Fixin' it? "Code of ethics"

[2knife]

......

 

[betzner]

I think that perhaps the best example, almost the only example, of when I find a refurbish to be acceptable (from other than the original maker) is when Jay Hendrickson is asked to bring a Moran back to life. And by that, I mean nothing more than a clean up, not a repair. I can think of a couple more examples, but I think this is a good one to start the discussion, IMHO.

There was just a thread recently on something like this, but my memory is bad enough that I can't quite remember if it covered these points of 2knife's completely.

 

[Kevin Jones]

Interesting timing as Bob Betzner and I were just discussing this subject on Sunday afternoon.

I lose ALL interest in a custom knife that has been altered in any way by anyone other than the original maker. Not unlike that I lose all interest in a classic Corvette where someone has added finder flares or replaced the original "327" with a "350".

Now there are exceptions, Jay Hendrickson fixing/refurbishing a Moran, Curt Erickson fixing/refurbishing a Warenski to name a couple.

 

[sheathmaker]

Boy, this could turn into another of the long threads where the only concensus is disagreement, or maybe not. I think it's the ethics part that will muddy the water a little. But here goes any way.

As for me, when I buy a knife I generally like it as is or I probably would not have made the purchase, however once I pay for it , it is MINE and I can and if I feel like it do anything with it or to it I want . I feel no ethical obligation to a maker or anyone else once I have paid the asking price. If I do modify it, then it is no longer what it once was and should not be represented as a maker's pure work. I guess that kind of includes some ethics there.

Sometimes I agree with Ed fowler and sometimes I don't....take your choice.

Paul

 

[John White]

As Paul says, sometimes I agree with Ed Fowler, and sometimes I think he lays it on...

In this case, I'll say that as a maker, I would not work on or alter another maker's knife. Whether that's ethics or esthetics, or both, I'm not sure.

Again, as Paul says, once someone pays me for a knife, it's their's, and they can do with it what they want, including have someone else change it. I probably would shake my head, and it would no longer be my work, but I don't much see myself riding the high horse over it.

John

 

[betzner]

I agree, Paul. Once someone buys a knife, he/she can do with it what he or she wants. The question of ethics only comes into play, IMHO, when that knife owner decides to sell the knife and fails to fully represent to the prospective buyer just what that prospective buyer is getting, in full.

EDIT: And this would also include whether the sheath was original to the knife, if known by the owner.

EDIT TO MY EDIT: But we all can tell if it's a Paul Long sheath anyway, can't we? They are the ones that look so much better than ALL the rest!!

 

[Lorien]

I don't have any problems modifying my own knives. They are mine and I will do what I want to them. If a maker is going to begrudge me for that, then too bad for them. I'll end up with a knife I like better than when I first got it, and that's really cool.

If I get a knife as an Art piece, (hasn't happened, yet) then I wouldn't do much but admire it. If I take care of it, then there shouldn't be much need to refurbish. I don't collect knives JUST to have them. Most of my enjoyment comes from using them.

All of the knives I own, I'm not averse to using. That's what they were made for.

 

[RogerP]

In the current issue of Blade, Ed Fowler speaks of the idea of one maker altering and/or refinishing another's knives, he believes this to be highly unethical.

Perhaps you could indicate WHY Ed describes this as "highly unethical". I am having a hard time conceiving why this would be, but I have not read the article.

From a collector standpoint, I don't want any work done on my pieces by anyone other than the maker.

If it was a using knife that I wanted refinished (for some reason or other) - and it was more convenient to do it myself or have a different maker do it - I wouldn't hesitate. If that is supposed to be "highly unethical", I'd be interested to hear why.

Roger

 

[Kevin Jones]

As Paul says, sometimes I agree with Ed Fowler, and sometimes I think he lays it on...

In this case, I'll say that as a maker, I would not work on or alter another maker's knife. Whether that's ethics or esthetics, or both, I'm not sure.

Again, as Paul says, once someone pays me for a knife, it's their's, and they can do with it what they want, including have someone else change it. I probably would shake my head, and it would no longer be my work, but I don't much see myself riding the high horse over it.

John

It's VERY IMPORTANT to disclose any work that has been done to a knife by other than original maker to a potential buyer.

I agree with Paul and John to a point.

Here's another caveat; the maker's good name/mark is stamped/etched on the knife forever. So, how does a maker feel about someone degrading your knives either from quality, function and/or aesthetic perspectives? They may own the knife, but don't own your name/reputation to possibly degrade. Down the road, the modifications could be viewed as the original maker's. There could even be liability issues for the original maker if undisclosed modifications done by others weakened the knife and it caused injury to someone.

 

[RogerP]

Probably most would agree that, in the context of a sale, deliberately failing to disclose that a knife has been refurbished or altered by anyone - including the original maker - is an ethical no-no.

But is that what Ed was talking about?

Roger

 

[DanGraves]

As a maker, I will work on mine and a factory knife but if it is a known maker alive I would not touch it, except to sharpen. If the maker is deceased I would clean it up but not re-shape.

 

[jjtjr]

When you buy a knife you can do whatever you want with it, but if you ever choose to sell it any refurbishments should be disclosed.

I agree with Roger:

Probably most would agree that, in the context of a sale, deliberately failing to disclose that a knife has been refurbished or altered by anyone - including the original maker - is an ethical no-no.

Jim Treacy

 

[tom mayo]

If it is your knife, you can do whatever you want to it!!!!!!

 

[tvandeventer]

I generally don't repair knives. Once in a while I'll put a new handle on a little old lady's fifty-year-old favorite kitchen knife, but that's rare and I don't charge anything for the 20 minutes of work.

I don't touch other makers work. I'll tell the client to return it to the maker and that my becoming involved will just lessen the value of the knife. And frankly, I don't have the time and they don't have the money. What I would have to charge for time and materials on a custom hand-made knife would be more than the average person would pay. No brag. Just fact.

I used to fret over the fact that customers weren't using my knives. In most cases they were oiled and put away. Then I realized that the piece now belonged to them. They paid good money to me and we were both happy. They can do anything they want with it. Sure, I would cringe if they re-fabricated it or abused it, but it's their knife. Period.

I have an aquaintance who buys expensive hand-mades and just tears them up. He prides himself on it. He always proclaims that "A knife is a tool!" "They're made to be used!" Then he chops or cuts something awful. So if a person wants to collect it, sell it, give it away, or destroy it, that's okay and I won't (these days) lose a wink of sleep over it. And in the end, whatever they decide to do with it, I will sleep well knowing that I did my part to the best of my ability.

Cheers,

Terry


Terry L. Vandeventer
ABS MS

 

[betzner]

I generally don't repair knives. Once in a while I'll put a new handle on a little old lady's fifty-year-old favorite kitchen knife, but that's rare and I don't charge anything for the 20 minutes of work.

I don't touch other makers work. I'll tell the client to return it to the maker and that my becoming involved will just lessen the value of the knife. And frankly, I don't have the time and they don't have the money. What I would have to charge for time and materials on a custom hand-made knife would be more than the average person would pay. No brag. Just fact.

I used to fret over the fact that customers weren't using my knives. In most cases they were oiled and put away. Then I realized that the piece now belonged to them. They paid good money to me and we were both happy. They can do anything they want with it. Sure, I would cringe if they re-fabricated it or abused it, but it's their knife. Period.

I have an aquaintance who buys expensive hand-mades and just tears them up. He prides himself on it. He always proclaims that "A knife is a tool!" "They're made to be used!" Then he chops or cuts something awful. So if a person wants to collect it, sell it, give it away, or destroy it, that's okay and I won't (these days) lose a wink of sleep over it. And in the end, whatever they decide to do with it, I will sleep well knowing that I did my part to the best of my ability.

Cheers,

Terry


Terry L. Vandeventer
ABS MS

I personally think that makers have a much better perspective on issues such as this than collectors and dealers. Once the knife is produced and sold, the ethical problems tend to arise more when collectors and dealers make wrong ethical choices - involving non-disclosure.

 

[SharpByCoop]

Rather than add to the conjecture and overall subjectiveness of the subject I stopped to read Ed's three page article in Knives Illustrated Blade

Ed is passionate to a fault about knives and his own work. But.. after reading his opinion that the refinishing of another maker's knife (while the maker is still alive) is "One of the most contemptible atrocities known in the world of knives."He convinced me with his knowlege.

"Her owner can do with her as he pleases. Another maker is only capable of trespass."

He goes on to describe how another maker's work will be reflected in the reputation of the original, and it may not be up to the same standards. Even if so, that ability for the original maker to read the history on HIS OWN knife will be lost to a buffer or grinder. Great points.

I think that's the overwhelming sentiment in this forum. In the article, he also asks to discuss this (via email or on his own forum). Well, here we are but at a different location.

Thanks, David. Thanks again to Bruce Voyles. (Hey, do you NOT have your subscription to KI? )

CORRECTION: The article is in BLADE magazine. Thanks to Ed and now Steve Shackleford.

Coop

 

[SharpByCoop]

Now all that said, I have a Hill Pearce knife that was rehandled by Jim Small beacuse of ivory damage. I first contacted Hill, and he wanted NO part of this. He recommended Jim.

The knife was finished expertly with exacting duplication, and I will be abundantly clear upon it's transfer. (Sometime when Hell freezes over, BTW. )

Coop

 

[John White]

It is refreshing to read the comments by collectors ethically dedicated to the integrity of the work they own, and forthright in demanding and promising full disclosure of any alteration in authorship of knives they sell.

I'm also fully conscious that my name is, as Kevin points out, stuck there for all to see, forever. If my initial post made it seem that I was unconcerned with someone's altering (messin' up) my work, it's just that I cannot tell you how many times in the years of boatbuilding that I was called back to repair the mess some less than knowledgeable owner or fly by night boat yard had done to my careful efforts. Many times the inexpert alteration had serious safety implications.

To the original point, though, once the knife or boat is out the door, it ain't mine anymore. That guy, walking down the dock, with his toolbox in his hand, shaking his head, used to be me. Thank goodness, many knife collectors are more concerned with their knives, than many sailors, whose lives depended on 'em, seemed to be with their boats.

Knifemaking really is fun. I think I'll go back out and fit that guard.

John

 

[betzner]

Incidentally, Nordic has just updated their new arrivals - and it caused me to think about the two or three Steve Hoels (all unengraved) that were just purchased. What do you think about a collector or dealer buying them, getting them engraved and then selling them without mentioning that the engraving is not original to the knife?

This is done all the time (is it ok, is it not ok, is it only ok with disclosure, etc??).

EDIT: Though asking the question, my own opinion is "ok, if with disclosure".

 

[Les Robertson]

So I guess you guys would have an issue with a maker putting his name on a knife...that he didn't make?

Having the knives "rehandled" with a natural handle material and taking off the original micarta?