Personally I like to read what Cliff does with many of his knives,however this does not mean that I take every thing he tests or destroys to heart.Just because he breaks a knife does not mean I would not buy it or even stake my life on it.I find it interesting to know any tools threshold or breaking levels.As far as the charts and graphs go I dont understand a bit of it so I pay it no mind.If you really get down to it if all you had was a a good old hickory carbon steel butcher knife you could survive for years with no probs.I can also understand the anger by some folks at Cliff for his neg reviews of their products this is only normal as I myself would be angered if someone said my tool did not work(no pun intended).I personally dont get the jist that Cliffs reviews are done out of any animosity toward any makers as far as I have seen.It seems to me though that if you try hard enuff you can break any tool and this is what cliff does intentionally breaks things or sees how far he can go to break things,which I think is interesting.Hell anything any one writes about knives I think is interesting though.It all boils down to this I like to read what other folks think but it dont make one dang bit of difference to me until I get that knife in my hand and use it for myself.Im not really concerned if a knife can do x amount of feats as long as its good steel with a good heat treat Im happy.I have read some reviews by cliff where he favored a certain blade but I had used that part knife and didnt like it at all.I personally like real world testin myself in particular corrosion effects and how somethin cuts meat or how the edge holds up when cuttin real things,but like I said anything about a knife makes for interestin readin for me.
-
All For Sale threads must have a pic showing the knife being sold with written date listed, your username & Bladeforums or BFC to prevent photo harvesting from elsewhere - scammers hate this one trick! The rules for The Exchange can be found here. Please read and follow them. Stop using Paypal Friends & Family and follow our best practices to prevent getting ripped off or having a bad deal.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Cliff Stamp
- Thread starter pahl
- Start date
- Joined
- May 9, 2000
- Messages
- 29,205
Well, I have certainly picked up a great deal of insight into why it is that a lot of companies and makers do not care for the reviews that are done by Cliff. It has been a wee bit of an eye opener. Cliff has given me a lot of invaluable information, but I now see and understand the other side of the coin as well.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,491
I don't think every shred of data Cliff records in his knife tests is relevant to me. I don't use my knives as hard as some folks do. I mainly just cut stuff.
I'm not sure of the scientific integrity of his tests or testing procedures.
But I do feel like I have learned a good deal from reading what he posts. I have neither the energy or inclination to do what he does. But it is interesting to read the accounts of him doing it.
I can understand the feeling of makers whose knives he has destroyed. When you are a craftsman and you take pride in your work, you tend to develop a proprietary, almost parental feeling about whatever it is you are making. To hear about some guy with a piece of pipe destroying in 15 minutes something you sweated and agonized over for hours would have to be unsettling.
But I seriously doubt if anyone who wanted an SOG would change their mind because you can break the blade with enough blows from a pipe.
I am not sure that Cliff has some agenda in the works to become some sort of icon of the knife world. People who have this kind of complex would typically respond very violently if they were hung out to dry in a thread like this one. Cliff has not responded with any rancor at all. I think he has behaved in a pretty classy manner.
If the guy was an egomaniac, he wouldn't take the kind of implications some of you are throwing around. Theories about Cliff???
Who do you think he is?
Next somebody will be accusing him of being TTO.
I think he is just a guy who is extremely curious about the performance of edged tools, and likes to share his conclusions with everybody.
Bottom line--if you don't like his stuff, don't bother to read it.
It isn't like he is a troll who is attempting to cause trouble.
I'm not sure of the scientific integrity of his tests or testing procedures.
But I do feel like I have learned a good deal from reading what he posts. I have neither the energy or inclination to do what he does. But it is interesting to read the accounts of him doing it.
I can understand the feeling of makers whose knives he has destroyed. When you are a craftsman and you take pride in your work, you tend to develop a proprietary, almost parental feeling about whatever it is you are making. To hear about some guy with a piece of pipe destroying in 15 minutes something you sweated and agonized over for hours would have to be unsettling.
But I seriously doubt if anyone who wanted an SOG would change their mind because you can break the blade with enough blows from a pipe.
I am not sure that Cliff has some agenda in the works to become some sort of icon of the knife world. People who have this kind of complex would typically respond very violently if they were hung out to dry in a thread like this one. Cliff has not responded with any rancor at all. I think he has behaved in a pretty classy manner.
If the guy was an egomaniac, he wouldn't take the kind of implications some of you are throwing around. Theories about Cliff???
Who do you think he is?
Next somebody will be accusing him of being TTO.
I think he is just a guy who is extremely curious about the performance of edged tools, and likes to share his conclusions with everybody.
Bottom line--if you don't like his stuff, don't bother to read it.
It isn't like he is a troll who is attempting to cause trouble.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 1998
- Messages
- 5,403
not2sharp-
Amen brother.
Amen brother.
Cliff Stamp, hats off to you!!! All knife junkies
are my brothers...anyone with passion gets my
vote...you can either be the singer, the critic,
or in the audience but you can't be all three.
The fact that Cliff gets this kind of response
whether you agree or not speaks volumes...he's
a player, not a spectator...
are my brothers...anyone with passion gets my
vote...you can either be the singer, the critic,
or in the audience but you can't be all three.
The fact that Cliff gets this kind of response
whether you agree or not speaks volumes...he's
a player, not a spectator...
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
Hossom :
This is the kind of ideal statement that sounds perfect, but in reality has really severe problems. For example, there are those with enough skill and care that heavy blade on inclusion contact happens very rarely. Thus if they followed the advice that Hossom noted they could not comment on that knife aspect for several years - that is pretty slow progress. Not to mention the fact that if you never evaluate a blades ability to handle an extreme event until it is forced upon it, it is pretty irresponsible. It would be like checking to see if a life jacket works by waiting until someone falls overboard and see if they drown. You intentionally do unlikely usage as it prevents you from having to be forced to rely on a blade that failed in the event of such a happening, and it allows you to examine such behaviour in a timely manner. Care has to be taken of course to try to duplicate the incidents in some kind of similar manner which allows ready comparisons, that isn't trivial.
It is the same as "knives should only be used for their intended purpose". This sounds like common sense of course. However how do you define the intended purpose. From the makers perspective? Let alone the fact that you are letting someome who makes a product decide how it is to be evaluated, what about if two different makers make the exact same type of knife (same promoted class and general use), but have radically different viewpoints on what this actually means. How do you answer the question of comparing them? If you look at it from the point of view of one you will be unfair to the other as you are either ignoring strong points that they have, or commenting on weak points that they think should be ignored. I don't think there should be any restrictions at all on useage for the purpose of evaluation. If someone wants to take a knife and perform a task when it was made to do something very different than they will learn why that was the case and they have gained something. If they comment that the knife was "poor" because it didn't do that well, that is a different matter, and the maker has obvous grounds to complain.
Blademan13 :
No, that just gets the most press for obvious reasons. It depends on who is reading it of course, some people only focus on the breaking to the extent that they don't see anything else. See the Valiant thread for example. That never got the attention the Recondo one did even though the Valiant blade was just as heavily damaged, and subjected to far heavier use. The manufacturer simply didn't react the way Ron did. We just discussed the results, what they meant, possible changes etc. . In regards to comments about toughness being the most critical aspect. This is from the viewpoint of the integral nature of knife design. Durability defines geometry, geometry defines cutting performance.
The interpretation is left up to the reader, the opposite of course would also be done showing where the thinner knife outperforms the BM. Can readers make incorrect conclusions, possibly. That is why the reviews are linked to threads on Bladeforums so people can discuss the possible interpretations.
Brian Jones :
We are talking about wedges here, it is easily possible for one individual to give another useful information on the performance of one type vs another, just as you could tell someone about various types of tinder for fire starting or types of boots for various conditions. Yes of course the bottom line always has to be your experience, but you can speed this up quite a bit from others.
Richard :
It wasn't estimated by feel, it was measured (mass, time and distance) as noted in the reviews. The variations were also not as small as 2%, which would be quite difficult indeed to try to contain on such a dynamic movement. Quoting 102 +/- 2.74 also doesn't make any sense by the way, you would match precision in both numbers, and tracking 3 numbers in the variation is rather extreme. Usually only one is necessary unless you are concerned about roundoff error in which case two is usually enough, there are better ways to deal with roundoff than excessive digits though, see for example the work le Roy has done on iterative rounding in correlated systems.
-Cliff
This is the kind of ideal statement that sounds perfect, but in reality has really severe problems. For example, there are those with enough skill and care that heavy blade on inclusion contact happens very rarely. Thus if they followed the advice that Hossom noted they could not comment on that knife aspect for several years - that is pretty slow progress. Not to mention the fact that if you never evaluate a blades ability to handle an extreme event until it is forced upon it, it is pretty irresponsible. It would be like checking to see if a life jacket works by waiting until someone falls overboard and see if they drown. You intentionally do unlikely usage as it prevents you from having to be forced to rely on a blade that failed in the event of such a happening, and it allows you to examine such behaviour in a timely manner. Care has to be taken of course to try to duplicate the incidents in some kind of similar manner which allows ready comparisons, that isn't trivial.
It is the same as "knives should only be used for their intended purpose". This sounds like common sense of course. However how do you define the intended purpose. From the makers perspective? Let alone the fact that you are letting someome who makes a product decide how it is to be evaluated, what about if two different makers make the exact same type of knife (same promoted class and general use), but have radically different viewpoints on what this actually means. How do you answer the question of comparing them? If you look at it from the point of view of one you will be unfair to the other as you are either ignoring strong points that they have, or commenting on weak points that they think should be ignored. I don't think there should be any restrictions at all on useage for the purpose of evaluation. If someone wants to take a knife and perform a task when it was made to do something very different than they will learn why that was the case and they have gained something. If they comment that the knife was "poor" because it didn't do that well, that is a different matter, and the maker has obvous grounds to complain.
Blademan13 :
No, that just gets the most press for obvious reasons. It depends on who is reading it of course, some people only focus on the breaking to the extent that they don't see anything else. See the Valiant thread for example. That never got the attention the Recondo one did even though the Valiant blade was just as heavily damaged, and subjected to far heavier use. The manufacturer simply didn't react the way Ron did. We just discussed the results, what they meant, possible changes etc. . In regards to comments about toughness being the most critical aspect. This is from the viewpoint of the integral nature of knife design. Durability defines geometry, geometry defines cutting performance.
The interpretation is left up to the reader, the opposite of course would also be done showing where the thinner knife outperforms the BM. Can readers make incorrect conclusions, possibly. That is why the reviews are linked to threads on Bladeforums so people can discuss the possible interpretations.
Brian Jones :
We are talking about wedges here, it is easily possible for one individual to give another useful information on the performance of one type vs another, just as you could tell someone about various types of tinder for fire starting or types of boots for various conditions. Yes of course the bottom line always has to be your experience, but you can speed this up quite a bit from others.
Richard :
It wasn't estimated by feel, it was measured (mass, time and distance) as noted in the reviews. The variations were also not as small as 2%, which would be quite difficult indeed to try to contain on such a dynamic movement. Quoting 102 +/- 2.74 also doesn't make any sense by the way, you would match precision in both numbers, and tracking 3 numbers in the variation is rather extreme. Usually only one is necessary unless you are concerned about roundoff error in which case two is usually enough, there are better ways to deal with roundoff than excessive digits though, see for example the work le Roy has done on iterative rounding in correlated systems.
-Cliff
Richard
BOUNCED EMAIL: I need to update my email address in my profile!
- Joined
- Oct 3, 1998
- Messages
- 1,742
Ok Cliff, the estimate by feel or previous tests was your stated method in yor review.
From Cliffs review of the SOG:
This was stated as the approximate force your friend used to smack the blade on its spine, side, and edge multiple times with a steel pipe.
From your response to me in this thread:
Perhaps we are talking about different reviews. I am referring to the SOG review.
Mass and distance can be measured pretty easily. I assume by 'time' you are referring to the time it takes from the beginning of the swing to contact, which would translate to speed? And you measured the average speed (or time) of these multiple strikes how?
Maybe my example of 2% variations would be almost impossible to calculate by guessing....but from some guy swinging a pipe ate a knife im holding, I would find it difficult to 'guesstimate' for to a +/- 25% as well, especially for multiple strikes.
From Cliffs review of the SOG:
This was stated as the approximate force your friend used to smack the blade on its spine, side, and edge multiple times with a steel pipe.
From your response to me in this thread:
Perhaps we are talking about different reviews. I am referring to the SOG review.
Mass and distance can be measured pretty easily. I assume by 'time' you are referring to the time it takes from the beginning of the swing to contact, which would translate to speed? And you measured the average speed (or time) of these multiple strikes how?
Maybe my example of 2% variations would be almost impossible to calculate by guessing....but from some guy swinging a pipe ate a knife im holding, I would find it difficult to 'guesstimate' for to a +/- 25% as well, especially for multiple strikes.
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
The details of how I first measured the impact energy were given in the X-Ray review, which is linked to in the Recondo one, though I should have cross referenced them at that point to be clear. I also calculated it from basic principles for verification. The swing time was calculated from multiple swings and checked with single swing estimates with a few friends running multiple timers. The multiple swing calculation tends to under estimate it because there is the delay at the start and the end, and you don't tend to be as explosive on the upsweep as you are coming down. The speed is indeed the primary reason why the variance is as large as it is, everything else is easily obtained within a few percent, but the swing times are so short their relative variance is much larger.
100 +/- 25 ft.lbs, by the way, means the confidence interval for 95% reproduction would be 50 - 150 ft.lbs. No it isn't very precise. It could be made much more precise if I wanted to, I would just have to get another bar and get the nail hits done again. There was little incentive on my part to do this for rather obvious reasons. Note as well that I only included those numbers as Ron specifically asked for them. I have done it on a few other occasions when people have asked about limbing impacts which damaged blades, the wood type and orientation has just as much effect here though so that is very hard to try to reproduce, even by me. Which is why I generally like to do a lot of limbing before forming a conclusions on a blade as they can remain undamaged for days, and then get blown apart on a bad hit so it takes a few weeks before I am comfortable. Skill has a tremendous influence here as well, so it is hard to say how the edge will hold up to another user.
-Cliff
100 +/- 25 ft.lbs, by the way, means the confidence interval for 95% reproduction would be 50 - 150 ft.lbs. No it isn't very precise. It could be made much more precise if I wanted to, I would just have to get another bar and get the nail hits done again. There was little incentive on my part to do this for rather obvious reasons. Note as well that I only included those numbers as Ron specifically asked for them. I have done it on a few other occasions when people have asked about limbing impacts which damaged blades, the wood type and orientation has just as much effect here though so that is very hard to try to reproduce, even by me. Which is why I generally like to do a lot of limbing before forming a conclusions on a blade as they can remain undamaged for days, and then get blown apart on a bad hit so it takes a few weeks before I am comfortable. Skill has a tremendous influence here as well, so it is hard to say how the edge will hold up to another user.
-Cliff
Cliff,
One of the recurring themes on this and some other threads discussing your posts have question the "scientific" nature of your reviews. Perhaps it would be good if you could make a definitive statement on this. When you review a knife are you providing your opinions and observations on the specific example, or proporting to review the performance of the knife as a model or class?
While, I find your reviews thorough and informative, I do not see them as rising to the level of true science. In other words, your conclusions often go beyond what can be determined empirically from your direct observations and methods. Perhaps this is just an issue of more clearly deliniating what you can determine from the observations from what you bring to the project through other experience.
Both components are valuable, but we should clearly distinguish between fact and opinion.
n2s
One of the recurring themes on this and some other threads discussing your posts have question the "scientific" nature of your reviews. Perhaps it would be good if you could make a definitive statement on this. When you review a knife are you providing your opinions and observations on the specific example, or proporting to review the performance of the knife as a model or class?
While, I find your reviews thorough and informative, I do not see them as rising to the level of true science. In other words, your conclusions often go beyond what can be determined empirically from your direct observations and methods. Perhaps this is just an issue of more clearly deliniating what you can determine from the observations from what you bring to the project through other experience.
Both components are valuable, but we should clearly distinguish between fact and opinion.
n2s
I did graduate from a redneck high school in the south, but damned if some of those words in that last post go beyond standard old conversation.
That's one of the problems I have with Cliff. I can't understand what he's saying half the time he posts. Hey...I just figured out why I hate Cliff Stamp so much....it's because he's more intelligent than me....I'll be damned. That's funny.
That's one of the problems I have with Cliff. I can't understand what he's saying half the time he posts. Hey...I just figured out why I hate Cliff Stamp so much....it's because he's more intelligent than me....I'll be damned. That's funny.
Yep, 10 days at Camp Stamp learning how to use a knife
Jeff Randall VS. Cliff Stamp in a no-holds barred grudge match!
Jeff gets to pick any blade he wants and tries to destroy Cliff Stamp.
Cliff gets to use a large metal pipe and tries to destroy Jeff's knife before Jeff destroys him!
Available only on BLADE PER VIEW...
Jeff gets to pick any blade he wants and tries to destroy Cliff Stamp.
Cliff gets to use a large metal pipe and tries to destroy Jeff's knife before Jeff destroys him!
Available only on BLADE PER VIEW...
I would rather have the pipe