Custom makers - outsourcing and assistants

SharpByCoop

SharpByCoop

Enjoying the discussions
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
Joined
Oct 8, 2001
Messages
12,336
The most celebrated maker of our time is arguably Bob Loveless. He is the pinnacle maker of a custom knife. Yet, truth be told, he has had an assistant working alongside him in the shop for years (Jim Merritt). He suffers no loss to his knives credibility whatsoever. Nor, in my opinion should he. But this may be an anomoly.

How about others that work in teams: Pat and Wes Crawford, Darrel Ralph and Ryan Bailey, Twinblades (Harry and Charlie Mathews), Barry and Philip Jones. There must be others I am missing, and I don't mean to outstep my bounds in naming these guys. I really don't know the amount of collaboration that goes on in their respective shops.

I submit that most every married knifemaker has a spouse that is pulling in chores to keep the business running smoother.

My opinion is that, in order for a maker to be successful, they need to be productive doing what they are BEST skilled at and letting others do their inefficient work. This may include outsourcing for other machining tasks.

It's a slippery slope, but how much importance do YOU place on sole-authorship craftsmanship? Two makers are allowed to work together and still call their work Custom. How about three?

Is the sum of two people sometimes greater than the whole?

Let's discuss.

Coop
 
IMO, greatness is rarely achieved solo.

Edison had a crew of about 100 in Menlo Park
Einstein had an "assistant" work the mathematics for his Theory of Relativity
Page has Brin and Brin has Page (Google)
Warren Buffett has Charlie Munger
Bill Gates had Ballmer and Allen
George Westinghouse had Nikolai Tesla

and so on
 
Employing assistants, ( or apprentices ) is a long standing tradition, as is
criticism of the practice.
I don't prefer doing it that way, But don't see an issue with others doing it so long as the knifemaker is on the level with clients about it.
Same with outsourcing

When it's husband and wife ie. Yancys or Warenskis....its a partnership.
 
Thanks Coop, this may be the start of a very interesting thread.
In my opinion a “hand made knife” should be made by that person’s hand that puts his mark on the finished knife. Of course he may have someone that cleans the shop, takes care of the business and even an apprentice program, however if he represents or even leads people to believe that his knives are sole authorship then they should be. I think most knife enthusiast assume that handmade knife makers make their own knives, not supervise the production of their knives to various degrees.
Notice I used the term handmade rather than custom made, however we could start another thread just on the difference between the two in regard to knives.
 
Hi guys

Its seems to me after a while a makers name becomes more of a brand image than a true representation of that person. I assume that when guys like Bob Loveless started out it was just him,his designs,and his grinds, but in order to maintain the Brand image of Bob loveless knives he had to meet consumer demand. And somtimes ya just need a hand to insure your customer get what they want. I think it is alright when all the work is being done in your shop with your equipment under your watchfull eye. I don't like when guys job out certain task (ei. CNC machining,grinding ) and take credit for making a hand made knife.

Jim, of the makers you listed I don't know of any that don't admit to working with others. There knives are made under a brand name, and if you notice most of them are pretty close relationships. sometimes creation needs insperation and if you can work well with someone and the quality of your product is not effected by one or the others work than why is that knife any less custom than anyone elses.

Does Jesse James Build all his "custom"bikes by himself.

I can only dream of the day I need someone to help me fill orders.
Simply because to me supporting myself and my family is one thing but to be able to have enough work to have someone earn a living with my design and quality standards really says something about you not only as a craftsman/designer but as a business man.

I salute those who succeed at the business end of Knifemaking. I am tring and its not easy. It takes alot and sometmes you just need a hand.


So yes I think the sum of two people is greater than the whole

As far as wives go. Any woman willing to stay with a knifemaker gets all the credit in the world from me, we are not your typical Joes. long hours, little pay (at times) and weekends away. Not to mention when the artist start to come out in us. Knife women are a strong breed, and deserve their due.



cya
jimi
 
Great topic Coop.
Many are awaare that I teach at a state art college in Ma. in the city of Boston. Over the years there have been several young men and women who showed a strong interest in my work and how I do it. Four individuals however,(Chris Flechtner, Romas Banaitis, Laurie Savage and John Frankl)showed a strong enough interest to want to work and train with me in my shop. They all went on to become outstanding makers on their own merits. When they worked under my tuteledge, they performed a variety of tasks that for me were straight-up "busy work". These did include, but were not strictly limited to; Stoning and tool mark removal,polishing out file work,roughing out guards, bolsters and other parts,slabbing and lapping handle materials, stiching sheaths and many other tasks that were for me, not an efficient use of my valuable time. They were however, extremely valuable ways for those coming up and learning to spend their time developing the the basic skills and discipline required to move on to professional levels. The whole concept of "sole authorship" as far as I can tell when placed in a purely historical context, is a very new idea indeed. All art and design studios in the recent past back on into antiquity were manned with multiple apprentice and journeyman craftsmen who payed their dues and put in their time under a master. That is precisely what "journeymen" and "apprentices" do, they labor and learn under the watchful eye of the Master. Don't think for a moment that Michaelangelo personally removed every scratch and tool mark from "La Pieta", or that Da Vinci personally painted every back ground of his paintings. This kind of work was undoubtedly done by a small army of assistants. It is well documented that they themselves labored in this fashion as they were coming into their own. That was (and still is) simply the way it was done, and in my opinion takes NOTHING away from the artistic merit of the supervising talent. It is not as though the assistant is doing something the Master cannot do himself, they are doing work the Master should not be doing himself.
 
My preference is for knives that have had all the major components made by the person whose name goes on the blade. There are exceptions to this though. I would own a Loveless knife in a heartbeat. Also, there are many collaboration knives that I would love to add to my collection.

Outsourcing is another thing altogether. I have no problem with makers that do this as long as they inform prospective customers of what they are doing. Personally though, I am not interested in collecting knives that are made from outsourced major parts. Outsourcing things like sheaths, engraving, scrimshaw, etc. is something that I find to many times be beneficial, and I find it completely acceptable.

Of course the sum of two people will sometimes be great than what can be accomplished by one. Different people have different talents.
 
I agree JD.
A good apprentice program is necessary for a strong handmade knife industry, however in my opinion there should be a limit as to how much an apprentice or assistant can contribute to the overall making of a handmade knife and still be represented as a sole authorship.
 
Kevin Jones said:
I agree JD.
A good apprentice program is necessary for a strong handmade knife industry, however in my opinion there should be a limit as to how much an apprentice or assistant can contribute to the overall making of a handmade knife and still be represented as a sole authorship.
Click to expand...

Will chime in later with more observations on the subject, but I do consider sole authorship to be just that. It makes the individual piece that much more PERSONALLY valuable to me, not necessarily finanacially, but at an emotional level. I agree with Kevin's statement. It is the reason that a Denning, Cashen, Fogg, Fuegen, Hanson, Hancock, Delana or Warenski have a high level of desirability to me.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
I think there are 2 questions wrapped in this:

1 - Is a knife more desireable if it was made from start to finish by the same person? Personally, I'm ambivalent on this. I have 4 knives that Foggs collaborated on (one with Fikes, one with Revishvilly, one with R. Gilbreath, one with Murad Sayen under the Kemal mark). I like them no less than I like the sole authorship (but it does depend piece by piece - I'm less attached to the Gilbreath collab, for example).

2 - If a knife is made by several people, should it have the name of a single maker? In my opinion, the answer to this is no. A separate trademark (Kemal, C2O, etc) is preferable.
 
Cool thread indeed.
I think we often distort the deffinition of "custom" to begin with! A guy makes a knife and calls it "Custom" because it was of his own creation.
That's wrong.
According to my World Book Dictionary, 1. "made specially for individual customers; made to order. 2. making things to individual order: a custom tailor."
So, for the most part, when you go to a knife show and see tables full of knives, they are NOT custom! They are hand-crafted knives For Sale!
You can consider a knife custom when it has been made to a particular customers specifications.
That word "custom" runs rampant through all these threads incorrectly.
In this thread alone:

"There knives are made under a brand name, and if you notice most of them are pretty close relationships. sometimes creation needs insperation and if you can work well with someone and the quality of your product is not effected by one or the others work than why is that knife any less custom than anyone elses."

"Two makers are allowed to work together and still call their work Custom."

I think Kevin Jones hit the nail pretty squarely! "Notice I used the term handmade rather than custom made, however we could start another thread just on the difference between the two in regard to knives."


Personally I use the term "Individually Hand-crafted" in all of my promotion.
 
Joss said:
I think there are 2 questions wrapped in this:

1 - Is a knife more desireable if it was made from start to finish by the same person? Personally, I'm ambivalent on this. I have 4 knives that Foggs collaborated on (one with Fikes, one with Revishvilly, one with R. Gilbreath, one with Murad Sayen under the Kemal mark). I like them no less than I like the sole authorship (but it does depend piece by piece - I'm less attached to the Gilbreath collab, for example).

2 - If a knife is made by several people, should it have the name of a single maker? In my opinion, the answer to this is no. A separate trademark (Kemal, C2O, etc) is preferable.
Click to expand...

Joss, you make a good point here, however my comments (probably commenting too much here, sorry) are not directed at all to collaborations as they are an entity in themselves. They are usually marked as or promoted as such. In a rare case where I have an engraver other than the maker enhance a knife, I always have the engraver mark has contribution to the knife because to me it's important that the knife is documented accuratly as to whomever contributed to it; maker, engraver or assistant.
 
I certainly agree with all who've said that the degree of assistant involvement is key. In my case, assistants did not at any time make the important decisions about artistic and/or aesthetic content that truly mark work as my own. That being the case, I have no problem whatever applying my personal touchmark to the piece. When another hand begins to bend the work towards their own vision and begins to operate as a separate and distinct vision and voice, then in my opinion, the work must be truly considered as a collaboration.
 
Well somewhat new to the industry ( 17 months grinding ), and with a design that is seeing some marked success.

First thing i figured out was i could not supply the demand doing all the cutting and drill plus the wear and tear tooling , belts , blade and body.

So i have my steel now precision ground and shipped to Halpren having knives profiled ( and just the profile no bevel work at all ) on the water-jet. By all means is the knife far from close to done when it gets to my shop lots of clean up work. One of the things that took the longest since going to this method was surface grinding by presision grinding it should ease up.

I use Paul Bos on most all my knives and thats not becuse access to other HT sources, but I consider that Paul is the best in the industry and can look my customers in the eye and tell them the most important part of the knife was very well cared for.

I promote all of this openly on my operations page thru my website. www.sarknives.com

What does all this allow me well for one why should I not be able to capitilize on my design and get into the hands of as many people as possible. 2 it allows me some free time to work on full blown customs that includes all phases coming from my shop.

Its all somewhat based off of your client base also. If you cannot keep up with the demand then that person will surely move on.

So maybe my perspective on this matter is somewhat skewd all the varibles 100% handmade, custom , colaboration, mid tech, outsorucing service's. Well if the customer Calls or puts an order in via e-mail knows what he buying how it was built and walks away happy who cares.

Did i miss the point of all this, and if I did well i aplogize upfront. All this is very new always on the long end of the learning curve

spencer



I take orders off my website and build the knives per the customers preferance for handle, finish and sheath.
 
I think when you buy a particular brand or name, you are primarily buying that persons design, style and quality. For a custom knifemaker, one would assume that the maker had at least done the majority of what defines the knife, namely forged and/or ground the blade and assembled and finished the knife. I don't care if he/she had an apprentice cut out the blank, do some of the polishing or sand the handle under his/her supervision.
 
As I hoped, this conversation is a catalyst for a range of thoughts and, I daresay, emotions. I would love to comment on everyone's ideas, but I can't. I am absorbing them, though.

The term Custom, if taken literally, is certainly abused by our industry and even in my own statements. I now consider it a generic term not worthy of debating about. I completely understand that Handmade and Sole Authorship are derivitives of this field.

But.... Handmade? Sole Authorship? Bah. Both of these terms have a LOT of flexibility and interpretation in them. We've all heard it before: If you buy any supplies for a knife, then you aren't completely 'handmaking' it. Does Sole authorship imply smelting your own steel?

When two artists collab on a project (ie: Engraver/Sheathmaker), it is an extension of the artistry. Acceptable.
When Joey Afterschool comes in and sweeps the floors for a maker, it is helping. Acceptable.
When Joey Apprentice comes in and roughs out blanks and handstitches sheaths, it is teaching and being efficient. Acceptable.
When Joey Newbie interjects his ideas into the build construction and starts finishing pieces, it may be OK, but best be on the level about it. Grey area.
When the three Joeys and the maker are all working together in one shop, AND his sheathmaker and his engraver (who all have helpers too) have worked on a knife, all with the original makers name on it. Is this unacceptable?
In the case of the sheathmakers and engravers, all of them individually sign their work, so I say not a problem.

( I am stirring up the pot, I know.)

I want custom knives to endure, and the WWG has educated me that a successful knifemaker is one who treats his work like a business. Menial tasks are best served by people with skills at those levels, allowing the 'artist' the opportunity to work at his/her highest level.

And so I am of the opinion that it takes more than one person to be productive and efficient--and this is one definition of successful. Bob Loveless figured this out years ago.

But, do I also admire the work of a sole individual, who guts it out doing just about every task on his own? Damn right.

I submit that either way is acceptable, as long as there is accountability.

Russ Andrews:
I don't prefer doing it that way, But don't see an issue with others doing it so long as the knifemaker is on the level with clients about it.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly.

Pick a bone and let us know your thoughts.

Coop
 
Kohai999 said:
Will chime in later with more observations on the subject, but I do consider sole authorship to be just that. It makes the individual piece that much more PERSONALLY valuable to me, not necessarily finanacially, but at an emotional level. I agree with Kevin's statement. It is the reason that a Denning, Cashen, Fogg, Fuegen, Hanson, Hancock, Delana or Warenski have a high level of desirability to me.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
Click to expand...

This goes for me as well. I like to know that the guy (or gal) whose name is one the knife is the guy or gal who made it. This lies at the heart of why custom knives appeal to me and factory knives do not. With the exception of a few collaborative pieces, I will always gravitate toward the sole authorship pieces. And while people can split hairs over terms such as "custom" "sole authorship" and such, the fact is most of us know what the terms mean without engaging in a semantic tango. When you buy a Russ Andrews knife, you know that Russ Andrews made it. Period.

I agree with Russ that there is nothing wrong with relying on assistants for substantial portions of the work - or making knives by committee for that matter - as long as there is both disclosure and transparency. My question is - how often can we rely on that? When one or more people have a significant role to play in the making of a knife, yet their names are nowhere to be found on the knife itself or in the promotion thereof, how is the buyer supposed to know? Not all buyers are as sophisticated as many of the participants on this forum. They see "Joe Blow" stamped on a knife and they naively assume that Joe Blow made it.

Roger
 
RogerP said:
Not all buyers are as sophisticated as many of the participants on this forum. They see "Joe Blow" stamped on a knife and they naively assume that Joe Blow made it.
Click to expand...

I have known of quite experienced collectors that didn't know that Loveless was not making his knives by himself.

As far as three Joeys and a maker working in a shop is concerned; if the major work is being shared I consider this to be very similar to a company like Randall. There is nothing wrong with making knives this way, but I would not be interested in adding any to my collection. I would expect to be informed by the maker that this is the way his knives are made.

When it comes down to it, there are no wrong ways to make a knife. Everything is acceptable as long as there is disclosure. If I know how a knife is made it is then up to me to decide if I want to put in an order.
 
Just as I imagined it might, this whole topic is getting nuts. It is my belief that for most of history "Joe Blow" indeed did not assume that Maker "X" did it all himself. His assumption was more likely that a division of labor was involved. If "Joe" did happen to find it was the sole effort of one individual the first question he would have asked himself probably would've been;"How the heck can he make it pay working that way?"
I certainly don't mean to denigrate the efforts of my former students in any way, but for the sake of this discussion, they were really little different than programable machines and as such did not add substantively to the final product in its essential qualities.
This is precisely where the Marxists went wrong; Their assertion that Muscle was of greater importance than Mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top