Fixin' it? "Code of ethics"

[2knife]

.......

 

[Lorien]

I re read the article this morning, and the word FRAUD popped out at me.

I still think that the gist of the article is meant as a thought provoking point of view for new knife makers to consider, but I also caught on to the implicit and explicit statements attributing similarly harsh judgments on collectors/owners of knives who decide to refinish/refurbish or whatever.

It's one thing to have an 'Art' knife with its intrinsic social and historical value, and quite another to have a tool which is made to be used.

Personally, I don't consider Fowler knives to be 'Art' knives regardless of their value. I see them as tools, possibly some of the nicest and most effective tools made. I've never handled one, so take that as my impression.

As such, if I had one, I would use it. Because I'd use it, I'd maintain it. Because I'd maintain it, I'd change it over time. I'd change the finish, I might even modify the handle so it fits me better. If I decided to sell it and then the person I sold it to sold it, and didn't tell anyone about the modifications I did, then by the definitions outlined in the article, I'd be committing fraud even if I was straight up about the knife when I sold it.

I sense a dichotomy in this conversation, which is probably why it is so fascinating. A 'collectible' or Art knife which would likely never be used may never need to be refinished due to use, while a 'using' knife might constantly be 'refinished' due to sharpening and other modifications. The idea that the maker should have a right to see how his knives performed through their use is nice, but impractical. That he should be given first dibs on doing any maintenance work- above and beyond the owner doing said work- flies in the face of what that knife is as a tool.

When the knife involved has suffered due to neglect and/or lousy storage, that is more of a travesty than choosing someone other than the maker to make it look new again. In my opinion.

 

[RogerP]

Relax David - it's just knives, not religion.

Your "He didn't name names!" point has already been answered.

As has your question regarding my response to Tom.

I don't really see the point in riding your merry-go-round any further.

Be well.

Roger

 

[RogerP]

I re read the article this morning, and the word FRAUD popped out at me.

Lorien - in what context was the term "FRAUD" used? To describe the failure to disclose refinishing? Or to describe the act of refinishing itself? I MOST SINCERELY hope it was not the latter.

Roger

 

[Lorien]

"Do you have the right to adulterate another maker's knife? We may rightfully consider the knife is the property of the owner, and the owner has the ultimate legal control over the knfe. If perchance you restore the knife to "mint condition", it is no longer a knife made by the original maker but becomes a collaboration between the owner and you -without the original maker's knowledge or consent. If the owner then sells the knife as mint or without stating that you worked on the knife, I feel it becomes fraud and you become a part of the deception."

This is clearly targeted at makers who do work on other's knives, but implicitly targets the owner as well.

It would be great to have the entire article here.



*I hope it is ok that I took this excerpt from Ed Fowler's artical without permission, but if not I will delete it.

 

[John T Wylie Jr]

This was missing from the original context of the thread...

If the owner then sells the knife as mint or without stating that you worked on the knife, I feel it becomes fraud and you become a part of the deception.

I agree , partially with Ed's comment. I agree that it is dishonest for the seller not to disclose it and that point has been agreed upon here by most, but I personally feel it not up to the maker who did the refurb work to follow around the owner to make sure that it is disclosed.

Now sure a maker such as Krein marks his regrinds with his regrind logo , which clearly states his involvement and that helps keep the seller honest , but should it be a requirement ?

Ed....take it one step in the other direction
a knife is lightly used , no longer mint , it goes back to the original maker , gets refurb'd , seller then sells it as MINT never carried/used , etc.... is the original maker a part of the deception ? If there is no double standard , then indeed , in your words , the original maker who did the refurb is part of the deception...unknowingly.

Honesty goes a long way no matter how you look at it. How do you police something with so many avenues and facets such as knife making ?

 

[RogerP]

Ed....take it one step in the other direction
a knife is lightly used , no longer mint , it goes back to the original maker , gets refurb'd , seller then sells it as MINT never carried/used , etc.... is the original maker a part of the deception ? If there is no double standard , then indeed , in your words , the original maker who did the refurb is part of the deception...unknowingly.

An excellent question which highlights that it is the failure to disclose that a knife has been refurbished that engages an ethical concern - not the identity of the person who performed the refurb.

By Ed's example, clearly the original maker who performed the refurb in good faith has "become part of" the subsequent misconduct by the owner if that owner should subsequently fail to disclose the refurb on resale.

But inconsistencies have thus far proven no deterrent to the advocates of this particular platform.

Roger

 

[2knife]

......

 

[Ed Fowler]

John: "How do we police it?" We as individuals, makers and sometimes dealers do our best to preserve the history and integrity found in some knives and respect the art that comes our way.

 

[John T Wylie Jr]

John: "How do we police it?" We as individuals, makers and sometimes dealers do our best to preserve the history and integrity found in some knives and respect the art that comes our way.

Ed:
I would like you to give your views on this...
a knife is used , no longer mint , it goes back to the original maker , gets refurb'd , seller then sells it as MINT never carried/used , etc.... is the original maker a part of the deception ?

 

[danbot]

Hello all.

I am coming here from the link that David put up on Ed's forum. Just thouhgt I'd throw another 2 cents worth in!

You all have some very valid points. It is good to hear others thoughts and opinions. They cause us to see the picture from different prspectives that we may not have considered before.

If it was Ed's intention through his article to bring awareness of this issue to new makers, and get people to give the ethics side of the knife bussiness some serious thought, I think he has been sucsessful in that!

I think that it is really splitting hairs to argue about a "fluff and buff" being done on a knife being put up for sale.
Refurbishing a damaged knife and then mis-representing it as being in an untouched "mint condition" IS unethical in most peoples eyes. That should be a given!


Re-grinding a factory OR custom knife blade at the request of the owner for performance purposes (which implies a using knife) is not unethical IMO.

The problem lies in the KNOWING. If I KNOW that a dealer or knife owner is using my services to decieve someone else for financial gain, then its time to ask some serious ethical questions of myself.

Just some more thoughts.

Thanks.

Dan

 

[Ed Fowler]

John: A lesson my grandmother taught me as a child has never failed me. Trust others until they prove you wrong, and you cannot trust someone who does not trust you.

I work on my knives in good faith, I do my best to be honest in all transactions and earn the trust of others, I hope all of my knives are honestly presented. As this thread has suggested when profit is involved -

 

[Ed Fowler]

Very well put Dan!

 

[RogerP]

Ed....take it one step in the other direction
a knife is lightly used , no longer mint , it goes back to the original maker , gets refurb'd , seller then sells it as MINT never carried/used , etc.... is the original maker a part of the deception ? If there is no double standard , then indeed , in your words , the original maker who did the refurb is part of the deception...unknowingly.

Hope springs eternal.

Roger

 

[John T Wylie Jr]

John: A lesson my grandmother taught me as a child has never failed me. Trust others until they prove you wrong, and you cannot trust someone who does not trust you.

I work on my knives in good faith, I do my best to be honest in all transactions and earn the trust of others, I hope all of my knives are honestly presented. As this thread has suggested when profit is involved -

Thanks ED , but that didn't really answer the question.

 

[Ed Fowler]

Then for you there may be no answer.

 

[RogerP]

Then for you there may be no answer.

Hmmmm.

Does anyone have an answer to the very cogent question posed by John?

Does the original maker who refinishes a knife not likewise "become a part of the deception" if the owner subsequently fails to disclose that fact?

How is it possible that such guilt by association can ONLY attach to a refinisher who was not the original maker?

I have to say, that doesn't even make a little bit of sense to me. But I don't know everything. If someone can reconcile that one for me, I'm all ears.

Roger

 

[2knife]

......

 

[danbot]

Roger/John;

I think we may also be dealing with an etiquite issue here as well... Respect for fellow knife makers efforts.

Of course the original maker who refurbishes (not just "fluff and buff") his knife BECOMES a PART of the deception... But if he/she is not aware of the INTENT of the owner to mis-represent the knife for sale...IMHO he or she is NOT GUILTY of fraud. That person has broken your trust, and should be dealt with accordingly.

As with all "ethical" decisions, we must make up uor own minds and listen to our own hearts.

I don't think we should be as concerned about the "letter" of the law as much as we should concider the "spirit" of the law. I hope this doesn't sound too religious to you. Not my intent.

Tom Krien; I would be very interested to know, as a maker what complaints are the most common concerning preformance.

You could teach us alot! No need to regret posting here!

As a maker I would like to know. Whether I did the regrind on my own knife or not.

 

[John T Wylie Jr]

snipped from Lorien's post:

"Do you have the right to adulterate another maker's knife? We may rightfully consider the knife is the property of the owner, and the owner has the ultimate legal control over the knfe. If perchance you restore the knife to "mint condition", it is no longer a knife made by the original maker but becomes a collaboration between the owner and you -without the original maker's knowledge or consent. If the owner then sells the knife as mint or without stating that you worked on the knife, I feel it becomes fraud and you become a part of the deception."

*I hope it is ok that I took this excerpt from Ed Fowler's artical without permission, but if not I will delete it.

Roger/John;

Of course the original maker who refurbishes (not just "fluff and buff") his knife BECOMES a PART of the deception... But if he/she is not aware of the INTENT of the owner to mis-represent the knife for sale...IMHO he or she is NOT GUILTY of fraud. That person has broken your trust, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I looked all over town trying to find Blade Mag , with no luck , so I have not read the article , but based on what Lorien posted , it doesn't say in there " unaware of intent" , it says in reference to another maker doing the work : If the owner then sells the knife as mint or without stating that you worked on the knife, I feel it becomes fraud and you become a part of the deception.

Which was what I was inquiring to Ed to clearly state his view as to if there are any differences , which he didn't do ( if he did , and someone can decode his message , I for one would appreciate it ).

Like you , I feel if one maker ( non original maker ) is to be seen as part of the deception , so is the other ( original maker ). I still believe, it all falls back to the seller to disclose the true facts , either maker is simply providing a service and neither can be GUILTY of fraud.

The wayI read Ed's views , the non original maker was guilty of fraud , I merely wanted to know if he viewed the original maker in the same way if the seller didnt disclose the refurb.

A maker should have the undeniable right to refurbish his own knives and sell them "as is", without saying old or new.

Is that any more honest than the seller doing the same ?