The Wirecutter’s original Best Outdoor Knife article was exceptionally flawed. While most recommendations on the site dealt with what was best for most people, their fixed blade article basically focused on bush crafting knives, giving strong marks for esoteric abilities like “spark throwing spines” and ignoring how easy knives were to sharpen or how good they were at a variety of tasks. Here was my article responding to this original list. After that article, the Wirecutter reached out to me and commissioned a rewrite by friend of the blog (and actual tool guy) Doug Mahoney. The new version, which is no longer up, was significantly better.

Unfortunately, the Wirecutter’s new article on Best Knife Sharpeners contains many of the same kind errors and results in recommendations that are not correct, especially when you consider the stated goal of recommending the best item for most people. Even if they were to rewrite the title as “Best Kitchen Knife Sharpeners” the flaws in the article would still be problematic. I am going to go through and point out the errors and then render a Wirecutter-style set of recommendations: Best, Lux Pick, Other and Budget Pick.

Problems with the Wirecutter Article

Flaw 1: Factual Errors

There are number of factual errors in the article that lead me to believe that the author was not as knowledgeable about knives as he should have been. He definitely knows how to cook, having read his other articles, but knives and sharpeners, while related to cooking are a world unto themselves. Stepping into that world a bit would have helped. Here are the major factual errors:

The author writes: “A honing rod is the best and easiest way to maintain a knife’s edge between sharpenings”

While a honing rod is easy, it is not the most forgiving way of doing routine maintenance between sharpening. That would be a leather strop. Because the rod is made of hard steel and coated in even harder materials (usually some kind of aluminum oxide or diamond powder) messing up with a honing rod can damage the edge of a knife. A strop on the other hand has no chance of ruining an edge. The leather simply buffs the grind and restores the microbevel. Strops are also much cheaper than honing rods. If you want to do that dramatic chef flourish of slash, slash, slash, before you slice roast beef, a honing rod is great. If you want truly easy but effective maintenance go with a strop. This factual error is the result of the author’s bias towards kitchen cutlery.

The author also writes: “Not all definitions of “sharp” are equal, and ours is probably on the strict end of the spectrum.”

Unfortunately, he also writes: “I’m not one of those knife geeks for whom nothing less than an atom-splitting blade is acceptable.”

So which is it? Does the author want a strict definition of sharp or does he not care about atom splitting sharp? This is just a plain old inconsistency that basic copy editing (which I cannot afford but the NYT certainly can) should have caught. For more on this “true sharp” issue, read below.

The author also writes: “We did not prioritize the ability to sharpen serrated knives—generally they don’t need sharpening, because they use teeth rather than pure keenness to cut”

Whoa, whoa, whoa. This is 100% bananas and dead wrong. Of course serrated knives use “keenness” to cut. They don’t need sharpening as often because the cutting edge, when the blade length is the same, is longer than a plain edge knife. The longer the edge, longer it takes to dull that edge. The exact same physics works on plain edges and serrated edges. It is not magic, its not “teeth”, it is simple geometry. This is a statement that is clearly erroneous and is so obviously wrong that calls into question the entire validity of the article.

The author also wrote: “The modern alloys now used by knife makers worldwide are generally tough enough to support acute edges, regardless of how hard they are.”

This is wrong on two accounts. First, many popular Japanese steels, white steel, blue steel, and ZDP-189 are subject to strict export limitations by the Japanese government. These are excellent steels, ideal for kitchen knives, and they are not "used by knife makers worldwide.”

Second, there seems to be a mistake about the difference between toughness and hardness. It is hardness (the resistance to wear) that allows for very shallow angles, not toughness. A tough steel, for instance, would want to roll in a very thin grind. So if we want an acute edge, it is hardness that matters not toughness.

These errors are the most prominent, and they are so clearly wrong that they betray the author’s lack of knowledge regarding knives and sharpening that it is hard to take his evaluations seriously. But there were other flaws with the article as well.

Flaw 2: Niche Focus

I check Wirecutter pretty often. The site is excellent and one of the best reviews sites in the world. So imagine my surprise when I saw “Best Knife Sharpener.” I love when the mainstream dips its toes into the world of gear and so I immediately clicked on the article. As soon as the lead image resolved I knew there was a problem. This isn’t an article about the best knife sharpeners—it is article about the best pull-through sharpeners sold to sharpen kitchen knives. That is a VERY different thing and a much narrower niche focus than the headline would lead you to believe.

There is a reason the Ariel Atom has not yet won Motor Trend’s Car of the Year—as great as it is, it is a niche product. All of the sharpeners in the article are niche products. They offer none of the flexibility and broad use that a good sharpening system does. My sharpening system allows me to sharpen everything—thin, slicey kitchen knives all the way up to the edge on my splitting maul. It is not much more difficult to use than the sharpeners recommended. Finally, it is not much more expensive. At least in the Fixed Blade article, the focus on bushcraft gave you useful knives albeit ones with not quite as broad a focus as the Wirecutter strives for in its recommendations. Here, the recommendation gives you a terrible sharpener that couldn’t get less useful.

Flaw 3: Recommending Grinder-Style Sharpeners

All of the sharpeners evaluated were pull-through sharpeners. By that I mean the sharpening media is set at a fixed angle in a jig, the jig sits inside a housing, and you pull the knife through an opening in the housing and over the sharpening media to produce a sharp edge. Almost all of these were “grinder” style sharpeners—using tiny grinder wheels powered by an electric motor. Only the Worksharp uses belts as the sharpening media.

Pull-through sharpeners tend to round off or round over critical spots of a knife’s blade. The initial start of the motion will round off the ricasso or the portion of the blade closest to the handle. This doesn’t just ruin the look of the knife, it makes other kinds of sharpening difficult, as you often use the rear edge of the knife to start the sharpening stroke. Damaging the ricasso can also impact the handle, rounding off protective guards designed to keep hands from sliding forward or introducing cracks and crevasses for bacteria to hide. The pull-through design also wrecks the tip as you pull up and out of the “pull through” area. It is not as pronounced as the effect on the ricasso, but over time it is clearly noticeable, all but eliminating a sharp piercing tip. But I do think some pull through systems are okay. The Worksharp on the list doesn’t have the same impact on the knife’s edge as others because it uses belts, but pull-through designs are very limiting no matter the media.

The idea of an electric grinder as the sharpening media, however, just kills me. These grinders eat away WAY TOO MUCH steel in each sharpening, and steel happens to be the most expensive and valuable asset on most knives. They also fundamentally alter the grind of the knife. Because they eat away so much metal, the cutting edge is backed up towards the spine of the knife quicker, thickening the cutting bevel it as it rides up the primary grind. What started off as a keen slicer is quickly turned into a tomato pulper. And this cycle is self-perpetuating—the more you sharpen the more you need to sharpen because the thicker the steel is at the cutting bevel.

These grinder-style knives also tend to put on weak edges. Because they do not polish the edge and merely grind away steel and leave the cutting bevel toothy, they necessitate more sharpening which, in turn, eats up more steel. This is why the article also recommends a knife steel, as they are used to “restraighten” collapsed toothy edges. If, instead of a toothy edge, the sharpener being used put on a cleaner, higher polish cutting bevel the knife would retain cutting performance longer. Here is an article I wrote on Gear Junkie describing how a wire edge works (or doesn’t) that goes into more depth on this issue.

Don’t buy it? Look around at people and companies that make good knives—none use these electric grinders on the final edge. They use stones (including motor mounted stones like the Tormec) or belts, but none use these grinder pull-through sharpeners. Reading the article and seeing it brag about the wattage of the motor on the grinder in the top choice was like reading an ad for contacts that brag about retaining hot sauce chemicals.

Flaw 4: Ignoring Other Kinds of Sharpeners

The author basically conceives of the field of sharpeners as fixed angle sharpeners, pull-through sharpeners, and stones. The Spyderco Sharpmaker is not mentioned. The Lansky system is ignored. The Wicked Edge, the KME, and other systems are ignored. The Worksharp and Ken Onion Worksharp are out. Even something as complex and unique as the Tormec is not mentioned. I get that the intent was to recommend an easy to use system and clearly the Tormec is too pricey for most people, but the top choice is $140, just a bit less than the Ken Onion Worksharp.

This says nothing of the difficulty of these other systems. If you read the article and had no experience you might think that these systems were esoteric and impossible, but they aren’t. In fact, many of them are quite easy to use. The Sharpmaker, a fixed angle jig systems, and the Worksharp, a motorized slack belt system, are pretty easy to use. No, none of them are as easy to use as pull through sharpeners, but they all produce better results with less edge wear and damage. The Sharpmaker and fixed angle jig systems in particular are barely more difficult than a pull-through sharpener (in fact, the basic principle for sharpening is the same on both pull-through designs and the Sharpmaker—the Sharpmaker just happens to be more versatile and less damaging). They are also around the same price or cheaper. They allow for more edge angles. And they can sharpen stuff other than a kitchen knife.

Lastly, the article omits the Scary Sharp method. Its about as cheap as it gets and is a bit easier to master than stones (it totally eliminates the need for lapping and a lapping stone, which tends to be pricey). With sandpaper of various grits and a plate of glass you can do almost anything you can with stones for 1/100th the price.

In the end the article makes all of these systems seem mystical—a bridge too far. But they aren’t. Even the Worksharp, with its learning curve, isn’t too bad and if you are willing to sacrifice a knife to the pull through electric grinders, you should also be willing to sacrifice a few to learn how to slack belt sharpen on the Ken Onion Worksharp. A little effort will yield amazing results.

Flaw 5: Not Focusing on Sharpness

The author of the article wrote this: “I truly appreciate a fine edge, and stones produce the very finest. But I’m also a fan of “good enough,” and so for the past decade, I’ve also used an electric sharpener on my cheap, stamped-steel paring knives and on my expensive, forged-steel heavy chef’s knife.”

Okay, here is the deal—if you use knives and are okay with “good enough” in terms of sharpness, something is wrong. As the author notes dull knives are dangerous. Furthermore, when your sole purpose as a tool is to cut things, being sharp is helpful. There is absolutely no excuse to have a dull knife and there is no excuse for “good enough.” Get them as sharp as you can, that is what they are intended to be. Accepting less defeats the point of buying a sharpening system. Why not, instead, buy another $12 paring knife and pitch the old, dull $12 paring knife?

Flaw 6: Limited Reprofiling

The top choice was a sharpener that only has a single reprofiling angle. That’s insane. Its like buy a car that only goes one speed. This compounds the niche design problem above. We aren’t just talking about sharpeners that only work for kitchen knives, we are now limiting the angle the sharpener puts on the blade to 15 degrees. Many knives, even kitchen knives, can use a thicker edge, but you won’t get that with their top choice. With stones, a fixed angle systems, belts, scary sharp, and the Ken Onion Worksharp you can sharpen at any angle you want. Even the Sharpmaker gives you TWO angles.

Flaw 7: A Low Skill Cap Limits Results

Over time you will not get better with a pull-through electric grinder style sharpener. Your results on the first day are 99.9% as good as they will be on day 1,000 and day 10,000. That’s a good thing in one sense—you get okay results immediately. You still chew up too much blade steel and round over the tip and ricasso, but the edge is okay. The problem is, you can never get better than that.

With other systems, you are rewarded for your patience and practice. My results with my Worksharp are significantly better than they were a year ago and leaps and bounds better than three years ago. I can routinely put an edge on a knife that surpasses the factory edge from most companies. No matter how much you practice you can’t do this with a pull through sharpener. With a lower skill cap you cut off the ability to attain truly hair splitting result that can be achieved through repeated practice. Nothing cuts like a knife sharpened by a skilled and practiced hand. Plus, with a real sharpening system you learn not just how to sharpen but about knife steels and edge angles. Over time, sharpening on a real system will make you understand knives better. You will know more and be able to do more, not just with the sharpener but with the knives themselves. There is real value in this knowledge.

Conclusion

I get that the article was really “Best Kitchen Knife Pull Through Sharpeners” but when it its titled “Best Knife Sharpeners” the flaws really stand out. I also get that the article was designed for chefs and not knife aficianados. They don’t baby their knives. They aren’t knife folks. But most of the people reading that article also aren’t running kitchens that do a thousand orders a night. So this overfocus on speed and ease of use over sharpness, quality, and conserving blade steel seems silly. Sure, the home chef probably doesn’t need a Tormec. But they also don’t need a $140 pull through grinder. A $58 (err…$73 now…) Sharpmaker will work, produce better results, be more versatile, and take just a few minutes more time.

If you are a person that buys paring knives by the dozen and spending five minutes sharpening them makes no sense, then this set of recommendations is fine. Garbage knives are fine with sharpeners that treat them as such. But if you want to be fiscally and ecologically sensible about expensive knife steel leave the pull through grinder sharpeners alone. If you want to be able to sharpen knives and edged tools besides kitchen knives with 15 degree edges, ignore these recommendations. This swing and a miss was worse than the Wirecutter’s first attempt at recommending an outdoor knife.

Paging Doug Mahoney.

Recommendations

Here are my choices:

My Pick: Ken Onion Worksharp

While there is a bit of a learning curve and you can pull the temper out of a blade if you are dolt, a little bit of common sense and practice yield stellar results. Because it is a slack belt system it also imparts a convex profile on the cutting bevel making it sturdier than most factory edges. It is $190, but that is only $50 more than the WC choice and you will make that money back in knives saved in about a year. Plus this can sharpen anything at any angle. I have touched up everything from paring knives to wood chisels to Busse choppers to full-sized katanas and splitting mauls. Even scissors and fish hooks are okay. It is easier and faster than stones, and nearly as versatile. If you want something that can do it all, produce great results, and do so quickly, this is the clear winner for me. Here is a video I made (that was wildly unpopular—people come to the YouTube channel for gear overviews not how-tos) about my storage tray for the Sharpmaker. With that tray, the system is unbeatable and easy to hang on the wall (see above).

Budget Pick: Spyderco Sharpmaker

Imagine a pull-through sharpener that is more versatile and doesn’t eat your knives—that is the Sharpmaker. For edge maintenance and quick touch ups, this is the way to go and at $58 it is an easy buy, $90 less than the WC recommendation. Full reprofiles are better left to something like the Ken Onion Worksharp or the Tormec, but for lesser needs, this works well.

Also: Leather Strop

Knife steels are great if you want to maintain a utility edge, but if you need to maintain a properly polished edge, strops are superior and much cheaper. Get one with multiple strips of leather so you can have multiple grits (based on color—black is the most coarse, then green, then white). Jewelers have polished metal with strops and compound for thousands of years. There is a reason why—it works.

Upgrade Picks: Tormec T-4 OR a full set of Shapton Water Stones

The T-4 is about as high tech as home sharpening systems get with a motor-powered wheel, multiple grit wheels and jigs for just about any edges tool. It can do everything and get insane results with little skill and even less time. But Tormecs are expensive. The T-4 Tormec is their entry level sharpener. Its $415.

But it is still cheaper than a full set of Shapton stones, which will run at least $400. If you get a motorized stroke plate and a diamond hone you will probably drop a cool grand. But the results are the best in the world. I have seen a honemeister sharpen a 100 year old straight razor on a set of stones and the edge he got was mind alteringly sharp. It was so keen that he cut an apple and it did not brown when exposed to the air (the browning is caused by cells being cut open by an edge and the fluid inside leaking out—the edge he put on the razor was so sharp it cut BETWEEN the cells and left the fluid safely intact). Stones are slow and do take real skill, but the ceiling on their performance is basically infinite. Some edges on nihonto blades are still shaving sharp 900 years later; Masamune used stones. Seems good enough to me.

Amazon Affiliate Links:

Buying items through the links below helps keep the site 100% independent