what points you are and *aren't* making by your comparison so as to not imply something untrue, you should be fine. (For example, by comparing the durability of modern and historical katanas, are you implying that durability is what's important? That a katana that isn't durable is therefore "bad" or less impressive? That people who buy historical katanas are doing so because of perceived durability? These are the kinds of implications worth considering and being careful about.)

[@jierdareisa4313]

Maybe give it 2 grades: one for the sword as a piece of art; one for the sword as a fighting tool

[@IrishSouthPaw]

It needs to be tested, but maybe not against things you know will break it, like rocks and barrels. :)

[@DragonboneWarhammer]

It would be epic if you swung your lockwood longsword against the $3000 katana and see which edge comes out on top.

[@Eivor85]

I'd like to think it would last in any test since traditionally built swords are meant to last well.(I doubt in battle your enemy would let you sharpen your sword during a duel if it's edge started to get dull)

[@TwoKnowingRavens]

Test swords in two categories. Artifact class. Performance class. Treat the Artifacts the way they would have been treated historically. Obviously traditional weapons are vulnerable to breaking and bending due to misuse, which is why training both in the East and West focused on respect and care of the sword. Additionally; I know people don't like to hear this, but as soon as armor became popular, swords were seldom used in battle, at least in the way you would see them being used in movies. Swords were mostly ceremonial/symbolic of the office of a Knight/Samurai. Definitely used in duels and as a secondary weapon in combat or against unarmored opponents. But most violent combat was done with polearms, hammers, and axes because those thinga can take abuse. Even a modern sword would be fairly ineffective as a weapon againdt medieval armor. Apart from a miracle , wind up thrust into chainmail which could penetrate, the likelihood your opponent would let you wind back and stab them in the chest or stomach full force is very unlikely. Historical swords were not clanging against metal very often.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

MOST of all... You need to judge them by their standards of creation. Due to the subpar iron generally available in Japan, this resulted in a very distinct difference between high quality works and what was made for the masses. The high quality works were the results of weapon smiths generation after generation experimenting with all sorts of weird stuff, trying to invent methods to overcome the poor quality of the iron they had to work with. High quality work katanas were always carefully made and used the proper methods of "folding layers". Common quality katanas, some used proper folding(which did make them better than average), most however used cutrate versions or even just took 2 or 3 differently worked pieces of metal and then worked them together, a softer, less brittle piece for the core and a more brittle, harder, better to hold an edge piece to make up the edge outside or all of the outside and sometimes a 3rd piece to make up the "back end". And the level of work effort going into common quality katanas were a tiny fraction of the high quality ones. The myths were caused by the greatest of the high quality works. As those were magnificent pieces of work. And that was essentially confirmed in the 1970s, when there was a guy who bought up dozens of katanas taken during WWII, and tested them to destruction... And almost got prosecuted for it, as Japan could TOLERATE a lot of yanks keeping katanas, some of which probably should have counted as national treasures, as trophies, but destroying them? That was a serious red flag. He put all his work on video and sold hoardes of copies, but i've never been able to find any trace of him or his videos after the 1980s(if anyone remembers his name, please give a shout, because i sure do not, at the time it was just some fun stuff to watch on video that a friend of a friend had). His tests showed that the overwhelming majority of blades were of expected quality compared to their time of manufacture. Essentially, modern ones were decent steel and little else, using one of a handful of hypersimplified layering processes. Old ones were poor steel with huge variance in quality of manufacturing method. And then there were 2 blades that had steel quality superior to the best historical European metals, and whose manufacturing was estimated to have taken at least 30 times that of any of the regular blades. And there was 1 blade that defied all else. He completely failed to figure out what the trace elements present was(this was before spectral analysis was thing "anyone" could pay for), and estimated that the effort put into it was at least triple that of the 2 good blades. He ended by concluding that those 2 good and 1 exceptional blades, those were definitely why the katanas had myths about them.

[@monsuta-666]

You guys should do a top 3 durable swords with affiliate links one for long swords and one for katanas

[@yashuacanno8019]

As much as it pains me to destroy a work of art, I personally feel that the knowledge gained from such experiments is significantly more valuable. As long as it is noted that the sword was not meant for such tests, I think giving it a proper test is almost an obligation. I personally would like to own katanas of both makes; artists and practical.

[@ApfelJohannisbeere]

For science I'd say use the same standard, so we can compare it (performance/advance), due being held to the same standard. With this we know exactly how the other expensive katana etc are held towards. Another thing is, they knew sending to you it will be tested, and maybe have some expectations as well upon you to deliver such results. However, if you receive another such katana, I'd say keep it save for the art. One of the many reasons why collectors buy two or more of the same stuff and keep all the others tucked away.

[@AidanRatnage]

5:39 There is a key difference here: You don't own the Mona Lisa, you do own this sword. Do with it as you wish.

[@Crimtaku]

Well, I wouldn't want that to be bashed on rocks, it is not made for that and never was. Wooden targets are fine, also hits against armor would have happened back in the day... Also some blade to blade testing, the closer it would represent what would be likely to happen in actual combat the better. Maybe how it holds up when parrying with flat or when the strike comes with realistic parrying angles before or instead of what would cause maximum destruction. The main focus should be in what would have been plausible situations back in the day as well as what might be considered reasonable cutting practice on harder targets I believe.

[@deviancepurplehaze6045]

No. That sword is beautiful so please don't abuse it (too much).

[@caelus1710]

I don't think you necessarily need to do destructive tests on the traditionally made katana.

[@gavinmilligan927]

If it was ever intended for use, then every such tool needs to meet or exceed the same standards. If for no other reason than to determine its practical value versus its perceived value.

[@ZttackFrmBhind]

Did anybody else read the thumbnail as "How Should we Juggle?"

[@robertbrittian6815]

I'm a big fan of your KZbin channels both of them , I'm also a fan of a snaller KZbin channel Matthew Jensen and he has a thing where he has destroyed a lot of swords and I would love to see a collaboration where you do an initial review and then send it to him for the destruction part . So the death of a $3000 work of art wouldn't be on your hands...lol

[@Nathan-vt1jz]

I think it’s okay to compare as long as you give a good explanation as you’ve done here. I would ask the artist/company who made it, what they feel on the matter (I’d be fine for whatever they preferred). Aside from that, I’d lean away from destruction testing towards a more limited testing and historical discussion.

[@merakimelodies8931]

That’s a challenging question. I’m just putting my two cents here, so don’t take my estimation as anything else, but I do believe it is fair. I feel that the EMPHASIS should be upon its being a beautiful, traditional piece of artisanship which is also battle-ready, but, if it is advertised as battle-ready, one must wonder how well it will hold up compared to other varieties of battle-ready swords: it’s not so much that you would be comparing it in a way it was never meant to be compared, but in a way which it itself defines itself, though it is maybe self-admittedly not designed with that as a focus (but hey, if it is advertised as battle-ready, then that domain now becomes fair game, maybe just with a gentle approach and an understanding that it’s not its main aspect). The battle-readiness should be considered and tested and held to comparison, but, if it falls short, that should not be as much of a detriment to it as might be the case for some other swords, since this one does lean on the more artistic side. I hope this helps! 😊

[@dejakester]

I don't think I would do destructive testing, unless that is what the intention of the gift was...

[@Ultr4l0f]

I wouldnt destroy it. Its just a bit too ...nice. A bit of fencing? Sure. But my soul would hurt if you struck rocks with it

[@ZttackFrmBhind]

It comes down to how much you value the art of the piece. Being as sentimental as I am, I would probably say don't destroy it.

[@ScottyAlmondjoy]

It’s so pretty that I don’t want to see it damaged. I’d say avoid anything that would likely chip it.

[@agent7796]

No, in my opinion modern steels just can't compare with traditional steel construction. The $3000 sword is as you say, a, piece of art, not modern battle ready. That being said, SMASH IT! 😉😎👍👍

[@mr.smiles3212]

I think the expensive traditional sword would be a work of art that can be used as a weapon. The spring steel katana is a weapon that looks aesthetically pleasing.

[@irencsak]

As far as a general, honest, and good faith review, I think it's fair to hold it to a very high standard regarding it's craftsmanship. As far as the performance goes, it should be aiming for being able to hold up to reasonably high historical standards. It does after all still come with many modern advancements such as material quality and machine precision tooling. Beyond that, everything should be with the understanding of what you're comparing it to, and the goal of the intended pieces in question. It'd be much the same as comparing it to a dedicated thrusting blade. It's fine to see how they differ, but don't expect the same performance, as they aren't made with the same goal in mind. Personally, with all that said, I'd rather not see an intended destruction test. It has merit to do so, but I'd also like to see it stick around more as one of the "comparison" pieces.

[@loroc00]

Of course, you could test how good Mona Lisa burns, but if you do first you're a barbarian second you belong chased out of town 😅

[@tommeakin1732]

As far as wrecking it goes; they've gifted it to you, so ask them what they thought you'd be doing with it. Maybe they were hoping, or at least expecting that you'd go as far as breaking it. Or maybe they hoped you'd hang it up in your office for the rest of your life lol. I'm guessing you already have a good sense of that already from talking with them. But I'd say it'd almost be rude if you didn't do what they hoped, considering how damn costly it is lol

[@heavyplatinum9212]

No, it is not fair to hold traditionaly made swords to the same standard as proper quality modern made swords. The whole point is as a beautiful work of art that is effective. You are right about not wanting to destroy the sword for testing. It would hurt me too if I had to do it😢

[@bliblivion]

don't brake it, test it but keep it, it will make you smile when you use it to cut things

[@caseymauldin8396]

Hey Shad, maybe you could shift the review system a little bit for it? Sure feel free to do all the tests you were mentioning, even destroy it, but since it is a product that is for sale in the modern times, since you’re conflicted on it, try to emphasize who is for/who would be the proper target purchaser.

[@rbwbr]

I think its not fair to hold it to modern standarts I'd be interensting to see a destruction test. But we kinda know the results already

[@outerjohn]

Don't destroy it. Guarantee it's not as durable as a modern sword, I think we already know that

[@Plus_Escapee]

I've understood for a long time that the katana is not about raw performance, but the brilliance of using limited resources to maximum effect. They are deadly works of art, but they are limited as a result of their materials, which were sparse in a country notorious for being populated by very ingenious, artistic people that were very, very poor. The katana is not the ultimate sword, for that we have Europe's swords born from crucible steel, but they are the ultimate achievement for what they had. Undeniably amazing and beautiful, and worthy of respect.

[@bradbrandon2506]

Ugh the scientific discovery involved in such a test would be tremendous, but i think you said it best: what if it was your sword? I generally don't use my swords for anything unless i have to. I know what they are and their capabilities. I just wear and practice with them. Considering I've never intentionally abused a sword and even oil mine regularly (especially my katana), if it was my sword, no, i would simply practice martial arts with it and wear it as a work of art. I would pretty much only use my sword if my life was in danger or to stop a crime if i have to. I avoid violence at petty much all cost except the cost of life. Seeing i baby my blades so much, no, if it was my sword, i might not even test it at all. As you said, it's a work of art, even though a lethal one.

[@geletrode]

I want to see how well it cuts maybe slightly harder targets vs spring steel and how they compared to each other, how hard is the expensive sword to sharpen vs spring steel sword after wards etc. Dont need to see destruction testing we all know it not gonna hold up compared to solid core modern spring steel.

[@steveschritz1823]

Sometime you should test a wooden sword. No, not that kind of wooden sword. I mean an Incan sword, a macuahuitl, edged with obsidian, reportedly able to cut the head off a horse.

[@roywall8169]

I am not in favor of destroying things.

[@joragsdale76]

Test the sword in the manner traditionally used.

[@billcipher1212]

i think you should just make that dilemma clear in the review

[@IanJohnstonblog]

Fair? No. Fun? Heck yes!!

[@Andrew6Sinner]

It's a wall hanger and it should be treated as such.

[@yanegolaboski7569]

Hi Guys Anyone has advice as to where to buy a katana. From Romance of man (spring steel) Or Wicked blades (1095 steel)??

[@drisbain]

The best way IMO is both. Compare it to modern day swords and historically made swords (of both western and Asian types)

[@tigerbesteverything]

before you test that, or even when you test that, you need tyranth in the samurai armor (properly worn tough :)) wearing this, and maybe try to feat metatron, i think it would be doing this work of art justice before it's impending destruction.

[@Tib0r_12]

can a slightly curved sword be double edged?

[@rolandswift4311]

Put it as a like goal. Make videos with it normally until one of them hits a certain number of likes, within a limited timeframe, then to destructive testing on it.

[@Umbrella4me]

While I believe in a standard of testing, I also believe that putting that to the full test is absolutely damaging art, and as such, I am strongly opposed to that.

[@chipsdubbo6983]

I think you deserve to be able to keep at least one fancy traditional Katana in one piece, I think we have gotten the point from other Katana destructions at this point even if they weren't as authentically made.

[@jimmycher45]

Maybe this is a dramatic comparison, but if I would compare a traditional cannon compared to modern artillery, the difference will be quite noticeable. However, this is a sword made in the traditional way compared to a sword stylized in the traditional way but with modern technology. So it’s like comparing a traditional cannon to a cannon but more durable. Consider the ‘traditional’ a work of art. Consider the time, blood sweat and possible tears poured into making the blade. I’d say a few slashes at tatami mats would be fun to watch!

[@mariusbendiksen163]

Things should be judged according to what they are, not what other things are. Keep it intact, IMO.

[@sanguinemoon9201]

No destructive testing on that one.

[@niyamimbi1179]

wasnt it the other way around? that the "complicated trazditional expensive way" is better for the nmake of the weapon? that a monosteel blade shhould not be stronger than the complex one?

[@isaiahthomason3998]

It's up to you. Even though it's a work of art, a test of which you speak would increase our knowledge. Either is acceptable. Neither is disrespectful. And comparing a modern sword to a traditional sword is like comparing a traditional sword to a machine gun.

[@hi-q2261]

NO Don't destroy it like you do your other swords SHAD

[@TheHealeyverse]

I'd struggle making myself destroy it also.. so dont feel bad if you dont😅. Sometimes the theoretical review is plenty 😁. It pains me to know we cant work with katanas while in the uk so it's nice to be kept informed. Great review shad 🙂👍. We always enjoy the sword content. Be great to work with you on something one day.

[@ericbowers5968]

That is a beautiful sword. I'd consider the sword for a show piece in your house on a shelf. If you were considering a great sword for training/comp, clearly it'd be a waste. For under a grand you could get a very good sword. Also, in the event of self defense, it'd be such a waste for it to sit in an evidence locker, lol.

[@DanielMWJ]

Do up to the board-cutting. Don't bother with edge-on-edge, rock-cutting, or stabbing metal doors. We *know* it won't do well there. Maybe some full-contact weapon choreography, eg. do some flynning parries and such. Put it through its paces for what a sword should be able to do.

[@RilaAudio]

I'm of the opinion that tools should be used. I think it's worth fully testing it in the capacity of it being a sword, but don't break it for the sake of breaking it.

[@bonkeroons69]

to my understanding the differential hardening was a product of lack of good steel, and I would imagine they would've made katanas out of better material had it been available. However my steel knowledge is limited to these channels, but putting it through the shad approved use and abuse could maybe find a benefit of traditional make that modern make/spring steel doesn't have, and it's good for content lol

[@bonkeroons69]

besides Tyranth can just repair the damages, he made a whole channel about making weapons I'm sure he can repair some too :)

[@bologna3048]

if they had better materials Katanas probably wouldn't look anything like they do.

[@Nasty44]

Definitely should just do 2 separate grades

[@Pharland]

As much as it would pain me to see such a beautiful work of art from my own culture destroyed, I am very curious as to what a katana made so close to traditional make can handle.

[@SunnyKim_]

Cutting hard stuff to test the edge toughness is one thing.... Bashing them against trees and seeing what breaks first is just silly.

[@chrissargent8573]

I get it this hurts seeing what it can do or just edmiring its beauty

[@Roland3ld]

The drastically different metals being used make it seem like an unfair comparison to me. If anything, it could let you know the differences between spring steel and differential hardening, but that is about it.

[@monsuta-666]

Commenting for the algorithm

[@nickgoodman1127]

Mkatana and Tkatana labelled and tested separately for review purpose then general comparisons for fun

[@ghostnappa2012]

Id say you can do cut tests and some light durability tests on the traditional katana, but PLEASE DON'T DO A FULL DESTRUCTION TEST!!! It's a work of art, like you said, and art like that shouldn't be destroyed. It looks like a gorgeous piece of craftmanship

[@eatafox]

Is it fair? No. Is it interesting? Yes!

[@yanegolaboski7569]

Noooooooo Dont do it Whats the point, we're relatively sure as to what will happen to it.

[@selfconfessedcynic]

Engineer here - I really don't think a harsh destructive test is necessary. We already know (well enough) from the specs - that's why hardness tests etc were invented. I don't like the idea of destroying something beautiful - especially something that isn't even trying to compete with modern blades - just for kicks, while calling it "science".

[@seymourfields3613]

You give it a durability score, and you give it a historical tradition score. The spring steel sword is obviously going to be more durable, and should be rated such. If I wanted a good, durable sword, which would you recommend? I would hope the spring steel version.

[@tenzhitihsien888]

I'd say you should judge any weapon/armor pieces by their intended purpose.

[@andreyshirman1705]

Find a way to inrease the level of abuse very gradually, and just stop when you see some real damage to reveal itself. That will be a fair testing, whilr basically giving you "the first treshold" of the sword's durability

[@DeanCalaway]

Think of it as a classic car, is it as good as a modern one? No, but that's not the point, you get a classic car for the craftsmanship that went into it and overall just because it's nice to have, look at and most importantly, use in moderation aware of its limitations. I would not do a destruction test on this sword because the point of it isn't to the strongest it can be, it's just to be something nice with a great level of craftsmanship that goes into it, as for testing it to see how an historically made one would actually hold up, well again, this isn't 100% historically made, and as close as it is, it would still be a somewhat pointless test. I'd do light cutting with it and have it very well kept, which the way I see it is the primary point of this particular sword.

[@Medievalshields]

I think that there should be a significant difference between traditional made katana and modern day katanas

[@JCSalomon]

Weeb myths about the Traditional Katana™ being superior to all preceding and subsequent swords, slicing through steel like butter, have been adequately laid to rest. I’d say, stick to tests that a well-made traditional katana _should_ survive. (Like slicing bullets. 😉)

[@SilverDeath12]

I think that comparing modern and traditional in terms of their intended normal use (such as combat) is fine and makes sense, but stress testing with stuff like car doors and bricks should be left to modern steels that we can reasonably assume will survive. In short, don't intentionally destroy that beautiful and expensive sword..

[@lucanic4328]

As a note, we do not need destructive tests on swords and especially for Japanese swords. There is plenty of destructive tests done and recorded during the Bakumatsu and war period from the last century, we have books filled with these from various point of view. These tests were done better and more scientifiically as the resource were simply different and they tested Japanese swords, proper ones, made from different smiths and in different period. Second, anyone willing to spend 3K on this would not risk destroying it either so from a pure consumer standpoint I do not think you will gain much insights

[@joakimsrensen9625]

don't destroy plz

[@lunathedragon5973]

Traditional katanas are seen as art non-traditional ones are just seen as weapons in Japan but here in America we may as well keep every single type of weapon as a art piece for no reason

[@adventwolfbane]

I don't think when it is built as a piece of art more than as a weapon we can test it to modern weapon standards. And I think as art testing to destruction is a bit much. Make note of the differences the methods used produce though.

[@vahlak6554]

Nothing wrong with keeping it intact. A full test would enforce your usual points about the difference between modern and traditional, and dispel a bit of the myth around the katana in particular, but we all mostly agree with you anyways. Do the usual cut tests but skip hitting a rock with it, imo.