Custom Tactical Folders?

Thanks. Just one more.

How about this?

resizer.aspx


Pretty?
 
^^^ mo fugly.........................central valley vs central coast fight card continues after this commercial break...........................

vvv - mo lovely

large.jpg


large.jpg


large.jpg
 
Last edited:
Charlie Mike said:
Not so much... needs bead blasted Ti bolsters and micarta.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Just asked because it is another Emerson custom. Trying to figure out the parameters of what you think is pretty.

FTR, to me, THAT knife is fugly! IMO, they could put a picture of that knife in the dictionary under "fugly."

But DSFDF!

Thanks, again.
 
The Virginian said:
Yes, necromancy. Sorry, but with the article by Les on pages 12-16 of this month's Blade Magazine, I thought this thread should be revisited.

Is a hybrid tactical Folder a type of tactical folder? If not, is inclusion of the word "tactical" in that name misleading? Because of the six tactical folders shown in that article, three of them have Damascus blades - two of them with Damascus blades are specifically captioned as "tactical folders" with no mention of "hybrid."

Can tactical folders now have Damascus blades? If so, when did that happen?

It is all pretty confusing.

Well more than three years later, do we have any clearer understanding or better agreement on this subject?
Click to expand...

I stopped paying attention to Les when it dawned upon me that almost everything he does is to promote his business and its stable of makers. He always has a hidden agenda of himself.

The reason he's gone from here:

"You know what? Get lost.

Les, for all your knowledge, you are a cancer to the community. You consistently flout the rules, think they don't apply to you, and pretend that you are something that you aren't. Your qualifications are largely arbitrary or self awarded and to be quite honest, I'm done wasting my time with you. You haven't gotten the hint. You were banned off the site previously and allowed to return, which is a mistake I'll now rectify.

Happy trails, elsewhere. Since you can't be a constructive part of the community, it's time for you to hit the road."
 
The Virginian said:
Thanks. Just asked because it is another Emerson custom. Trying to figure out the parameters of what you think is pretty.

FTR, to me, THAT knife is fugly! IMO, they could put a picture of that knife in the dictionary under "fugly."

But DSFDF!

Thanks, again.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the kerambit is a custom? I don't think it is
 
I don't think I've seen a custom with a serial number. That one looks like an early production knife
 
I understand that it is a custom. But I was not there when the knife was made, so no way I could prove that.

Here is another, equally fugly one IMO, that I also understand was custom . . . and also does not have bolsters (for whatever reason that matters to you).


emersoncustomkarambitcommanderprototype-01.jpg



I was not there when it was made either.

But really, who GAF? I posted it to find out if the guy who called Don's knives "fugly" thought that it was pretty or not. And I got my answer.
 
All karambits are fugly, no matter whether custom or production, Emerson or not - in my humble opinion, of course.
 
I had no idea who made those first 2 knives (sorry Don).

I see beauty in functionality. Not in overly busy mosaic damascus and expensive handle scales. They don't even have pocket clips.
 
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like The looks of Emerson's custom knives more than the production, but I still think the production ones are great. I was just pointing out that one is not a custom.
I have to agree with CM, I find beauty in functionality.
But, to each their own
 
Charlie Mike said:
I had no idea who made those first 2 knives (sorry Don).

I see beauty in functionality. Not in overly busy mosaic damascus and expensive handle scales. They don't even have pocket clips.
Click to expand...

Overall, I understand where you are coming from. And I do not believe that you are alone there at all. just probably in a minority among the "regular" posters in this forum.

But one thing which I highlighted is interesting to me.

So if those scale materials were less expensive, would you find them more beautiful? I can see associating beauty and functionality. Price . . . not so much. TIA!
 
Price... because if I damage it during use, it will be costly to repair/replace.
 
Charlie Mike said:
Price... because if I damage it during use, it will be costly to repair/replace.
Click to expand...

Personally can't see associating price with with beauty. You seem to be saying that if you do not know what it costs, you could not say whether it is beautiful or ugly. To me, beauty is intrinsic; price is market driven. Roseanne Barr doesn't look any better to me just because she comes packaged with a few million bucks, and Jessica Biel would not look any less beautiful to me if I had to pay $500 to bail her out of jail every so often.

But it reminds me of the old Redd Foxx line. "Marry an ugly woman. That way, when she leaves you, you'll be happy."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top