Can any expert here answer this mystery? Same design, multiple makers.

[TEFL0N_D0N_81]

I've collected a small humble knife collection over the years, so there are many aspects to the knife industry that I just don't know squat about.

I'm also not expecting any answers to this question, but any input will be appreciated.

I've seen certain knives that look very similar (same exact handle, blade shape with slight variances, etc) and marketed under different brands. These brands don't seem to have any connection with each other (i.e. parent company). So the question would be, what's going on here?

Here's an example:

no longer in production, from FOX Cutlery, Italy.

Fury Machete, made from who knows (probably China), no longer in production

made by Hiro / IC.Cut from Japan (no longer in production)

made by Tsuge from Japan (still in production)

Each knife has differences, from steel type, blade lightening holes, etc...
I also own the last one posted (Tsuge) and love it. No regrets there. The differences from steel to minor blade design and grind make it worth it for me.

But I'd like to know why the variance amongst makers? Anyone have a clue to this? Are there other instances of this happening?

 

[silenthunterstudios]

Type kukri and Gurkha into any search engine, sit back, and start reading.

I think those are interpretations of the kukri design, no where near as good as product offered by Himalayan Imports or Cold Steel.

 

[bld522]

Right. I've got the top one (Fox Cutlery). Fox OEM'd it to A.G. Russell for awhile so mine has an A.G. Russell logo. I don't call it a Kukri, however. I refer to it as a KLO (Kukri-like Object). It's a handsome blade, for sure. But an HI could easily cut it in half.

 

[TEFL0N_D0N_81]

Type kukri and Gurkha into any search engine, sit back, and start reading.

I think those are interpretations of the kukri design, no where near as good as product offered by Himalayan Imports or Cold Steel.

Thank you for your input , but I think you were responding to a different thread, as your answer is irrelevant to the subject. The question was never about the history of the kukri design, obtained influences, or which brand makes the best version.

 

[SOLEIL]

Thank you for your input , but I think you were responding to a different thread, as your answer is irrelevant to the subject. The question was never about the history of the kukri design, obtained influences, or which brand makes the best version.

The post is relevant. If you see the history of the design it will become apparent why there are so many variations on the same theme. Designs in general are bought, sold and copied with a vast array of products, including knives.

 

[TEFL0N_D0N_81]

The post is relevant. If you see the history of the design it will become apparent why there are so many variations on the same theme. Designs in general are bought, sold and copied with a vast array of products, including knives.

Hmmn... so you suspect there's a someone or an entity in the background that by contract licenses out the design to these different makers?

It's obvious that the knives posted above are beyond the "influenced by" factor. Quality and minor feature variations aside, the knives are the same damn template... there's no denying that.

By the way, you're implying that someone owns the design for the Ghurka Kukri and licenses it out? The knife was designed 2000+ years ago. Now that's hogwash. After 70+ years or so, copyrights and trademarks become public domain. Just like how 1911 clones and makers are a dime a dozen.

 

[Lost Cosmonaut]

Hmmn... so you suspect there's a someone or an entity in the background that by contract licenses out the design to these different makers?

It's obvious that the knives posted above are beyond the "influenced by" factor. Quality and minor feature variations aside, the knives are the same damn template... there's no denying that.

I don't understand what you are getting at. They're all based on a Kukuri design. Just because they're all very similar doesn't mean anything. It's like saying all guthook knives are part of some corporate conspiracy because they're all the same no matter the maker. No, it's just that there's only one basic way to make a guthook knife.

 

[Arakiel]

This thread reminds me of the "sharpfinger". The mystery lies only in the last two entries, the Hiro and the Tsuge. They are identical, exept what appears to be lightening holes and some serrations. The others are similar, but only insofar as kukris are similar.
My educated guess is that th first two are issues from companies that did market studies. The last two are interesting because they actually appear to make use of the exact same tooling, albiet slightly modified, and the exact same handle scale molds. This suggests that the company that produced the earler blade sold the tooling to the latter, and probably money changed hands over a licence or contract to permit the usage of the design. If you go to this site...

http://japan-blades.com/field-knives/tsuge/2482.html

...you will notice that this is identical to the Hiro "Junglee". This supports my theory that Tsuge bought the rights to these designs from Hiro, and this coincides with the fact that Hiro stopped production of these two blades.

Edit: Upon closer inspection, it appears that the same handle scales were used on all models. This suggests that the owner of the tooling simply produced them for any company that wants to buy a large enough quantity to incorporate into thier design. Why not make a few more bucks from the same tooling is the thought process in mass production circumstances.

 

[TEFL0N_D0N_81]

This thread reminds me of the "sharpfinger". The mystery lies only in the last two entries, the Hiro and the Tsuge. They are identical, exept what appears to be lightening holes and some serrations. The others are similar, but only insofar as kukris are similar.
My educated guess is that th first two are issues from companies that did market studies. The last two are interesting because they actually appear to make use of the exact same tooling, albiet slightly modified, and the exact same handle scale molds. This suggests that the company that produced the earler blade sold the tooling to the latter, and probably money changed hands over a licence or contract to permit the usage of the design. If you go to this site...

http://japan-blades.com/field-knives/tsuge/2482.html

...you will notice that this is identical to the Hiro "Junglee". This supports my theory that Tsuge bought the rights to these designs from Hiro, and this coincides with the fact that Hiro stopped production of these two blades.

Edit: Upon closer inspection, it appears that the same handle scales were used on all models. This suggests that the owner of the tooling simply produced them for any company that wants to buy a large enough quantity to incorporate into thier design. Why not make a few more bucks from the same tooling is the thought process in mass production circumstances.

I think you're on to something. I looked up some stats and this is what I found.

Fox Kukri - 440c stainless, no holes. Not sure what type of grind it uses. I'm sure it's either flat or hollow.

Fury Kukri Machete - A complete mystery online, other than that the sheath totally blows. Price was also $20 to $30 if that. The worst of these 4 no doubt in terms of quality.

Hiro Machete - Holes look the same as the Fury version, Aus-6 steel according to http://www.japaneseknifedirect.com/. No longer in production, limited supply of smaller version with wood handles.

Tsuge Machete - Redesigned holes, small serrations. MVS-8 steel, available upon order from Seki, Japan.

The Hiro and Tsuge are slightly hollow ground.

All three have same overall dimensions. Not sure what the Fury version weighs or how thick it is. These 4 weren't coincidentally designed apart from one another. It's obvious they're the same template and use the same machining tools, each iteration with its differences.

Because productions seem to stop prior to the availability of the other, I think your assumption of passing on / purchasing the license holds a lot of merit. I just didn't think knife designs could work that way.

 

[SOLEIL]

There are many things you don't know. One of them is how not to be rude. It was never implied that there was a patent on the knives. Read my post.
"Designs in general are bought, sold and copied with a vast array of products, including knives." I was referring to the evolution of designs in general, not patents.

 

[Kaizen1]

Hmmn... so you suspect there's a someone or an entity in the background that by contract licenses out the design to these different makers?

It's obvious that the knives posted above are beyond the "influenced by" factor. Quality and minor feature variations aside, the knives are the same damn template... there's no denying that.

By the way, you're implying that someone owns the design for the Ghurka Kukri and licenses it out? The knife was designed 2000+ years ago. Now that's hogwash. After 70+ years or so, copyrights and trademarks become public domain. Just like how 1911 clones and makers are a dime a dozen.

I don't see how he was implying what you say. You asked about some knives that look very similar and asked if there were any connections between them. His answer was relevant in that they are all a variation of the kukhri design. That, and plain and simple, many companies take exact models from other makers/companies and call it their own. Just because some knives are extremely similar, doesn't mean there's some maker or company that all the copies are getting permission from or paying royalties to. Ideally sure, if one comes up with an original idea in the industry and others take a blatant copy of it, then we like to see at least some kind of mention, but none of this has to be the case.

 

[TEFL0N_D0N_81]

There are many things you don't know. One of them is how not to be rude. It was never implied that there was a patent on the knives. Read my post.
"Designs in general are bought, sold and copied with a vast array of products, including knives." I was referring to the evolution of designs in general, not patents.

Apologies.

 

[elkins45]

But I'd like to know why the variance amongst makers? Anyone have a clue to this? Are there other instances of this happening?

I suspect it's to be able to distinguish them (somewhat) in the marketplace at not much cost to the maker. That's why you seen the differences in the blades and not the handle scales. The blades can be customized to a degree during the blanking and/or grinding process, but making a new set of injection dies for the scales could cost upwards of $50K I'm led to believe.

So the makes does something a little different with blade design for each customer but keeps molding and bolting on the same scales because nobody wants to pay the retooling cost to produce different ones.

 

[Arakiel]

What remains unclear is if the original design and tooling to make the knife physically changes hands between manufacturing companies and is subsequently modified for each iteration, or if the tooling is used over and over by the original manufacturer and slightly modified with each new purchase order.

 

[paperairplane]

It's just business. In the east, company lines are a little more blurred. China flat out has no copyright laws. In Japan, Suzuki and Kawasaki are basically the same company - even though they are technically competitors here.

 

[Shamrockninja]

Kinda old thread but I can clarify this topic a bit for everyone.
Ive been asked this question ALOT, because sometimes we see several knife brands showing the identical style blades.

When a Knife company (or any company) hires a production company to manufacture a design for a set period of time the buy/make custom tooling and parts around a specific design.
They train a workforce to specifically make that product.
When the contract ends, the equipment isnt just thrown away.
The company either sells the equipment and design, or allows the manufacturere the rights to make the design under a new brand.

This however does NOT mean the same materials are used.
Two brands of identical looking knives made ( one after the other) in the same production shop may have only cosmetic similarities.

Bottom line is, don't assume anything, research and ask alot of questions.
you get what you pay for.


sorry, this topic is familiar to me.

 

[Myal]

I personaly feel they are more along the lines of a Kopis than a Khukri ...

 

[TEFL0N_D0N_81]

Kinda old thread but I can clarify this topic a bit for everyone.
Ive been asked this question ALOT, because sometimes we see several knife brands showing the identical style blades.

When a Knife company (or any company) hires a production company to manufacture a design for a set period of time the buy/make custom tooling and parts around a specific design.
They train a workforce to specifically make that product.
When the contract ends, the equipment isnt just thrown away.
The company either sells the equipment and design, or allows the manufacturere the rights to make the design under a new brand.

This however does NOT mean the same materials are used.
Two brands of identical looking knives made ( one after the other) in the same production shop may have only cosmetic similarities.

Bottom line is, don't assume anything, research and ask alot of questions.
you get what you pay for.


sorry, this topic is familiar to me.

This response makes the most sense.

 

[jossta]

Kukri is a popular design interpreted by a number of people/companies, kinda like a bowie.

 

[CWL]

It's a KLO, not a real khukri.

I have an earlier version of this same blade, branded "Sargent" which I bought sometime in the late 1980's. Still have it, decent chopper, but I've moved on from stainless, hollow-ground choppers. (no silly holes in the blade though).

Knifemakers use blade forms, and I suspect that this is a generic pattern that importers choose on occasion to purchase and rebrand for local sales.