At what point does "traditional" become "silhouette" class?

I don't contribute here hardly at all (although I do read over the threads almost daily) , but I feel compelled to weigh in here. I think I feel a lot like jackknife does. For me the litmus test is when I'm sitting around with the old timers passing the mason jar. If I pull out a knife, whether it be a folder or fixed blade, and I get the "what in god's name is that" response I know it is not a "traditional" knife. It's funny that as time goes by, I gravitate less and less to knives that evoke that sort of response. I've come to realize that the knives that were good enough for my Dad, and his Dad, and his Dad......are good enough for me.
 
MtnDude said:
I don't contribute here hardly at all (although I do read over the threads almost daily) , but I feel compelled to weigh in here. I think I feel a lot like jackknife does. For me the litmus test is when I'm sitting around with the old timers passing the mason jar. If I pull out a knife, whether it be a folder or fixed blade, and I get the "what in god's name is that" response I know it is not a "traditional" knife. It's funny that as time goes by, I gravitate less and less to knives that evoke that sort of response. I've come to realize that the knives that were good enough for my Dad, and his Dad, and his Dad......are good enough for me.
Click to expand...

I think that is an interesting point, however it depends on who those old timers are and where they are from. I'm sure not many "Old Timers" from the US would recognize an Opinel or a Higokonami unless they served in WWII
 
I wouldn't chalk off screws as being non-traditional, Miller Brothers used tiny brass screws exclusively in many of their patterns , and that was over a hundred and thirty years ago.

Eric
 
I civil war reenact as some know- those who pay attention :P
And personally my idea of a "traditional knife" is almost always a fixed blade- folding knives are to far and few in decent quality to fit that time period

I will still never consider any folding knife as traditional as a fixed blade
(but I do still carry a Barlow- a svord will join it soon too)

All I got
 
I was musing over this very thing a few days ago, after viewing many Menefee, Hampton, and Bose shadow pattern knives. I know that shadow patterns go back many decades, but these - the ones I've seen anyway, have bone or wood handles, or even nacre. But these new customs all feature modern handle materials; micarta mostly, but also G10 and carbon fiber.

That's where the line blurs for me. Yeah, OK, I'd still call a shadow micarta slipjoint in a stockman pattern a "stockman", but while a stockman is a "traditional" pattern, I'm hesitant to call that knife a "traditional knife". Some might not have a problem still calling that knife a traditional knife, but as others have mentioned, where then does the line get drawn. I understand why people wouldn't want to include the Stag Kiwi (or bone), since its lineage isn't from traditional patters, but rather from modern (aka "tactical") knives. The UKPK and its siblings are even further away from the traditional lineage.

Handle materials aside, another point of contention for me is the lack of bolsters. In the vaguest of definitions, a traditional knife - to me - has bolsters. But obviously not every traditional knife has bolsters, nor is every knife that has bolsters a traditional knife (like Blues' Carson above). Bolsters were ubiquitous with traditional knives because the pivots needed bolstering. Modern knives, with modern materials and precision machining, don't really need bolsters. These days, bolsters on a modern knife are mostly there for style. Knives like Emersons and the Spyderco Military are proof of that. Which leads us back to the shadow pattern knives. With hardened steel (or even titanium) rather than nickel silver, and epoxy laminates instead of brittle bone, bolsters aren't really necessary anymore, at least for strengthening purposes. Because of this, I'm again hesitant to classify such a knife as a "traditional", since it doesn't need or use traditional methods of construction to be a solid tool. Only the blade selections, being the same as other traditional knives, keep them in the "traditional" category.

If others whom are more learned than I say they're traditional, then I suppose I'll go along. I'd like to use the adage "I don't know, but I'll know when I see it", but like the OP, when I see these shadow pattern modern material knives, I don't know even when I see it. I'd be more inclined to call it a modern interpretation of a traditional design.
 
Planterz said:
...I'd be more inclined to call it a modern interpretation of a traditional design.
Click to expand...

But I would think it self evident that every knife posted on this forum (which is not vintage) is just that. Clearly the manner and materials of construction are no longer the same and unless a maker is intentionally setting out to build a knife "exactly" as its predecessors were (in terms of material and method of construction) then it must be taken for granted that the knives presented here are interpretations.

That said, only those which capture and retain the "spirit" (for lack of a better term) of those predecessors are fodder for this sub-forum. Fully realizing that the line is sometimes blurry we must make a judgment just the same.
 
Taking some of the thoughts presented here a tiny step further, I don't for a moment think that most makers or manufacturers throughout history were Luddites. (It would seem counterintuitive to the goal of increasing production and sustaining business.) But, at the same time, there is clearly a place for "artistry" and "craftsmanship" and there is certainly a niche for those who can reproduce the old classics in a manner befitting and paying homage to the gems of earlier manufacture.

As to our forums...we are not split up into a variety of sub-forums because one style of knife or another is "better" per se. (Though most of us have our preferences.)
We are set up this way to make it easier for our membership to find and discuss knives (or issues) of a particular nature, style or genre without having to separate the wheat from the chaff every single time they log in. (Just look at how few of our members actually use the readily available "search" button. If everything was lumped together in one simple "Knife Discussion" forum the situation would be compounded.)

All this is meant to convey that it's not a matter of "elitism" or particular "manner of construction" but rather of "type" and "genre" as it it clear that our own forum presents offerings which range in value from just a few dollars to those commanding a price well into the thousands of dollars...and yet they still manage to reside together under the same roof as it were.

It is merely for the purpose of facilitation that these forums are set up this way.
 
WHATEVER BLUES SAYS! :D Just kidding Elliott.

There are many patterns in production these days with wild handle scale designs (Case with corelon scales, GEC with their wild patterns) that don't fit my idea of traditional. Just because it is a stockman, or trapper or dog leg jack, doesn't make it automatically traditional. Personally, steel doesn't have anything to do with it, as long as the steel is easy to maintain, a patina is an added nicety. There are dozens of blade patterns out there, dozens of blade combinations etc. I think that a traditional slipjoint is really made by the handle scales. Yeah, I guess I am biased, and definitely a hypocrite. I have seen some really nice sodbusters from a certain maker. Slipjoints, 1095 steel, and green canvas micarta scales. I really want one, but just because of the green micarta scales, it does not fit my interpretation of a traditional knife. If you took black paper micarta and slapped that on the knife, it would probably be traditional in my eye. If you took the G10 scale off of a Strider SMF and put a jigged bone scale in its place, I would not consider the SMF traditional, however.

Take a look at some of the bowies, puukkos, Opinel copies (Cold Steel's version, Chris Reeve even made small numbers of a version) etc. A lot of knives just don't have that "feel". I bought a Parker Japanese single blade jack at a flea market last year. It just didn't have that traditional flavor to it. It sounds goofy, but to me, it has to have that feel to it, of being traditional.

After hanging around here, it really comes down to, if it walks like a duck...
 
Hat off to Blues for moderating this forum. No hard feelings.:D By coming to visit this forum, I've grown to realize, and appreciate the differences between traditional and modern, and all variations of, through, and in-between. My first "warning" may have upset me at the time, but it awoke me to the strong tradition in this forum of "traditional knives." vs. "traditional" knives. :D (I hope I'm making myself clear.;))

I come back to the original poster's idea that "I may not be able to describe it, but I know it when I see it." I truely do see it these days. It's in the design and aesthetics. If it induces a strong wave of nostalgia, or some other memories or thoughts of the long distant past, it doesn't matter the materials, construction process, or even quality; it's traditional. And yes, it is in the eye of the beholder. I find I'm redefining my idea of "traditional" with almost every different knife I see.
 
Last edited:
Here’s my question:

Does context count?

Two examples:

1)My edc is a custom, made to my specifications:
--it’s a slipjoint
--it has pinned construction
--it is a classic hunter pattern
--the blade is 1095
But I’m a hemiplegic, with a paralyzed left arm and foot, in a wheelchair. I can’t use nail nicks, or put a knife in my pocket (inconvenient when you don’t stand).
Thus:
--it has a thumb stud
--it has a clip

Is it a traditional?

2)I have a Tidioute wharncliffe that I love. I am having it converted from lockback to slipjoint. I carry it in one of those small SAK pouches with a pocket clip, so there’s none on the knife. However, to open it, I have attached a one-armed bandit.
Is this a traditional?

To be honest, I have hesitated to participate much in this forum (lurking has been superb), because I wasn’t sure I qualified (note, e.g, the negative reception to the Mid-Folding Hunter). I’d be interested in your thoughts.
 
My personal opinion is that you can certainly modify a traditional knife to your purposes and needs. The end result (thumb stud, clip etc) may not be "traditional" in the "traditional" (or "original") sense but it's your knife and satisfies your requirements. In the end, I really can't see why it would be worth arguing over as it's a special (and understandable) case.

Ken Erickson mods his classic Chrysler products from a few decades back. I still think his "Super Bee" is a Super Bee despite adding hand controls so it can be used and enjoyed.
It may no longer be "stock" but...

...please don't allow yourself to be an outsider here due to the modifications you need to make to your traditional knives. It is the love and appreciation of those knives that matters.

You are certainly welcome and encouraged to participate.
 
For what I've seen from this forum, it seems that a knife is traditional if it looks old-fashioned. This forum should be renamed to Old-Fashioned-Looking Folders and Fixed Blades.
 
Just for grins, Elliott, would you consider Jerry's Crossover that you just posted in the Halfrich thread a traditional?

No bolsters, carbon fiber shadow pattern, a new frame design: doesn't look too traditional to me. A great knife, I'm sure, but how traditional?
 
images


(We'd change the name but then folks might confuse us with a bartending site. I'll bring it up with Spark, though. :rolleyes:)
 
black mamba said:
Just for grins, Elliott, would you consider Jerry's Crossover that you just posted in the Halfrich thread a traditional?

No bolsters, carbon fiber shadow pattern, a new frame design: doesn't look too traditional to me. A great knife, I'm sure, but how traditional?
Click to expand...

Actually...no, Jeff, I don't. And when Jerry told me about it he himself (to his credit) mentioned that he wasn't sure it was "traditional" and wasn't sure where the appropriate venue for it would be.
("Custom Knives" would probably be a better venue for it.)

He named it the "Crossover" because it was a meld of traditional and modern design and features.

I included it because folks have come to this forum for some time to see many of Jerry's knives but primarily because I let you get away with posting images of some of those thingamabobs whatchamacallits which I really don't consider traditional. ;)
 
Last edited:
I love seeing Jerry's goodies, and that Crossover is particularly lovely, but I'm glad you don't consider it traditional.

Anyway, I have whatchamacallits, not thingamabobs . . . keep us minions straight, will ya!?! :D
 
ASBOB said:
Here’s my question:

Does context count?

Two examples:

1)My edc is a custom, made to my specifications:
--it’s a slipjoint
--it has pinned construction
--it is a classic hunter pattern
--the blade is 1095
But I’m a hemiplegic, with a paralyzed left arm and foot, in a wheelchair. I can’t use nail nicks, or put a knife in my pocket (inconvenient when you don’t stand).
Thus:
--it has a thumb stud
--it has a clip

Is it a traditional?

2)I have a Tidioute wharncliffe that I love. I am having it converted from lockback to slipjoint. I carry it in one of those small SAK pouches with a pocket clip, so there’s none on the knife. However, to open it, I have attached a one-armed bandit.
Is this a traditional?

To be honest, I have hesitated to participate much in this forum (lurking has been superb), because I wasn’t sure I qualified (note, e.g, the negative reception to the Mid-Folding Hunter). I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Click to expand...

Your comments are interesting. You remind me of my friend Don, who is missing his right arm from a few inches above his elbow. Don loves anything retro. Since Don loves traditional knives, yet is missing one hand, he can't open a slip joint pocket knife. His solution is to always have a traditional sheath knife on his left hip. It may be one his Case or Western Little Finn 's that he's picked up off e-bay, or one of his stag customs that look like something out of the 1940's or 50's.

There's a solution for all of us traditionalists.

Carl.
 
black mamba said:
I love seeing Jerry's goodies, and that Crossover is particularly lovely, but I'm glad you don't consider it traditional.

Anyway, I have whatchamacallits, not thingamabobs . . . keep us minions straight, will ya!?! :D
Click to expand...

I've corrected my error. My apologies...:thumbup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top