I've had kinda varying opinions of Mr. Criswell's swords.
When they had the old-style pommel and extremely long handles, I was most certainly not a fan. I used to think...gosh how can this stuff be called Japanese-style?
I'm still not a fan of extremely long handles but I can see why some folks are. The pommel change in my opinion was an excellent improvement, and helped change my perspective quite a bit.
In terms of durability, I think Criswell's blades are done well, but the real benefit customers get is consistency of QC. It seems customers of KC and Hanwei and what not have only found shortcomings in what could probably be dubbed "lemons." Most people have NO problems (Just like folks mention about Criswell's work). It is not *that* rare to come across a well-made durable sword, even from the production companies. That is why I do not think conventional durability should be the key element people use for promoting a particular maker's work.
His work is far from traditional...but the more I evolve, the more I feel that it is neither justification for guilt or pride. They are different approaches at the same goal, and preference is subjective, not absolute. You are not trading traditional aspects to gain performance or vice versa...it just doesn't work that way.
If I ever got back into test-cutting, I would definitely consider using a Criswell sword, if I could find a nice reasonably attractive one with a 12" or shorter handle on a secondary market somewhere. However, I would also look into practical plus by Hanwei, their other mid-range offerings, and other companies as well.
I will say in general, it is a higher-quality sword than you will find from the production companies. While with the latter, you find yourself at the mercy of QC, You will almost always know what you can expect from Criswell...much the same way as people look at Sebenzas compared to other production folding knives.
Sorry bout the long post :footinmou