I think both can be good. But each will be optimal
for slightly different purposes. Other factors being
equal, the convex edge will last a bit longer,
and make deep cuts with a bit less effort. The
Scandi will be a bit keener and is significantly
easier to control when making shallow cuts, such
as when carving wood.
Here's four knives I started using 5 or 10 years
ago. The top two are non-laminated carbon Eriksson,
one with a scandi and one with a convex.
The bottom two are shorter laminated carbon Frosts.
Again, one has a scandi and one a convex
grind. I find the convex to work better in the
packing room where I'm cutting cardboard constantly.
The scandi work better for wood carving, and are easier
to sharpen properly in the field.
The convex blades are now much thinner than the
scandi, but this is a function of a lot more use.
When I first re-profiled them there wasn't much
loss of blade width. I spend a lot more time in
the packing room than carving wood these days.
The Mora I carry in the field has a scandi bevel.
As Hollowdweller says, It's important
to match the final angle to the hardness of the
steel and intended purpose. And as mentioned
by Paul, you can have a slight secondary of either
style. Again, the advantage of a convex secondary is
less resistance, while a flat secondary is easier to maintain
in the field. .
Personally I feel the less secondary the better, unless the
primary angle is too delicate for the steel and purpose at hand.
The big difference for the casual user is that
it’s a lot easier to learn how to sharpen a Scandi bevel.
| "A knifeless man is a lifeless man." |
-Old Nordic Proverb