ESEE Izula: What's so special?

[jkwithawave]

I thought it was just ok at first. Didn't like it skeletonized or cord wrapped all that much and the coating was too thick for me. So I took the coating off and got some TKC scales and now I have a great carry knife.

I think the handle scales should be sold with the knife though, not as an add on.

 

[chiral.grolim]

I've gotta take issue with this... I know that Busse, Swamp Rat, and Scrapyard all have amazing customer service, but ESEE's warranty and CS are the standard by which all others are judged; they're second to none. Bussekin's may be as good, but there's no way they're better.

I... really don't see where you got the idea that ESEE was the standard by which others are judged... esp. given their VERY recent inception (1997 as R.A.T. from which they later split), the fact that they don't actually manufacture the knives they sell (they don't make knives, just help design and market them under their name), and the fact that the owners have been documented insulting, vilifying, and denigrating not only other knife makers but their own customers repeatedly. Add to this that their "no question asked" warranty is coupled with specific insulting disclaimers on their own website and restrictions on use that haven't been (to my knowledge anyway) empirically verified, the fan-club supports the denigration of owners that use their knives how they want to use them, and that ESEE displays warrantied knives to their fans for the express purpose of generating mockery of the users.

Now that may seem like a lot of dirt, and it certainly doesn't represent any kind of standard in warranty, good business practices, or customer service. Buck distributors offer "no questions asked" lifetime warranties, Buck has been around a LOT longer and is also known for good customer service. Jerry Busse started making knives in 1982, and by 1998 had published his INFI warranty: "We guarantee against any and all major damage, including the handles, including accidental damage forever. We highly encourage gross abuse as it is covered by OUR warranty." Have you ever experienced Bussekin CS? Let's try some other companies, even major manufacturers/distributors: Gerber, Leatherman, Kershaw, Benchmade, Spyderco, KaBar, Ontario, Becker ... ? I really don't see where you get the idea that ESEE is on "top" (if there is a "top")?

I've no doubt that Rowen makes an excellent product as marketed by ESEE, and I really like my Izula and have seen other Rowen knives perform very well, better than many 1095 competitors, in toughness & edge-retention. But I don't see them as any kind of standard, nor as becoming any kind of standard by which even 1095 knives are judged, much less warranty and customer service. They're just too young. *shrug*

 

[Ankerson]

I've gotta take issue with this... I know that Busse, Swamp Rat, and Scrapyard all have amazing customer service, but ESEE's warranty and CS are the standard by which all others are judged; they're second to none. Bussekin's may be as good, but there's no way they're better.

Sounds like you have been drinking too much cool-aid.......


Need to do some research before posting things like that....

 

[Rapt_up]

I'm with Ankerson (Jim) on this...

Gotta say that while I like the concept of a small EDC fixed blade... I should since I have enough of them... The Izula falls way short IMO. Its 1900's steel tech, with a decent marketing concept being sold for somewhere between 5 and 10 times what I estimate its manufacturing cost to be.

I'd way rather spend $100-200 on a custom in a steel that will out perform 1095 in EVERY way except price.

 

[KennyB]

Steel snobbery :barf:

Personally, I wouldn't really want to pay $200 ( and whatever for a sheath ) on a neck knife made of more premium steel when the actual difference in performance is going to be negligible, but realistically going down that road is just going to turn this into a debate about whether "super steels" are really worth it, and then of course the contention will be stated that, "Anyone who actually uses their knife needs more than 1095." :jerkit:

Bottom line is plenty of people are satisfied with 1095, so I don't think one should dismiss it based on that--I mean more power to you, but I just don't agree with that thinking. However I will say that ESEE's price for it is a little high. Meanwhile they also offer a sheath that's way better than any of the competition's, the powder coat ( while obviously some don't like it at all ) is very durable and doesn't add a lot of friction. I've felt several times, "Man I wish it was as cheap as the Beckers or the Bucks," but then again the only reason I would be buying those knives is to see how they chalk up to the Izula, and they've consistently fell short to date.

The way I see it... If you have a $60 mass produced knife, with a thorough warranty, great ergonomics and cutting capability, good manufacturing, etc... I really don't care how much the steel costs, because that's not where the majority of the work was. I think it's a little rude to boil it down to, "Cutting out some piece of 1095 and powder coating it," and assume that they're overcharging because the material and price to manufacturer is felt to be low. However, where is the overhead at really?

I mean it's interesting people will compare them to Buck and Becker and companies like that, who obviously have more production capability and ways to undercut overhead. ESEE is outsourcing to Rowen, to other American companies to make their product (this isn't a big selling point to me, just explains a little bit), and at the end of it they also produce a lot of instructional material and everything to go along with it.. When it comes to $60 for an Izula, I know there's a ton of over-head in that price but to me I just don't like the look of the other ones available, and the $60 is totally worth it if you actually like the knife. Now the idea that, "Oh, they should be able to produce it as cheap as everyone else," just doesn't ring true to me given all of this, and on top of that I feel like they're doing a better job than anyone else.

I also don't think there's a lot said for the sheath here too. I have wanted a BK14 (basically the same as an Izula ), but the sheath looks awful... "Oh, just get a custom sheath" well that's fine and dandy, but then that puts the price way up over the top of the Izula immediately. Same thing with some of the Buck models I've seen. Then on top of that, some of them offer a sheath that's simply a piece of kydex, and just by looking at them I can see do not have the same configuration as the Izula's factory sheath. I think that's a pretty big value there that's just kind of ignored, and one of the things the other neck knife makers are just kind of addressing as an afterthought. Meanwhile all this talk about getting a custom for however many dollars... Great, but then how much is your sheath going to cost too?

The handles are what really holds it back from being one of those things where I would go, "What? Not a good value, you're crazy!" The Izula II is good enough to have them by default, but then you'll also notice that it is a bit pricier than the standard Izula too. I think a lot of this overhead has to do with the fact that they try to get everything done in America--which frankly isn't that big of an appeal to me. So I can't really contest the idea that they could be a better value, but to me the assertions that these other cheap neck knives available are just as good is a pretty hard one to believe.

 

[DougB2]

...I will say that ESEE's price for it is a little high.

Since 1095 steel seems to be the topic/whipping boy here, if one wants to comment on excessive cost for a 1095 knife of any sort, ever looked at TOPS? I own one of their knives, the tiny Sparrow Hawk (because I could take it into facilities where I used to work), but based on what they want for "1900s steel tech", I won't buy another one. Their sheaths may be great, and that matters, but most of their simple, flat, slab micarta scales are less special (read: not as much effort, less comfortable) than what I make for my own Beckers with a Dremel tool, files, and a drill press in my garage. Add to that the silly names they give some of their knives and all the spec ops hype, I'm just not interested, notwithstanding their "101% American beef" origin. Could ESEE do better on the Izula price? Maybe, but personally I'm OK with it since I paid for it, I carry it, and I use it.

 

[mbjz]

bought an esee izula2 and 3mil...sold the izula2 love the 3mil...

 

[ikelo]

i absolutely love my izula II. it's one of the few knives that i've purchased and been totally happy with.

 

[ThePharce]

I am completely and totally satisfied with my Izula II. Of course, I also like my Winchester Model 94 30-30 and my Mosin Nagant 91/30. I guess those are worthless too because they aren't 1900s technology, they are 1800s.....and both still work perfectly and do their job well.

 

[KennyB]

Since 1095 steel seems to be the topic/whipping boy here, if one wants to comment on excessive cost for a 1095 knife of any sort, ever looked at TOPS? I own one of their knives, the tiny Sparrow Hawk (because I could take it into facilities where I used to work), but based on what they want for "1900s steel tech", I won't buy another one. Their sheaths may be great, and that matters, but most of their simple, flat, slab micarta scales are less special (read: not as much effort, less comfortable) than what I make for my own Beckers with a Dremel tool, files, and a drill press in my garage. Add to that the silly names they give some of their knives and all the spec ops hype, I'm just not interested, notwithstanding their "101% American beef" origin. Could ESEE do better on the Izula price? Maybe, but personally I'm OK with it since I paid for it, I carry it, and I use it.

Oh yeah, TOPS has always been a head-scratcher for me.

And you know, once I start really looking at things on paper, not a lot of the competition can be had for THAT much cheaper once you start including the costs of handle slabs. I mean, the BK11 for example, $40 knife, $30 scales, still a $70 setup all-together. The Izula with the added scales is about $76, the Izula II is about that much with the scales included in the price, and meanwhile you can also get a very nice pair of G10 scales from TKC for $40 that are grooved and contoured like the BK11 micarta slabs. All in all, this whole notion of there being "cheaper" ones available might be true on the surface, but not really once you start adding in other costs.

Meanwhile, what about the Bravo Necker from BRKT? $60 knife, $50-$60 scales ( though many more materials and colors to choose from ). Last I heard 12C27 wasn't premium steel either... Or you could get one in 3V for $100 for the knife alone. Meanwhile, the sheath is a kydex fold-over with 4 holes that don't look like they have a significantly less amount of configuration options than the Izula's, without getting creative anyway.

I would compare the Swamp Rat knives too... But I can't even find their official website that lists prices or anything, and don't really feel like looking too hard just to make a point. Maybe accessibility should be another consideration here...

 

[Dan57]

esp. given their VERY recent inception (1997 as R.A.T. from which they later split)

Yeah, they're new... but how is that relevant? And they didn't split from RAT, ESEE and RAT are the same thing; they just changed their name. They split from Ontario.

The fact that they don't actually manufacture the knives they sell (they don't make knives, just help design and market them under their name.)

They don't HELP design their knives, they designed them from the ground up and now have Rowen producing them. That doesn't mean that the knives are any less "theirs". ESEE and Rowen have a similar relation as Becker and Ka-Bar do, or Spyderco and their various overseas manufacturers. If anything, it's even closer.

And the fact that the owners have been documented insulting, vilifying, and denigrating not only other knife makers,

Are you talking about Ontario? ESEE isn't on the best of terms with them; the split was pretty messy, and ESEE insists that Ontario's producing their designs illegally now that they're no longer partnered together. Ontario never released an account of their side of the story, so I'm inclined to believe ESEE's.

but their own customers repeatedly.

Jeff Randall and Mike Perrin don't appreciate idiots, and they'll call you out if they think you are one. Anyone who posts videos of themselves throwing their Junglas, or suggests deliberately breaking your knife in order to get a warranty replacement, deserves what's coming to them. Not that ESEE wouldn't replace the knife; a warranty is warranty. But if you broke it while throwing it, or on purpose in order to get it replaced, you'll probably get a few nasty words along with the replacement.

Add to this that their "no question asked" warranty is coupled with specific insulting disclaimers on their own website and restrictions on use that haven't been (to my knowledge anyway) empirically verified,

You mean the clause telling you not to throw the frickin' knife? See previous answer.

The fan-club supports the denigration of owners that use their knives how they want to use them,

You mean like throwing them?

and that ESEE displays warrantied knives to their fans for the express purpose of generating mockery of the users.

See previous answers. And, I should add that the knives they show that were broken, were all replaced.

Now that may seem like a lot of dirt, and it certainly doesn't represent any kind of standard in warranty, good business practices, or customer service.

I don't mind a company that doesn't take the stance that "the customer is always right" and calls people out for being morons.

Buck distributors offer "no questions asked" lifetime warranties, Buck has been around a LOT longer and is also known for good customer service. Jerry Busse started making knives in 1982, and by 1998 had published his INFI warranty: "We guarantee against any and all major damage, including the handles, including accidental damage forever. We highly encourage gross abuse as it is covered by OUR warranty." Have you ever experienced Bussekin CS? Let's try some other companies, even major manufacturers/distributors: Gerber, Leatherman, Kershaw, Benchmade, Spyderco, KaBar, Ontario, Becker ... ? I really don't see where you get the idea that ESEE is on "top" (if there is a "top")?

Have you even seen the stuff that was returned to them broken? I doubt many companies would replace knives that were so obviously abused. Definitely Busse, maybe Ka-Bar... but that's about it. And anyways, I never said that ESEE was the best; I said that they're second to none. There's a big difference there.

Ah, well... maybe we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[miltmaldo]

Well I just got my ESEE 4 and I thought very long and hard about the ESEE and the BK16 the ESEE won me with the micarta handle and I got it for a very good price witch made my decision very easy

 

[AfghanWarrior]

I only know when it comes to knife warranty I have only used used two; Buck and Kershaw. Both were outstanding! To call any knife company better is ignorance as best. Buck and Kershaw were both no questions asked in my cases. I hear ESEE and KaBar also are excellent, but do not have first hand experence. If anything the Buck warrantry goes back to 1902. If anyone gets the standard they would be hard to beat.:thumbup: I have briefs older than many of the current knife companies

 

[jdm61]

Couple of points.
Jim and I and others have had discussions about 1095 left "soft" While these plain carbon steels may have an as quenched hardness of 65 or as high as 67 if you do it REALLY right like properly handled 52100 in salt baths, leaving them at 65 for a field knife might be a bit risky. With that said, I haven't left any knife softer than 60-61 in years and that includes big bowies. No problems. I wonder just how good the "proprietary heat treatment" of some of these knives is if they end up as soft as 56-57? Remember that 1095 is nothing more than W1 that doesn't have to be as clean and that was a problem with 1095 for a number of years. Also, while it is a very basic steel, it is not the easiest stuff in the world to heat treat. I wonder how much retained austenite you might find in some of these cheaper, lower hardness 1095 blades?
As for the Izula, yes, it is a $60 knife until you put the ESEE scales on it. Then it appears to be a $100-110 knife which puts it in the wheelhouse of a lot of other small hard use knives. That makes a bit of difference because you are not that many dollars away from being able to buy a knife in CPM 3V or some other "super" steel. I personally can't see much use in having a fixed blade like that without slabs.

 

[bigbadboom]

Looks great, need to learn how to do that. I have never been happy with the short factory scales. Im too cheap to spend $50.00 dollars on the longer after market scales that cost as much as the knife. You did a good job.

Just wanted to note that the recently released bk-14 zytel scales are an easy cheap way of ' scaling up' your izula ( and theres 2 sets in 1 pack).

for 10 or 15$

The fit is great and the ergos superior to the original micarta slabs. Downside is just a slight loss (very slight) of fit to the izulas sheath still works tho.

 

[BangFLop]

I have one - I carry it as a neck knife every day - no mods, it is the same configuration as it came from the factory. I know it's limitations and I am able to maintain a razor edge quite easily on my Japanese waterstones (even though I am a novice free-hand sharpener). Are there things that I would change? - yes. Are there other knives that are better? - yes. The Izula is what I have right now, and it has accomplished every task I have put it through. To me - that makes a great knife. I will gladly move it along to another purpose when I have the money saved up to purchase a Murray Carter neck knife.

 

[chiral.grolim]

Yeah, they're new... but how is that relevant? And they didn't split from RAT, ESEE and RAT are the same thing; they just changed their name. They split from Ontario.

Relevant because there already existed a "standard" which they don't more than meet if that - again: Buck, Gerber, Leatherman, Busse (also relatively new) ... and of these, Busse's warranty (which, to my knowledge precedes ESEE's) is top, as demonstrated by the quote from Jerry.

Also, you are correct that R.A.T. changed their name to E.S.E.E., it's the RAT(TM) knives that are still built and sold by OKC separate from R.A.T. (now E.S.E.E.) - all these trademarks and name changes and different manufacturers get confusing

They don't HELP design their knives, they designed them from the ground up and now have Rowen producing them. That doesn't mean that the knives are any less "theirs". ESEE and Rowen have a similar relation as Becker and Ka-Bar do, or Spyderco and their various overseas manufacturers. If anything, it's even closer.

This is what I find tricky about it - if they designed the RAT(TM) knives still produced by OKC, whose knives does OKC make? If NAVY sells exact copies of Spyderco knives (possibly produced in the same factory), whose knives are they? How many even custom makers manufacture knives designed by Bob Loveless or others - whose knives are those? Whose is the design and whose is the knife or can the two not be separated? Who owns the manufacturing facility and whom else do the manufacture knives for? The old Beckers were Camillus knives, the RATs were for a few years all Ontario Knives. To me, these ESEE's are Rowen knives, Beckers are now KaBar knives, RATs are Ontario knives... Who makes Benchmade's knives? Does Bob Dozier warranty knives made by KaBar off of his designs?

Then there are those companies that design AND manufacture AND market their products - THAT is "from the ground up"

Are you talking about Ontario? ... Ontario never released an account of their side of the story, so I'm inclined to believe ESEE's.

NO, I hadn't even thought of Ontario. And taking the word of the side that has published their dirty laundry to promote themselves without regard for what the other side has to say ...? Wow, I'd be inclined precisely the opposite way - no judgement at least until BOTH sides of the story are known, can't be objective without that.

But you bring up a very important point - how many other companies do you know who broadcast their dirty laundry like that? Whose business is it? Food for thought.

Jeff Randall and Mike Perrin don't appreciate idiots, and they'll call you out if they think you are one. Anyone who posts videos of themselves throwing their Junglas, or suggests deliberately breaking your knife in order to get a warranty replacement, deserves what's coming to them. Not that ESEE wouldn't replace the knife; a warranty is warranty. But if you broke it while throwing it, or on purpose in order to get it replaced, you'll probably get a few nasty words along with the replacement.

It sounds like they don't like customers that use their products in ways they don't intend. MANY makers I know include restrictions in their warranty devoid of insults and personal attacks, honest and professional. If you post a video of yourself using the knife in a way it wasn't intended, they warn you of the risk of damaging your knife and advise you of their warranty restrictions, all without making ad hominem attacks and throwing childish insults. *shrug* And by the way, they make these remarks to the user in private, not broadcasting their personal business out to a public and subjecting the user to public denigration by their fans (denigration encouraged by those in question). Look around and see how many instances you can find of other makers behaving as ESEE does, and feel free to post links.

You mean the clause telling you not to throw the frickin' knife? See previous answer.

Yes. Please demonstrate through objective data that a user that throws an ESEE knife is an idiot. Or that throwing an ESEE knife is inherently destructive. Or that throwing ANY piece of 1095 steel HT'd to 58 Rc is inherently destructive. Please post the data in this or another thread. Thank you.

...the knives they show that were broken, were all replaced.

Why does that matter? They honor the warranty that they could be sued for not honoring? Is that a credit to them? o_0

I don't mind a company that doesn't take the stance that "the customer is always right" and calls people out for being morons.

How about a company that takes the stance "the customer is an idiot" and doesn't even explain why?

Have you even seen the stuff that was returned to them broken? I doubt many companies would replace knives that were so obviously abused. Definitely Busse, maybe Ka-Bar... ... I never said that ESEE was the best; I said that they're second to none. There's a big difference there.

Yes, I've seen them online, and I think it funny that you both "doubt" and then assert that other companies DO back their warranty, and don't know the extent to which companies/makers you haven't named that also preach "no questions asked" lifetime warranties follow through on them. Why? Maybe because they don't deliberately publicize warranty incidents?

You said: "ESEE's warranty and CS are the standard by which all others are judged; they're second to none. Bussekin's may be as good, but there's no way they're better."
By saying that they are "second to none" and also "the standard by which all others are judged" - nothing is above them and all others are judged according to how well they compare to them, that puts them on "top" (note, I also did not use the word "best").

So again, WHERE did you get the notion that they were either the "standard" or "second to none" in warranty or customer service when both notions have been debunked within this thread?

And again, I type all this with a well-used Izula in the drawer next to me.

 

[Dan57]

Relevant because there already existed a "standard" which they don't more than meet if that - again: Buck, Gerber, Leatherman, Busse (also relatively new) ... and of these, Busse's warranty (which, to my knowledge precedes ESEE's) is top, as demonstrated by the quote from Jerry.

Busse has a lifetime warranty that covers all forms of accidental damage. ESEE has a lifetime warranty that covers all forms of accidental and purposeful damage. Whether the two are really different in reality, is up for debate.

Also, you are correct that R.A.T. changed their name to E.S.E.E., it's the RAT(TM) knives that are still built and sold by OKC separate from R.A.T. (now E.S.E.E.) - all these trademarks and name changes and different manufacturers get confusing

Agreed

This is what I find tricky about it - if they designed the RAT(TM) knives still produced by OKC, whose knives does OKC make? If NAVY sells exact copies of Spyderco knives (possibly produced in the same factory), whose knives are they? How many even custom makers manufacture knives designed by Bob Loveless or others - whose knives are those? Whose is the design and whose is the knife or can the two not be separated? Who owns the manufacturing facility and whom else do the manufacture knives for? The old Beckers were Camillus knives, the RATs were for a few years all Ontario Knives. To me, these ESEE's are Rowen knives, Beckers are now KaBar knives, RATs are Ontario knives... Who makes Benchmade's knives? Does Bob Dozier warranty knives made by KaBar off of his designs?

Then there are those companies that design AND manufacture AND market their products - THAT is "from the ground up"

In my mind, the "owner" of the knife is the company that the knife was produced for. ESEE knives are produced by Rowen for ESEE. They're ESEE knives. RAT knives are Ontario's because even though RAT may have designed them, the knives were produced for Ontario. Dozier designed knives made for Ka-Bar are Ka-Bars for the same reason. Knives made in a Navy factory for Spyderco are Spyderco's, knives made in a Navy factory for Navy are Navy's. I agree that Becker knives are Ka-Bars, but I think about them more as Beckers, since Ethan Becker is so involved with this forum and with his customers.

NO, I hadn't even thought of Ontario. And taking the word of the side that has published their dirty laundry to promote themselves without regard for what the other side has to say ...? Wow, I'd be inclined precisely the opposite way - no judgement at least until BOTH sides of the story are known, can't be objective without that.

But you bring up a very important point - how many other companies do you know who broadcast their dirty laundry like that? Whose business is it? Food for thought.

ESEE hardly published the information to promote themselves; people were curious and asking, so they answered. I agree that it's impossible to make an objective judgement without knowing both sides, but if Ontario was genuinely in the right, you'd think that they'd try to defend themselves. In this case, their silence speaks against them. Oh, yeah: and if you weren't thinking of Ontario, who were you thinking of?

It sounds like they don't like customers that use their products in ways they don't intend. MANY makers I know include restrictions in their warranty devoid of insults and personal attacks, honest and professional. If you post a video of yourself using the knife in a way it wasn't intended, they warn you of the risk of damaging your knife and advise you of their warranty restrictions, all without making ad hominem attacks and throwing childish insults. *shrug* And by the way, they make these remarks to the user in private, not broadcasting their personal business out to a public and subjecting the user to public denigration by their fans (denigration encouraged by those in question). Look around and see how many instances you can find of other makers behaving as ESEE does, and feel free to post links.

You're right in that no other companies do that. I wish they would. ESEE's hardly your average business, anyway.

Yes. Please demonstrate through objective data that a user that throws an ESEE knife is an idiot. Or that throwing an ESEE knife is inherently destructive. Or that throwing ANY piece of 1095 steel HT'd to 58 Rc is inherently destructive. Please post the data in this or another thread. Thank you.

I never said that someone who throws their knife is an idiot, everyone's done something they shouldn't do with a knife at least once. But posting it on youtube takes it to a whole 'nother level.
Also, it's common knowledge that throwing a knife that isn't meant for the task puts a huge amount of stress on the blade. Why do you think throwing knives are all around 54 RC?

Why does that matter? They honor the warranty that they could be sued for not honoring? Is that a credit to them? o_0

I've never heard of anyone being sued for not honoring a warranty. Still, you're right about this.

How about a company that takes the stance "the customer is an idiot" and doesn't even explain why?

I've never seen them NOT explain why.

Yes, I've seen them online, and I think it funny that you both "doubt" and then assert that other companies DO back their warranty, and don't know the extent to which companies/makers you haven't named that also preach "no questions asked" lifetime warranties follow through on them. Why? Maybe because they don't deliberately publicize warranty incidents?

You said: "ESEE's warranty and CS are the standard by which all others are judged; they're second to none. Bussekin's may be as good, but there's no way they're better."
By saying that they are "second to none" and also "the standard by which all others are judged" - nothing is above them and all others are judged according to how well they compare to them, that puts them on "top" (note, I also did not use the word "best").

Everyone has their own standards, so agree that ESEE isn't that standard for most people. They are for me, though; it's subjective. I do think that they're second to none in terms of warranty.

So again, WHERE did you get the notion that they were either the "standard" or "second to none" in warranty or customer service when both notions have been debunked within this thread?

There hasn't really been anything brought up here that I didn't already know, though you have made me reconsider a few of my opinions. I agree that ESEE isn't the standard, but still think that they're second to none. Maybe we just have different ideas about what makes a good company.

 

[chiral.grolim]

Busse has a lifetime warranty that covers all forms of accidental damage. ESEE has a lifetime warranty that covers all forms of accidental and purposeful damage. Whether the two are really different in reality, is up for debate.

ESEE: "No Questions Asked Warranty. If you break it, we will replace it. Warranty is lifetime and transferable. In other words, we warranty the knife no matter how many times it's been traded, sold or given away. Please note: ESEE Knives are not made to be thrown. They are hardened to a higher Rockwell than throwing knives and will most likely break if thrown, possibly harming the user. So, do yourself and your ESEE knife a favor and DO NOT throw it. Using any knife not meant to be thrown as a throwing knife is idiotic! We would rather idiots not buy our knives."

Busse: "We guarantee against any and all major damage, including the handles, including accidental damage forever. We highly encourage gross abuse as it is covered by OUR warranty."

Both cover purposeful damage (Busse's warranty has been around longer), but one company gets pissed at the customer (and encourages their fans to do likewise), the other just gets pissed... as in drunk ... and encourages the users. One company makes an unsubstantiated claim about knives breaking when thrown and insists that anyone who throws their knives is an idiot for using them in a way they were not designed/intended; the other company does not, again encourages or advises the users, and also does not (to my knowledge) make a practice of insulting their customers. Are these different warranties? *shrug* Is one "superior"? *shrug* Should the more recent one be considered the "standard"?

I really really want to see the data on the likelihood of 1095 knives at 57 Rc breaking catastrophically. You'd need to focus >50 ft.lbs impact force into a cross-sectional square centimeter of the knife to accomplish this, hard to do without a vise and pendulum... which, by the way, Noss basically did with the RC-4 without inducing catastrophic failure, so... Cracking off bits of the edge, sure, but a catastrophic failure? Prove it. Until then, MYTH.

In my mind, the "owner" of the knife is the company that the knife was produced for. ESEE knives are produced by Rowen for ESEE. They're ESEE knives.

I guess that I am more proletariat *shrug*. As you pointed out, ESEE was RAT, and their knives have been made by a few different manufacturers now. People compare the RTAKII to the Junglas, RAT-3 to RC/ESEE-3, etc. Most people prefer the Rowen-made knives to the OKC's. *shrug* To me that is the same as comparing KaBar-made vs. Camillus-made vs. Rowen-made Beckers. But that's just a difference in how we think, and we both agree it's more obvious when it's just one company doing all the work

ESEE hardly published the information to promote themselves; people were curious and asking, so they answered. I agree that it's impossible to make an objective judgement without knowing both sides, but if Ontario was genuinely in the right, you'd think that they'd try to defend themselves. In this case, their silence speaks against them. Oh, yeah: and if you weren't thinking of Ontario, who were you thinking of?

I tried and couldn't find the reference posts, etc. regarding denigration of other makers (even OKC), so I'll abandon the supposition without proper documentation. But you'll find that most companies prefer to handle private business matters privately rather than publicly attack and encourage an out-lash from fans (this list most decidedly does NOT include BRKT). That's also how our justice system is supposed to work. It's a tragedy that justices & jurors must be sheltered from the invasive, prejudiced and uninformed declarations of the media regarding matters that don't concern them. The courts exist for a reason, to prevent judgement by tyrannous ignorant mobs.
But other companies most certainly DO answer their customers' questions even on such business matters. The usual answer: "this is a matter which concerns only ourselves and the other party, we hope to resolve it amicably and through the proper legal channels. That is all."
If you then read about one company/individual winning/losing a lawsuit over the other, you'll know how things turned out. Everything else is hearsay.

I never said that someone who throws their knife is an idiot, everyone's done something they shouldn't do with a knife at least once. But posting it on youtube takes it to a whole 'nother level.
Also, it's common knowledge that throwing a knife that isn't meant for the task puts a huge amount of stress on the blade. Why do you think throwing knives are all around 54 RC?

The warranty says: "Using any knife not meant to be thrown as a throwing knife is idiotic! We would rather idiots not buy our knives." Why is it idiotic?? A maker is free to say "don't use my knife this way or you're an idiot" but to say "don't use any knife this way or you're an idiot" needs to justify that. They haven't. No explanation, just a blanket statement that their knives are too brittle to throw and so are everyone else's. Really?? With millions of throws on similarly designed knives that did NOT result in catastrophic failure, that seems like a bizarre assertion to me. Throwing knives, or rather the impact, subjects them to stresses beyond mere in-line cutting. If you can quantify for me what those stress levels amount to, both I and the entire knife and physics community will be much obliged!
It is "common knowledge" that steel is strong and, when HT'd properly, tough as well. At 57 RC, 1095 has a Charpy impact toughness of 50 ft.lbs., at 54 Rc it's 75 ft.lbs. - these are both at the level of springs. Toughness increases as hardness is tempered down following HT, but without hardness you can't keep an edge and will take a bend more easily. To resist bending, thicken the dimensions. The "common knowledge" you speak of, about breaking knives by throwing, has insubstantial empirical basis. My assertion - if your 57 Rc 1095 knife breaks from throwing, you either have one wicked throw or there was a serious material flaw in the knife to begin with. Care to prove me wrong?

Everyone has their own standards, so agree that ESEE isn't that standard for most people. They are for me, though; it's subjective. I do think that they're second to none in terms of warranty.

Well, if you'll use the words "my standard in warranty and CS" for future references to ESEE, I'll be satisfied with that, but I think the minor differences between their warranty and Busse's (including which came 1st) has been established. And you're right, we must have different ideas about what makes a 'good' company. *shrug*


Oh, and until someone empirically demonstrates this notion of 1095 knives (or ANY knives) at 57 Rc being too fragile to throw (esp. given the plethora of empirical evidence contradicting the assertion), please stop repeating it as "truth" or "common knowledge". It is common ignorance, and I am ignorant as well, which is why I keep asking for definitive proof.

 

[stabman]

which is why I keep asking for definitive proof.

If a giant load of knives busted by throwing isn't proof that throwing knives can cause them to break, well, you're going to keep looking for that thar proof.
Sometimes even knives designed for throwing break.

You probably would have a hard time breaking an Izula by throwing it though, as it's very low mass. You probably wouldn't get any real use out of throwing it either.