How Okami Tests and Reviews
Everything we publish about Japanese knives is written by people who use them, tested against real ingredients, and edited before it goes live. Here’s exactly how.
Meet Andrew Kuzmin
Andrew runs editorial at Okami Blades — which is a fancy way of saying he’s the person who insists we test a knife before we say it’s good. His qualifications are a kitchen full of whetstones his wife has opinions about, an uncomfortable amount of time spent arguing about AUS-10 vs. VG-10 on Reddit, and a personal pledge to own a gyuto from every surviving Sakai workshop before he dies (progress: slow).
He has strong, occasionally inconvenient opinions: bamboo cutting boards are a crime against edges, “stamped” is not a slur, and the Premium Damascus at $199 really does out-cut half the $400 knives in our cross-shop drawer (he will show you the tomato-skin slow-mo if asked).
Covers: Japanese steels, regional craft traditions (Sakai / Seki / Echizen / Tsubame-Sanjo), gyuto geometry, sharpening progression, and comparing every Damascus pattern ever stamped into a blade.
Corrections, disagreements, or better tomato-skin tests → info@okamiblades.com
Who writes for Okami
Every article on okamiblades.com is published by Andrew Kuzmin and the Okami Editorial Team — the small group of people inside Okami who source, test, photograph, and write our content.
We publish articles, glossary entries, and buying guides informed by:
- Hands-on experience with our own Classic and Premium Damascus knives, plus a rotating library of competitor knives we buy for reference testing.
- Direct dialogue with our manufacturing partner in Yangjiang, one of the three historical blade-making regions of Asia (alongside Sakai and Seki in Japan, and Solingen in Germany).
- Professional kitchen feedback from chefs and cooking instructors we send knives to in exchange for honest written feedback — never paid reviews.
- Published primary sources from Japanese cutlery associations, steel manufacturers (Hitachi, Takefu), and peer-reviewed metallurgy research where technical claims are involved.
Where an article draws heavily on outside expertise, we cite it in-text. Where we disagree with the received wisdom in our category, we say so and explain why.
How we test knives
When we publish a review or comparison — whether of our own knives, competitor knives, or accessories — we run the same five-step process.
Spec verification
Blade length, weight, balance point, edge angle, HRC hardness, handle material. Weighed and measured in-house, not just copy-pasted from the manufacturer’s spec sheet.
Out-of-box edge test
Paper-cut test plus tomato-skin test straight from the box. We document whether the factory edge is sharp, polished, or needs immediate touch-up on a 3000-grit stone.
Task testing across a full meal prep
Onion, garlic, herbs, bell pepper, carrot, butternut squash, whole chicken breakdown, and boneless protein slicing. We note where the blade excels and where it struggles.
Edge retention over 30 days
Used in a normal home-kitchen rotation for 4 weeks, with weekly honing on a ceramic rod. Re-tested against the paper-cut standard to judge how the edge has held up.
Sharpening check
We sharpen the blade on a 1000/6000 waterstone and grade how quickly it returns to the paper-cut standard. A good Japanese blade should take a new edge in under 15 minutes.
Why our guides don’t read like “top 10” content
The internet is full of articles titled “The 10 Best Japanese Chef Knives of 2026” that all ranked whichever knives had the highest affiliate payouts that week. We won’t publish those because we don’t use them.
If we haven’t held it, we don’t rank it.
We’d rather publish a short guide that covers three knives we’ve actually tested than a ten-item list based on Amazon reviews we’ve read.
If a product is bad, we’ll say so.
Editorial independence means our affiliate relationships don’t protect a product from honest criticism. If a $200 competitor knife performs worse than a $60 one, our review says that.
If our own product isn’t the right answer, we’ll say so.
The Curated Picks page links to makers above and beyond our own price point. If a reader is buying their forever knife and has $400 to spend, the honest answer is a Takamura or Masamoto — not our $199 Premium.
What we cite, and what we don’t
When we make a technical claim — “AUS-10 holds an edge longer than AUS-8”, or “Damascus cladding is structural, not just decorative” — we aim to back it up.
What we treat as reliable
- Steel manufacturer datasheets (Takefu, Hitachi, Aichi Steel)
- Published peer-reviewed metallurgy on hardness vs. edge retention
- Documented regional craft traditions (Sakai, Seki, Echizen, Tsubame-Sanjo)
- Our own hands-on comparison notes, with blade and ingredient named
What we try to avoid
- Repeating marketing copy as fact
- Claims that a knife is “the best” without specifying “best for what”
- Fake authority signals (anonymous “chef consensus”, invented testimonials)
- AI-generated content that isn’t reviewed and revised by a human editor
If we get something wrong
We publish a lot of content. Some of it will have mistakes. Our commitment: if you find an error, technical inaccuracy, or outdated claim on any Okami page, email info@okamiblades.com. We’ll investigate, fix it, and add a correction note on the article itself.
We’d rather be corrected than defended.
Want to write for us?
If you’re a professional chef, sharpening specialist, or Japanese-cutlery nerd with writing chops, we pay for original work. No AI-generated submissions. Email info@okamiblades.com with a sample of your published writing and one or two topic ideas.
