An ABS certification above the current Mastersmith designation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Almost all of the discussion in this thread thus far has focused on appearances; who makes the cleanest, prettiest, or most artful knives. Are those the only criteria by which one should evaluate the work of a "master" bladesmith?

What about performance? Edge geometry, steel selection, heat treat, balance, ergonomics... Shouldn't a "grand master bladesmith" truly be at the top of the performance game too? I'm not talking about just making one knife that can cut rope and bend 90 degrees.

I've probably said this before, but I sometimes feel that too much emphasis these days is placed on aesthetics, while performance considerations are treated more as an afterthought; something either taken for granted or altogether ignored. Kind of like the way that no one actually listens to what the beauty pageant contestants say when they're asked about world events, it's the bikini contest that determines who gets the crown ;)

Indeed I feel that any title bestowed upon a bladesmith by any organization - ABS or other - should place an equally strong emphasis on the actual function and performance of the maker's work. I love that performance is already a part of the ABS testing criteria, but if any sort of further accreditation is sought, then more rigorous performance testing should also be a big part of it. Moreover, in order for the title to have any real meaning, it would have to be applied uniformly, objectively, and fairly, with full transparency regarding judging and testing criteria.

I personally don't feel that adding a new title beyond MS would be a good idea, but I do feel that a re-certification process could be beneficial. Standards have and will continue to rise, so why not create an avenue through which rated smiths can preserve the value of their rating, rather than see it depreciate each and every year?
 
Wulf said:
Almost all of the discussion in this thread thus far has focused on appearances; who makes the cleanest, prettiest, or most artful knives. Are those the only criteria by which one should evaluate the work of a "master" bladesmith?

What about performance? Edge geometry, steel selection, heat treat, balance, ergonomics... Shouldn't a "grand master bladesmith" truly be at the top of the performance game too? I'm not talking about just making one knife that can cut rope and bend 90 degrees.

I've probably said this before, but I sometimes feel that too much emphasis these days is placed on aesthetics, while performance considerations are treated more as an afterthought; something either taken for granted or altogether ignored. Kind of like the way that no one actually listens to what the beauty pageant contestants say when they're asked about world events, it's the bikini contest that determines who gets the crown ;)

Indeed I feel that any title bestowed upon a bladesmith by any organization - ABS or other - should place an equally strong emphasis on the actual function and performance of the maker's work. I love that performance is already a part of the ABS testing criteria, but if any sort of further accreditation is sought, then more rigorous performance testing should also be a big part of it. Moreover, in order for the title to have any real meaning, it would have to be applied uniformly, objectively, and fairly, with full transparency regarding judging and testing criteria.

I personally don't feel that adding a new title beyond MS would be a good idea, but I do feel that a re-certification process could be beneficial. Standards have and will continue to rise, so why not create an avenue through which rated smiths can preserve the value of their rating, rather than see it depreciate each and every year?
Click to expand...

Frankly, IMHO, this is the most sensible post so far, a re-certification process based purely on quality of product. But no matter how you look at it, when it comes to the successful sale of the product, it's the collector market that will be the final judge. And aren't sales what most makers use as a measuring stick with respect to success?
 
Last edited:
Wulf said:
Almost all of the discussion in this thread thus far has focused on appearances; who makes the cleanest, prettiest, or most artful knives. Are those the only criteria by which one should evaluate the work of a "master" bladesmith?

What about performance? Edge geometry, steel selection, heat treat, balance, ergonomics... Shouldn't a "grand master bladesmith" truly be at the top of the performance game too? I'm not talking about just making one knife that can cut rope and bend 90 degrees.

I've probably said this before, but I sometimes feel that too much emphasis these days is placed on aesthetics, while performance considerations are treated more as an afterthought; something either taken for granted or altogether ignored. Kind of like the way that no one actually listens to what the beauty pageant contestants say when they're asked about world events, it's the bikini contest that determines who gets the crown ;)

Indeed I feel that any title bestowed upon a bladesmith by any organization - ABS or other - should place an equally strong emphasis on the actual function and performance of the maker's work. I love that performance is already a part of the ABS testing criteria, but if any sort of further accreditation is sought, then more rigorous performance testing should also be a big part of it. Moreover, in order for the title to have any real meaning, it would have to be applied uniformly, objectively, and fairly, with full transparency regarding judging and testing criteria.

I personally don't feel that adding a new title beyond MS would be a good idea, but I do feel that a re-certification process could be beneficial. Standards have and will continue to rise, so why not create an avenue through which rated smiths can preserve the value of their rating, rather than see it depreciate each and every year?
Click to expand...

This ^^^^^^^
 
Kevin Jones said:
Hello Gary, "embellishment exercise"; if a "MS" applicant's twisted gold wire is miss-applied to the handle on their test Quillon Dagger is that not likely to fail them? How about the sliver wire inlay on the handle of the Bowie they submitted? How about shotty engraving on their guard?

As far as what the standards would be for Grand Master, I hope to see some discussion and opinions here regarding such.
Click to expand...

Obviously bad workmanship is bad workmanship whether it be on a blade or on the wire inlet.

What I was trying to get at and obviously failed on is that I would hate to see that the ability to inlet precious gems or metals (or even to engrave) be the criteria for obtaining a stamp beyond MS. IMHO--"A bladesmith is a bladesmith" and "a jeweler is a jeweler". One is promoted by the ABS. The other is not.

A clean, unembellished knife can be just as attractive as one that is highly embellished and I believe that each skill set should be judged independently.

Gary
 
Wulf said:
Almost all of the discussion in this thread thus far has focused on appearances; who makes the cleanest, prettiest, or most artful knives. Are those the only criteria by which one should evaluate the work of a "master" bladesmith?

What about performance? Edge geometry, steel selection, heat treat, balance, ergonomics... Shouldn't a "grand master bladesmith" truly be at the top of the performance game too? I'm not talking about just making one knife that can cut rope and bend 90 degrees.
Click to expand...

Of course, I didn't intend to and don't believe I focused on appearances; who makes the cleanest, prettiest, or most artful knives. To me knife performance is paramount, however fit/finish, quality of materials and quality of embellishment (if embellished) is ALL important. Just making a knife that performs well, however slacking on everything doesn't fly with me. If you are going to engrave, inlay, carve a knife it needs to be the same quality as the other aspects, including performance.

At a Grand Master level, IMO, every aspect of every knife the maker creates would be expected to be perfection or as close to it as humanly possible.
 
Last edited:
I like the idea of a re-certification process. Just playing devil's advocate here, I wounder how many bladesmiths would re-certify when their time came and how many would pass re-certification?
 
Kevin Jones said:
I like the idea of a re-certification process. Just playing devil's advocate here, I wounder how many bladesmiths would re-certify when their time came and how many would pass re-certification?
Click to expand...

Here's where we disagree,Kevin. This is coming from someone who has never tested for either JS or MS and probably never will but I believe that once someone has passed the testing for their stamp, the stamp belongs to them forever. No re-certification required. Anyone who has gone through the MANY long hours of making their test knives as well as the stresses involved should understand.

Gary
 
re certification makes sense for doctors, police, architects etc. Not so much for cutlers/bladesmiths, unless they're making products that require certification.
 
I'd like to see cutting tests like on some of the old Japanese masters blades ...... Bring on the cadavers and dead hogs :)

Only kidding ... I'm stuck doing 240 hours right now for my licensing and it sucks I wouldn't wish it on anyone :)
 
Kevin Jones said:
I like the idea of a re-certification process. Just playing devil's advocate here, I wounder how many bladesmiths would re-certify when their time came and how many would pass re-certification?
Click to expand...

Probably not unlike any profession that has Masters and PhDs, etc. Once it is attained, those who qualify mostly just stay informed on the newest information as time rolls on.
To have them re-examined years later would be a circus.
 
Karl B. Andersen said:
Probably not unlike any profession that has Masters and PhDs, etc. Once it is attained, those who qualify mostly just stay informed on the newest information as time rolls on.
To have them re-examined years later would be a circus.
Click to expand...

Then might one suppose that the final arbiter, no matter the designation, re-designation or re-certification, is the purchaser of the product, in this case the collector? Market forces decide such issues at some point, don't they?
 
One of the tests for a GM should be the old throwing a silk scarf in the air and letting it settle lightly over the blade, where it is cut in two. Just kidding, of course. I like the idea, but would worry it would become more of a popularity contest than an objective assessment.
 
I do like the idea of re-certification....what about making it voluntary, and perhaps every 2-3 years with the designator....MS-1, MS-3, MS-5......

Those who stick with just the MS....it is what it is.

Just spitballin'....not sure about the idea of a GMS one way or the other. Don't see how it can hurt anything.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
I think its unfair for another country to use grandmaster as a title for someone who achieved his MS from an American organization. The two have nothing to do with eachother and if the ABS decides to do it, the one grandmaster smith should get his title again here.
 
The one thing that I have not heard anyone talk about is the fact, yes, I said fact, that the JS and MS standards have been a moving target since their inception and ESPECIALLY since around the time I first joined the ABS in like 2006, as best as I can tell. That may have leveled off in the last 4 or 5 or so years, but I can tell you with a HIGH degree of certainty than some knives that passed the JS judging in the late 90's even as late as the turn of the new millennia would get thrown out of the judging room today for style and proportion inadequacies. I know this because I handled just such a blade in like 2008. I seem to recall Bill Moran saying around 2005 that he wouldn't pass the MS test today. I heard one other comment attributed to him about another Ms that i won't repeat that was kinda funny, by also not all that nice. But there you have it.
 
Kohai999 said:
I do like the idea of re-certification....what about making it voluntary, and perhaps every 2-3 years with the designator....MS-1, MS-3, MS-5......

Those who stick with just the MS....it is what it is.

Just spitballin'....not sure about the idea of a GMS one way or the other. Don't see how it can hurt anything.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
Click to expand...

I want to be a Russian General of the ABS, with a ribbon rack as high as my epaulets, gleaming with tinkling medals, and a roll of certifications as thick as 50 Cent's money clip! :)
 
Maybe , there could be a system similar to Japan where sword smiths submit their swords to an annual contest to be judged and graded. Those that are exceptional are judged "above contest level" and the rest are graded on a scale.

Obviously, ABS smiths make lots of different types of knives compared to one type of sword made by Japanese swordsmiths but there could be categories for say bowies, daggers and folders.
 
Clarify: What country or individual is already considered a 'Grandmaster', please?
 
Wulf said:
Almost all of the discussion in this thread thus far has focused on appearances; who makes the cleanest, prettiest, or most artful knives. Are those the only criteria by which one should evaluate the work of a "master" bladesmith?

What about performance? Edge geometry, steel selection, heat treat, balance, ergonomics... Shouldn't a "grand master bladesmith" truly be at the top of the performance game too? I'm not talking about just making one knife that can cut rope and bend 90 degrees.

I've probably said this before, but I sometimes feel that too much emphasis these days is placed on aesthetics, while performance considerations are treated more as an afterthought; something either taken for granted or altogether ignored. Kind of like the way that no one actually listens to what the beauty pageant contestants say when they're asked about world events, it's the bikini contest that determines who gets the crown ;)

Indeed I feel that any title bestowed upon a bladesmith by any organization - ABS or other - should place an equally strong emphasis on the actual function and performance of the maker's work. I love that performance is already a part of the ABS testing criteria, but if any sort of further accreditation is sought, then more rigorous performance testing should also be a big part of it. Moreover, in order for the title to have any real meaning, it would have to be applied uniformly, objectively, and fairly, with full transparency regarding judging and testing criteria.

I personally don't feel that adding a new title beyond MS would be a good idea, but I do feel that a re-certification process could be beneficial. Standards have and will continue to rise, so why not create an avenue through which rated smiths can preserve the value of their rating, rather than see it depreciate each and every year?
Click to expand...

Nicely stated, but necessarily limited. To MY point about additional 'merit badges', what Derrick is referring to here ^^^ is perfectly suited. It would NEED to be used for testing, so the performance knife would, by design and usage, be an exceptional utilitarian design of more singular purpose. No braided handle dagger would need to be subjected to these tests.

I still maintain a GMS degree would be less about the knife than about the person.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top