Double action sebenza

bart1 said:
I don't know why there isn't as much outrage about the "clones" that show up from china that are NOT CRK.QUOTE]

There's a sticky at the top of this forum about reporting knock off CRK products aswell as a thread about them almost every other week. Not sure where you got the idea there is lack of outrage about them nor what it has to do with this thread.
Click to expand...
 
Just because most states have small-minded legislators is no excuse to demonize a product. I'm happy to legally own, carry and use any or all of my hundreds of automatic knives.
 
Vege-Taco said:
Just because most states have small-minded legislators is no excuse to demonize a product. I'm happy to legally own, carry and use any or all of my hundreds of automatic knives.
Click to expand...
I love my autos too, but I don't interpret CRK's objections to mean that he's demonizing ALL auto knives, he's just clearly stating that he doesn't want his business associated with auto-conversions that have his company's name on it, and further stating that he doesn't wish to manufacture autos. It's not like he's broadcasting a wicked objection to the very existence of autos, he just doesn't want to be affiliated with them.

There are many gun manufacturers and shops that won't make or stock Title 2 items and become Class III Dealers. Doesn't mean that they're anti full-auto or that they condemn the Class III industry that supports it, just means that from a business prospective, they've decided that they don't want the risks associated with their manufacture, transport and sales.

What's the big deal? Who cares? It's their business, their insterests and their concerns.
 
Would be like ford telling hooker headers that they don't like loud cars so you have to stop installing them on my cars after they have been bought and paid for.

If I buy something I expect to be able to do whatever I please with it.
 
zr24x4er said:
Would be like ford telling hooker headers that they don't like loud cars so you have to stop installing them on my cars after they have been bought and paid for.
Click to expand...
WRONG, that would be the shallow interpretation and an inaccurate one at that. A better analogy would be that Hooker Headers is accepting customer provided Ford stamped headers that are 50 state emissions legal, but after Hooker modifies them into solid tube non-compliant products and then turns around and stamps their logo right next to Fords logo, they now become a Ford branded product that is no longer 50 state emissions legal.
 
US-STEEL said:
I love my autos too, but I don't interpret CRK's objections to mean that he's demonizing ALL auto knives, he's just clearly stating that he doesn't want his business associated with auto-conversions that have his company's name on it, and further stating that he doesn't wish to manufacture autos. It's not like he's broadcasting a wicked objection to the very existence of autos, he just doesn't want to be affiliated with them.

There are many gun manufacturers and shops that won't make or stock Title 2 items and become Class III Dealers. Doesn't mean that they're anti full-auto or that they condemn the Class III industry that supports it, just means that from a business prospective, they've decided that they don't want the risks associated with their manufacture, transport and sales.

What's the big deal? Who cares? It's their business, their insterests and their concerns.
Click to expand...

I get the impression from his statements that he feels autos draw negative attention to the knife industry and he wants no association with that.

By the way, that knife mod resulted in the ugliest Chris Reeve knife I have ever seen. I almost through up when I saw the MOP "overlay". Really made me appreciate the "inlays" that CR knives produces.
 
I don't like the look of the spring, but if he could have figured a way to make the button where normally a coin, jewel, etc goes I think it would have looked a bit better. Either way not my style.
 
FoldersForever said:
I get the impression from his statements that he feels autos draw negative attention to the knife industry and he wants no association with that.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that there's some truth to that interpretation, but I think at the core, there's some concerns of infringement too. Either way, I can't fault Mr. Reeve's business acumen; his business model is very successful, can't see why he would want to risk anything outside the scope of what's apparently been working to perfection.
 
I really don't not see the point why Chris Reeve should threaten Butch Valloton with legal actions if it's clear that this is a aftermarket conversion. Yes, autos may be illegal in most parts of the world but should that not be the responsibility of the owner to know the local knife laws. I like modifications of production knife because that gives me the opportunity to buy something I like but with a twist.

Does anybody know if this is the case only for autos conversions or for all modification of CRK's?
 
"If you were to purchase new Ford's and dramatically modify them in a way Ford considered unsafe and then try and sell them as new cars through a dealership, Ford would be all over you like a cheap suit."

Not if they were sold with no manufacturer warranty, expressed or implied, explicitly stated. It's all about the paperwork :) .
 
There's a fine line between an individual owner/end user having a knife modified and having someone (like Butch) modifying and re-selling the knives as a business.

If Butch had felt strongly, he presumably would have said "go ahead, sue me." ;)
 
High-Gear said:
I saw a converted "double action Sebenza" in the Exchange.
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...ized-double-action-by-Butch-Valloton-infamous

Included is a letter from Chris Reeve threatening legal action if Butch Valloton continued customizing / modifying the knife.

This is the point I wish to discuss. What ground does a manufacturer have to threaten another aftermarket company to prevent them from modifying their product after sale? Imagine if Ford threatened Rousch or Shelby. I doubt he would have legal ground to stand on, but a large company can bully a smaller one because they can not afford to defend themself in court.


My initial impression is this was a poor move on Chris Reeve's part, but what do you guys think?
Click to expand...

Chris' letter made clear what his objections were. If, unlike Rousch or Shelby, you were to take new Fords and make changes that Ford considered harmful to either the brand or to consumers then you would be hearing from Ford no matter if you were working out of your garage or had a payroll of 40,000.

It isn't a question of bullying the little guy but of protecting your brand or your customers.
 
You are correct if we lived in an ideal world. But evidence shows that lawyers go after the deep pockets, meaning manufacturers (drugs, guns, tobacco). All about liability and how much money they can get. If lawyers can show that Chris knew about the mods and made no attempt to stop it, he would be held liable (in my opinion). So Chris made the right move.

bart1 said:
I don't get it at all. You buy the knife, it's yours, if you want it converted to an Auto, it's your $400+ knife, your legal issues , not CRK... Wether you like autos or not, they are legal in some place. Texas is close to making them legal to carry. If CRK gets called on the carpet, they have a track record of not making or sanctioning their knives as autos. It's on the owner, like a modified car or gun. Bart
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top