I don't really get all the hullaballoo about knives that are hard to sharpen. If I can pay the premium for a really wear-resistant blade, why wouldn't I be able to afford a pocket diamond sharpener to carry in the field? I used to have a set (coarse and fine) that were thin enough to fit in my wallet and I think I paid less than $20 for both of them combined. But that's just me. I'm sure that it is a major issue for some people and that doesn't bother me at all. If someone wants carbon steel knives so that they can sharpen them easily without using diamond or ceramic stones then that's fine. What I just don't understand is the repeated assertions that carbon steel takes a better edge or is tougher than any stainless steel. I don't understand it because the composition charts seem to indicate otherwise. I don't understand it because I've been trying to find quantitative data to do the comparisons that would prove or disprove the statements and I can't--which makes me wonder where everyone who is sure that the statements are true is getting the data to confirm them. I just wish there was some way to know for certain (without doing extensive destructive testing personally) and to be able to demonstrate to others what steels are actually stronger/tougher/more wear resistant/more corrosion resistant. I don't think it's too much to ask for knife makers to provide quantitative information on the topic. Sure, I mentioned in my first post that there are clearly some advantages to carbon steel. I didn't mention aesthetics, because I would think that for the most part (barring those who like patina on their blades) the aesthetic advantage, when it comes to knives, would probably go to stainless steel.