[Kevin Maneff]

I've heard alot of conflicting things about the quality of European Steel Making. Some say it's worse than Japanese, some say they're exactly the same, other still say Europe's Steel Making is BETTER. I came to this forum of a reccomendation, and I'm pretyy curious about it. Does anyone have anything they can tell me?

[Shawn Duncanson]

Europeans had more ore to work with and could reject lesser quality samples and did not need to use the complex techniques that japanese had to. THey could make good steel with a lot less effort in Europe, where as in Japan their supply was not as plentiful in the ore department so they had to work with what they could get. I am sure others know more about this but thats the very beginning of the answer.

[Jörg W.]

Hi Kevin!

I guess you refere to present times. There are standards for steel types that are used around the world. Over many years different types for different purposes were developped. They differ in concentration of carbon, silicon, manganese, nickel and other element. Most are written down in systems like american ISO or german DIN. So it might be that both use the same steel for their blades.
Well some smiths in japan still collect ore themselves and 'purify' it to get special steel. Thats a traditional way. Although not very common in europe these days you can find people doing the same there too. Its very timeconsuming and so expensive. In this case quality might differ from smith to smith and maybe even from day to day. Hard to say who makes the better once. The difference is that in europe some experiences got lost when they became obsolete (or as Shawn said they were never as far developped as in japan) while in japan they survived. Again, modern steels are quite good, common today and much cheaper, but i guess none was special designed for swords within the last centuries. So it might be that 'hand made' steels are better for swords than what you can buy on the market. I dont know for sure, but i think its minimal.
On the other side the construction, tempering, heat treating of a blade or parts of it is important. Traditional made katanas still consist of different steels, a low-carbone iron which is soft and elastic and a high-carbon steel which is hard and brittle. Welded together - there are many ways of constructing a blade - and heat treated only parts of the blade can give speacial attributes. Simillar is pattern welding for Damascus, which was common in europe too. If this so much better than well processed (and cheap) monolithe steel im not sure.
Here are others that can tell you about japanese steel for katanas and the blade smithing better than i can do.

Once thing is for sure, no matter if a sword is better than the other, people not only pay for the sword, but also for the story behind it. A 'hand made' mark is important and if its made the traditional way by a japanese smith the price explodes.

[Jörg W.]

If you refer to history many things are important, like the age, the area and of course the single smith. In older times all smiths had to collect ore and use all experiences to make good steel out of it. Maybe in japan they had less ore as Shawn said. That might have caused the long mystical rituals around black smithing there. The result could have been better steel or not. But in europope there are many tales too, giving the idea that it was a science early. A single smith could have had better skill here or there. Eras of pattern welding existed around the world too and Damascus steel became a 'trademark' (there were and are misunderstandings). Some people just had luck with the ore like the indians where the famous Wootz was produced. Later many different steels were speacial designed and used everywhere. i would never say japanese or european or whatever steel is better without commentation.

[Kevin Maneff]

Hi Jorg(and Shawn)!

I was actually speaking of medieval times...sorry I didn't specify. My bad. Still, what you said about modern metals was itneresting to read, too, so it wasn't a waste. Thanks everybody, you're giving a rare perspective on this. Most peopel are decidedly slanted oen way or another, so it's nice to see soem people in the middle.

[Shawn Duncanson]

no problem

[Joe Fults]

Not being able to speak to this question intelligently, I will simply offer observation of the discussion it typically generates. Or in simple terms, a half baked opinion.

IMO when I see it asked virtually all the answers come down to opinion. It often results in a discussion much like the computer question "Mac or PC?" with vigorous defense of one answer or the other and little willingness by either side to accept that the other might have some good points.

Again IMO, for the people using products made of the steel in question in time and in context this is essentailly a "which tool is better" exercise. Unless of course you try to inject spiratuality into the equation at which point it all seems to become a cultural debate (again in my opinion). The most thoughtful answers (IMO) typically seem to conclude that both tools, and thus the hands and steel that made them, did very well in the context and time that people used them.

Unfortuately that perfectly good and legitimate anwer rarely seems to make anyone happy (IMO).

Good luck with this. I hope you find the answer you are seeking or at least an answer better than this one!