The Good:
David Winston. I just received today, less than a week after sending payment, a gorgeous little drop point by Mr. Winston. Although it is not exactly the pattern I'm trying to collect, when I saw the pic of this baby I had to have it. Close examination produced no regrets or disappointments. This is the first time I have purchased a handmade/custom sight-unseen, and I am heartened that my optimism was rewarded. Thanks David! I'm awaiting delivery for a similar transaction with another maker I know only from these forums, and I expect to be similarly satisfied.
The Bad:
Pirates belong in the 'Whine & Cheese' forum, not in the shop. I respect authorship. That is why I drink Coke, not Pepsi. That is also why, even though I was very disappointed with my dealings with Newt Livesay a couple of years ago, I will never buy an Ontario RTAK. I couldn't help but notice all the noise about some of Robert Hankins' products. I became aware of the controversy when considering some of his Bowies and fighters. I have to conclude that his designs were more than "inspired by" some other makers. That said, there really are only so many ways you can configure a pointy piece of metal. Similarities and overlaps are inevitable. But, if you are going to consciously "borrow" from someone else's design, you ought to at least give credit where it is due. Mr. Hankins' actions showed poor etiquette if not poor ethics.
The Just Plain Ugly:
Authorship does not necessarliy mean ownership. How many Loveless, Moran, Randall and Fairbairn "styles" are being made today by hundreds of makers without the 'expressed written consent of the author?' Are they paying licensing fees or royalties? No, and I'd bet that's because, even if a maker did see a design for the first time in a Loveless knife, Bob himself may have seen the same design elsewhere first. "There is no new thing under the sun." Anyone who thinks they have come up with a truly unique design probably hasn't looked at enough knives yet. Man has been making and using these objects we all love for a very long time. Odds are, whatever you come up with, its been tried before. Personally, I first saw the chopstick-as-spike-weapon in the comic strip "Terry and the Pirates" so maybe everyone making them now owes an apology or a thank you or a percentage to Milton Caniff. (Interesting note: Caniff means "knife") What makes this whole situation so UGLY is the very ungentlemanly way those offended chose to address the issue. You have abandoned what moral high ground you may have occupied when you resorted to a public name-calling slog fest. Maybe its no skin off your back, but I am now extremely disinclined to do business with any of you. Why? Because heaven forbid a problem should arise with our transaction when your preferred method of conflict resolution is what is in evidence here.
David Winston. I just received today, less than a week after sending payment, a gorgeous little drop point by Mr. Winston. Although it is not exactly the pattern I'm trying to collect, when I saw the pic of this baby I had to have it. Close examination produced no regrets or disappointments. This is the first time I have purchased a handmade/custom sight-unseen, and I am heartened that my optimism was rewarded. Thanks David! I'm awaiting delivery for a similar transaction with another maker I know only from these forums, and I expect to be similarly satisfied.
The Bad:
Pirates belong in the 'Whine & Cheese' forum, not in the shop. I respect authorship. That is why I drink Coke, not Pepsi. That is also why, even though I was very disappointed with my dealings with Newt Livesay a couple of years ago, I will never buy an Ontario RTAK. I couldn't help but notice all the noise about some of Robert Hankins' products. I became aware of the controversy when considering some of his Bowies and fighters. I have to conclude that his designs were more than "inspired by" some other makers. That said, there really are only so many ways you can configure a pointy piece of metal. Similarities and overlaps are inevitable. But, if you are going to consciously "borrow" from someone else's design, you ought to at least give credit where it is due. Mr. Hankins' actions showed poor etiquette if not poor ethics.
The Just Plain Ugly:
Authorship does not necessarliy mean ownership. How many Loveless, Moran, Randall and Fairbairn "styles" are being made today by hundreds of makers without the 'expressed written consent of the author?' Are they paying licensing fees or royalties? No, and I'd bet that's because, even if a maker did see a design for the first time in a Loveless knife, Bob himself may have seen the same design elsewhere first. "There is no new thing under the sun." Anyone who thinks they have come up with a truly unique design probably hasn't looked at enough knives yet. Man has been making and using these objects we all love for a very long time. Odds are, whatever you come up with, its been tried before. Personally, I first saw the chopstick-as-spike-weapon in the comic strip "Terry and the Pirates" so maybe everyone making them now owes an apology or a thank you or a percentage to Milton Caniff. (Interesting note: Caniff means "knife") What makes this whole situation so UGLY is the very ungentlemanly way those offended chose to address the issue. You have abandoned what moral high ground you may have occupied when you resorted to a public name-calling slog fest. Maybe its no skin off your back, but I am now extremely disinclined to do business with any of you. Why? Because heaven forbid a problem should arise with our transaction when your preferred method of conflict resolution is what is in evidence here.
