I'm sitting here, trying to figure out how to say this without sounding like a butt head, and not sure how to, so I'll just say it.
A few years ago they messed around with the chemistry of 1095.....essentially the widened the specs on some of the element contents, with the whole idea being to lessen the production costs. For the majority of 1095 users the changes didn't make any difference(s). But! After receiving a large number of phone calls and emails from folks who could not get their 1095 blades to harden, I started digging around and found that because of the changes (mainly manganese content variance from batch to batch, and even from bar to bar within the same batch) sometimes the steel would harden fine, and other times the TT curve was less than 1 second! (that means that in order to harden, the steel has to go from the critical temp, to 400 or less in LESS THAN 1 SECOND......Not Happening!) For the average Bladesmith/Knifemaker, that is physically impossible. Because of that, I no longer use, nor recommend 1095. My thought pattern is that I don't have the time to waste all the effort in getting a blade to the heat treating phase, only to be gambling as to whether I can harden it or not.
Now, here's the kicker.....many folks will ask the question.... Why didn't they tell us about this? When I spoke with a few people in the industry, who I consider friends, I got responses such as "The changes are irrelevant to most who use it" (1095), "Knifemakers are such a small percentage of steel buyers, we honestly don't care what they think." Those are not made up, those are statements made to me when I was researching the issue of non-hardening 1095.
So, my conclusion is this.....the decision to use 1095 is up to each individual. I simply do not have the time to waste on something that I might or might not be able to harden, therefore it no longer has any place in my shop.