This thread is amusing. Generally, we don't poor mouth other knives here unless they have really earned the thrashing, but this quote from "blunt ruth" really tops it:
His opinion of the bravo 1 compared to an ESEE was that instead of having an outstanding warranty like ESEE why not just make an outstanding knife like the Bravo-1.
Why do I find this funny? Because I owned a Bravo-1, which is currently residing in the Netherlands. I got rid of it because it was a vastly overrated piece, far from outstanding in fact.
Cons in descending order of importance:
1) Slickly finished handle slabs more suited to a display piece than a field knife. Yes, I could have roughed it up, but maybe they shouldn't have tried to mirror polish fibermascus at the factory?
2) The sheath was a poor attempt at a good kydex sheath, especially for the money demanded.
3) Spine thickness to blade height ratio. It's all wrong in the hand. A zero degree convex edge is one of my favorites, but leading up to a .215 inch thick spine makes the knife more of a wedger than a cutter.
4) The "striker" ramp that people mistakenly called a thumb ramp. Perhaps a neat idea in principle but it messes up the knife ergonomics something fierce for some common holds.
5) Price: There is not a lot of value inherent to the Bravo-1 when one considers that A2 is a relatively inexpensive air hardening tool steel which is laser or water jet blanked and ground to final shape. The cheap sheath has already been mentioned.
Long story short, there are a whole lot of better picks in terms of value at the typical $185-240 price slot of the BRKT Bravo-1. Heck, there are better value/more impressive steel true customs available in this price bracket too.
I think that most ESEE customers would still be buyers without the totally kick ass warranty because they know bang for the buck performance when they see it--and more importantly--spend their own money for it.
Since ESEE does have a kick ass warranty, all the better.
