Fixin' it? "Code of ethics"

[Tom Krein]

There was a time when functional design and cut were significant attributes of a knife, in this thread I have not read many thoughts about performance, only fit and finish.

Talking the other day a friend mentioned that he had seen very few used custom knives for sale on dealers sites or the forms.

Is it possible that the custom knives we see for sale that have been used are being 'cleaned up' by others than the origonal maker for dealers and collectors before they sell the knives? If so this may be part of the explanation for some of the strong feeling about anyone being able to clean up another makers knives. This is the owners right, but can and should have serious consequences without full disclosure to the new owner.

Cut was important when Bob Loveless, Bill Scagel, Frank Richtig and many others makers started, performance was highly sought after and a significant attribute to many. Knives that did not cut were not very popular.

Not one person has commented on the cutting performance of a Loveless knife - does it matter?

I seems as though we have two camps, one admires the plumage of bird, while others consider the bird as a whole.

The aspects of a knife we chose to like are a personal decision and we are free to select according to what we want out of a knife, but I feel we should know exactly what we are buying.

I find it interesting that you bring up performance Ed... this is the MAIN reason I get so much regrind work!

Sorry couldn't help my self and yes I guess I am unethical BY YOUR definition.

Will I work on other makers knives... Yeah. I actually do a good bit of this type work on production knives, for performance reasons.

I don't know why I am posting in this thread though.... I will probably regret it.

Tom

 

[2knife]

.......

 

[bandaidman]

tom you mark the knives you rework, correct? i have no problem with that

i have not read the article and have only perused some of the posts

the main thing is honesty, this can be how truthful you are with your biographical details or whether it be in the disclosure of the reworking of a knife.

 

[sheathmaker]

Sorry to keep bringing this up, but you DON'T revarnish a Stradivarius. Yes,.. unethical in every way..to history, to art, and the artist himself. One could argue, the knife doesn't cut, which warrants regrinding..

But If you are regrinding production knives or some custom knives, I suppose, that is one thing, if you are working a Loveless Big Bear- to make it look new or different, you are doing a sacrilege.

All things being equal, there are some MORE equal than others!
David

David, If it is MY violin and I paid the asking price with MY money then I'll paint the damn thing RED, or have it painted RED if I feel like it. I realize, it would ruin the value and some people would just have a litter of cats, but it's mine, not the property of the "community", so it is my business.

As an aside, Stradivarius may have had a partner, so this long after the fact I'm not even sure mine is "sole authorship"....oh my. now what do I do?

I think I'll go pop some corn. The rudder is bent on this thread...going in circles....I've seen this part before

AS per STeven, Best regards,

Paul.

 

[jjtjr]

Roger P wrote:

As I have stated before, the "disclosure" angle is a pure red herring. I have seen no-one in this very long thread advocating that refinishing - either by the original maker OR by another maker - should NOT be disclosed be the seller. Refinishing itself is not "bad". A seller failing to disclose that a knife has been refinished - by either the original maker OR by another maker - is "bad". In my view, ethical issues are simply not engaged by WHO performs the refinishing

.

Roger,

You hit the nail on the head! The purpose of this thread, it that it is not ethical if a seller does not disclose if a knife has been refinished. Any owner can do whatever they want to their possessions, just disclose it if you are selling it.

Jim Treacy

 

[John T Wylie Jr]

I find it interesting that you bring up performance Ed... this is the MAIN reason I get so much regrind work!

Sorry couldn't help my self and yes I guess I am unethical BY YOUR definition.

Will I work on other makers knives... Yeah. I actually do a good bit of this type work on production knives, for performance reasons.

I don't know why I am posting in this thread though.... I will probably regret it.

Tom

Nothing you do is unethical Tom , one man's opinion is just that , one mans opinion.

 

[Ed Fowler]

While some feel that if they own it, they can destroy it and legally it is their right.
Still some will feel that they are but temporary custodians of a history, heritage or something that is more than they are and respect what comes under their dominion and pass a little more than they were to those who follow.

 

[Jose Reyes]

Actually Jose - I thought the answer would be "Nope, never had, never would, my name on a knife means I made it and only I made it." Which would, of course, beg the question: "Why then is it perfectly okay with you for a maker to put his name on a knife he didn't (solely) make, when you take such extreme umbrage at one maker merely refinishing the work of another? Frankly, I'm still waiting on an answer to that one.


Roger

I think the whole Loveless issue is muddying the waters a bit. The answer may be just that Bob is special and gets a bye. But having a knife come out of a shop enviroment, whatever the mark, is in the finished state of the original maker. It's "soul" intact if you will. We each need to decide for ourselves whether we consider it a contemptable atrocity or no big deal, but there's no getting around the fact that once someone else works on it it's been "desecrated" to some extent or another.

 

[Jose Reyes]

While some feel that if they own it, they can destroy it and legally it is their right.
Still some will feel that they are but temporary custodians of a history, heritage or something that is more than they are and respect what comes under their dominion and pass a little more than they were to those who follow.

Good post, Ed. Painting a Strad red is taking the point to the limit, but I think most people would agree that it'd be an atrocity.

 

[Kevin Jones]

While some feel that if they own it, they can destroy it and legally it is their right.
Still some will feel that they are but temporary custodians of a history, heritage or something that is more than they are and respect what comes under their dominion and pass a little more than they were to those who follow.

I like that.....

Oh, how I hate it when they take a beautiful vintage Corvette (or any classic car) and destroy it in a movie just for the sake of a silly chase scene.

 

[elkins45]

While some feel that if they own it, they can destroy it and legally it is their right.
Still some will feel that they are but temporary custodians of a history, heritage or something that is more than they are and respect what comes under their dominion and pass a little more than they were to those who follow.

No knife is more than I am. A knife is a hunk of metal: I am a human being with a soul.

Step back and get some perspective beyond the world of custom knives here. It's not a religion.

edit to add: refinish without disclosure is dishonest because it has an economic impact on buyers and sellers. Choosing to refinish and disclose the fact isn't a moral decision, its an economic one. Custom knives do not (yet) have the social value that rare paintings or Stradivarius violins have. Someone trashes the Mona Lisa and the whole world would know---trash a Loveless or Scagel and there won't be a headline in the New York Times. It might matter to the buyer/owner/seller but the world at large would yawn.

I don't think I owe the world quite as much as you seem to think I should.

 

[RogerP]

Not even close to being the same Ed , you are grasping at straws there.

Correct on both counts.

The proponents of the "contemptible atrocity" platform simply will not stop beating on the poor straw man of "disclosure" - because they cannot, or will not, reconcile the glaring inconsistencies of their position.

Roger

 

[RogerP]

Roger,

You hit the nail on the head! The purpose of this thread, it that it is not ethical if a seller does not disclose if a knife has been refinished. Any owner can do whatever they want to their possessions, just disclose it if you are selling it.

Jim Treacy

Thanks Jim - seems clear to me, but clear as mud to others.

Good post, Ed. Painting a Strad red is taking the point to the limit, but I think most people would agree that it'd be an atrocity.

I think the whole "Strad" thing is muddying the waters.

No knife is more than I am. A knife is a hunk of metal: I am a human being with a soul.

Step back and get some perspective beyond the world of custom knives here. It's not a religion.

edit to add: refinish without disclosure is dishonest because it has an economic impact on buyers and sellers. Choosing to refinish and disclose the fact isn't a moral decision, its an economic one. Custom knives do not (yet) have the social value that rare paintings or Stradivarius violins have. Someone trashes the Mona Lisa and the whole world would know---trash a Loveless or Scagel and there won't be a headline in the New York Times. It might matter to the buyer/owner/seller but the world at large would yawn.

I don't think I owe the world quite as much as you seem to think I should.

Man, did you ever hit the nail on the head - perspective here has been sorely lacking. When we invest knives with both human and spiritual characteristics, we abandon logic in favor of raw emotion and pseudo-religious zeal. If instead of my "knife" having its finish restored as per the request of it's owner, it is my "daughter" and some other man is touching "her" and endangering her very "soul"... well... you can see it's not a large step from that place to "atrocity" and "sacrilege".

Oh well, to each his own.

Someone needs to start a poll: "One maker restoring the hand-rubbed finish on a carbon steel hunter made by a different maker is committing an unethical and contemptible atrocity even if he is doing so at the request of the knife's legitimate owner. Agree / Disagree"

Roger

 

[RogerP]

I find it interesting that you bring up performance Ed... this is the MAIN reason I get so much regrind work!

Sorry couldn't help my self and yes I guess I am unethical BY YOUR definition.

Will I work on other makers knives... Yeah. I actually do a good bit of this type work on production knives, for performance reasons.

I don't know why I am posting in this thread though.... I will probably regret it.

Tom

It is regrettable indeed when one maker feels the need to cast aspersions upon the personal and professional integrity of another maker, all in the name of asserting that their way is the "right" way.

Tom - no rational person questions your ethics.

Roger

 

[Jose Reyes]

I think the whole "Strad" thing is muddying the waters.



Roger

I agree, that's why I said it's taking it to the limit. That would be the equivalent of refinishing Grant's sword or Jim's Bowie.

 

[2knife]

......

 

[2knife]

......

 

[Jose Reyes]

Ed did not ask to have his views posted here. He did not "feel the need" to do anything that you assert. You simply go too far, Roger.

His own views were written in the article. He very clearly said these were his OWN views, not expecting any would agree with him.

If anyone can be guilty of spreading his views in a way, as if to "challenge" your own notions, it is my posting it here. So, you can blame me, not him.

And, I would like to personally apologize to him that he has had to endure a trial about his personal views, to the extent here, and/or ridiculed and harassed about other things entirely.

David

Good post, David.

Roger, I just think it's Ed's opinion and his article, some will agree and some won't. I don't agree with it in general but I can see the point he's getting at.

You can call a knife a lady just as a ship, it doesn't mean you're being literal. It really isn't any more logical to attribute a soul to a human being. It's probably more Ed's views as an artist than him thinking his knives are his daughters that lead him to his stance, but that's my assumption.

 

[RogerP]

Ed did not ask to have his views posted here. He did not "feel the need" to do anything that you assert. You simply go too far, Roger.

His own views were written in the article. He very clearly said these were his OWN views, not expecting any would agree with him.

If anyone can be guilty of spreading his views in a way, as if to "challenge" your own notions, it is my posting it here. So, you can blame me, not him.

And, I would like to personally apologize to him that he has had to endure a trial about his personal views, to the extent here, and/or ridiculed and harassed about other things entirely.

Now, as for that last sentence "Tom- no rational person questions you ethics"

Can you please explain what you mean by this comment.
David

1) I don't really follow your point here David - of course these are Ed's views - whose else would they be? He expressed his views in writing in THE premier custom knife publication. It's not as if this was some personal conversation between the two of you that you ill-advisedly made public. HE chose to express those views very publicly before you ever chose to make them the subject of a thread here.

If I wrote an article saying that all stock removal makers were not making "honest" knives, because "real" knives are made by forging and that is the only way to give them "soul" and any other method is contemptible blight upon the "true path" (or some such) - I could hardly seek to shield myself from criticism by saying "Well, those are just MY views." - could I? And I could hardly be surprised if one or many stock removal makers took exception to my characterization of their work, could I?

2) What I meant by that comment is that, in my view, the extreme characterization of the simple act of refinishing a knife as a "contemptible atrocity" is one born of emotion, not reason.

Or simply: "Would you buy this knife? "

-people usually vote with their wallets.

Can't say I agree with that at all. Surely a rational person could disagree with Ed's position on the whole "atrocity" thing, but still like his knives well enough to buy them, could he not? And similarly, an individual might fully agree with Ed's position on this point, but find Ed's knives not particularly to his liking, could he not?

Perhaps you could explain the rational connection between the endorsement of Ed's views and the purhcase of one of his knives?

And perhaps I should have taked STeven's sage advice.

Roger

 

[RogerP]

You can call a knife a lady just as a ship, it doesn't mean you're being literal. It really isn't any more logical to attribute a soul to a human being. It's probably more Ed's views as an artist than him thinking his knives are his daughters that lead him to his stance, but that's my assumption.

You may well be right Jose, and without question you know Ed better than I do. I don't profess to know him at all - I am merely commenting on what he has written and searching for some explanation for what I consider to be an EXTREMELY over-the-top moral condemnation of any maker who would refinish the knife of another maker at the owner's request.

Your comment that "It really isn't any more logical to attribute a soul to a human being." is inightful indeed. Matters of faith are, by definition not subject to rational measure. The spiritual beliefs of individuals or groups are deeply held and fiercely defended. Which is precisely why the injection of religious precepts into a discussion of knifemaking practices invariably results in the ascendancy of emotion over reason. It also may well explain the use of language such as "atrocity" and "sacrilege" - powerful terms, both.

But back to the point of perspective - consider this: can there be a stronger condemnation of a maker's conduct than "unethical" "contemptible" "atrocity" and "sacrilege"?

If not, then what is being put forward by those who embrace such terms is that there is really NOTHING WORSE a maker could do than refinish another maker's work?

Even if one disapproves of the practice, can that possibly be true in any rational context?

Roger