Fixin' it? "Code of ethics"

[2knife]

......

 

[betzner]

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?

I think there are a reasonable number of people who, at some point, for whatever reason, have a knife re-handled. If someone owns a knife and wants it re-handled, cool. But as soon as someone tries to sell that knife and doesn't disclose the re-handling, I think you are into the issue of ethics. And without disclosure, the lack of ethics on the part of the seller.

 

[Les Robertson]

Hi Bob,

Several knives are being rehandled without full disclosure. Then being sold at a higher price.

You didn't address it, so does that mean you are ok with one maker doing the work and another maker putting their name...and their name only on the knife?

 

[jjtjr]

Coop wrote:

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

Coop, the Ed's article is in Blade.

Jim

 

[2knife]

.......

 

[betzner]

Hi Bob,

Several knives are being rehandled without full disclosure. Then being sold at a higher price.

You didn't address it, so does that mean you are ok with one maker doing the work and another maker putting their name...and their name only on the knife?

Les, as stated, if someone sells a knife that has been re-handled, knows about it and says nothing, that's not full disclosure and in my opinion, is an issue of ethics. If I as an owner choose to have a knife re-handled - and thus change it's worth as a collectible - I am the one who should take the hit on the reduced collectibles value - not someone else, who only finds out about it from a source other than the seller.
EDIT: No doubt in my mind it's a practice that occurs and is more frequent than "several", but I don't believe it's ethical.

As to someone making a knife and someone else putting their name on it, I really didn't address that because I got my head into the re-handling issue, and when you've had four strokes, sometimes you forget to address everything, as was the case here, sorry.

It dawned on me, in reading your reply about this, that the Loveless/Merritt partnership was something I hadn't even thought about in relation to this - so gimme a big "DUH". Truly a unique style of doing business, with it's own "merits". I am not sure what I think about it, but it seems I am accepting of it, as most are (seems that way, anyway).

EDIT: Beyond the Loveless/Merritt case in point, I can't think of where it would otherwise be appropriate, unless it came from a shop with several makers working for the guy who employs them and whose name, thus, appears on the knife. And that's even problematic to me, because I want to know who really made it, as most would.

 

[RogerP]

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."

It would be unfair to Ed for me to comment in any great detail without having read the full text of his article. And while maintaining a (somewhat) open mind until I do, the following thoughts strike me:

1) I had a hard time with "highly unethical" so I expect I'll have an even harder time with "contemptible atrocity".

2) "The owner can do what he pleases" seems a sefl-defeating delineation between the perfectly permissible and the contemptible atrocity. What if what the owner "pleases" is to have the knife refinished by someone else? Say, for example, the original maker, while still alive would a) likely take the rest of his life to complete the refinishing, or b) charge some exhorbitant fee? Should the owner feel constrained to wait until his actual demise to get the work done? And if the owner is not committing an "atrocity" by having it refinished by someone else, how is the person doing the refinishing at his request now cast as such a heinous fiend?

3) "HER owner can..." Ed and I part company at the belief that a knife is female

Roger, i don't know the answer to your question how this has affected Ed personally or inspired the topic , i can only imagine every knife maker has seen some measure of this with their own knives, or will.

David - at no point did I inquire as to how this has affected Ed personally or anything remotely along those lines. I was merely seeking the context for his characterization of the subject as "highly unethical".

I tend to view such categorical pronouncements with a healthy dose of skepticism - particularly when the person making the pronouncement is essentially disparaging the moral fiber of those who do not see the issue the same way he does.

Roger

 

[Les Robertson]

Hi Bob,

Since Buster and Bill's names have been brought up. As well they are equally Iconic as Loveless.

Imagine you had collected Buster's work for 20 years..only to find out that Curt Erickson actually made the knives.

Or you had collected Bill Moran's work for 20 years...only to find out that Jay Hendrickson made the knives.

Obviously Buster and Bill made their knives...that is why their names were on the blades.

So for anyone to include Ed Fowler even try to debate the merits for or against someone else working on a makers knife is moot.

The most Iconic knife maker in the last 50 years...stopped making knives 20 years ago. That however did not keep blades from leaving his shop with his name on them.

Someone brought up "Full Disclosure". The Guild wanted that in the 90's. If a maker used a laser or water jet part on the knife. There was to a be a card on the table with the description in front of the knife.

Do the Loveless knives come with some card or piece of paper for "Full Disclosure"?

If not...why not? (Rhetorical Question).

 

[betzner]

Les, I must be missing your point entirely. Most of what I have been speaking of is the issue of a collector not disclosing all he knows about a knife he is selling, and I see that as an ethics issue. It has nothing at all to do with the makers you mention, the maker's mark - only the collector being honest and fully disclosing all he knows to a buyer.

This has nothing to do with re-handling or maker's marks. It has to do with collector ethics in a general way.

EDIT: Let me rephrase a bit. My comments and point have everything to do with the collector's disclosure issues and nothing to do with what a maker does or doesn't do to his or someone else's knives. I am not trying to speak of that issue in any way. Others have and I find no need myself to do so. I speak of the ethics of the collector - and dealer.

 

[Les Robertson]

HI Bob,

My point is that some makers are not honest and forthcoming with the information on their knives.

Why should the collectors be held accountable for what they know.

How many collectors do you think 10 years ago who sold a newer Loveless told them that Bob did not make the knife?

Of course that could be because they did not know he didn't make the knife.

So there is no problem with complete disclosure by Bob Loveless.

However if Joe Schmedlape the knife maker cleans up Johnny Tentpegs knife...that everyone needs to know?

Just seems a little hypocritical.

 

[betzner]

HI Bob,

My point is that some makers are not honest and forthcoming with the information on their knives.

Why should the collectors be held accountable for what they know.

How many collectors do you think 10 years ago who sold a newer Loveless told them that Bob did not make the knife?

Of course that could be because they did not know he didn't make the knife.

So there is no problem with complete disclosure by Bob Loveless.

However if Joe Schmedlape the knife maker cleans up Johnny Tentpegs knife...that everyone needs to know?

Just seems a little hypocritical.

Nothing is as black and white as you are trying to paint it. In my mind, if you as a dealer or I as a collector try and sell a knife to someone without telling them what we know about the knife, with reasonableness as a guideline (in the judicial sense), an ethical standard (at least one I set for MYSELF) is violated. What you do is up to you. If this is going to be one of those dialogues that tries to develop every conceivable scenario, count me out.

I am dealing with a simpler issue. My own ethical standard. If you think, as you seem to be stating, "why should collectors be held accountable for what they know", then you and I are on a different ethical playing field.

 

[jjtjr]

HI Bob,

My point is that some makers are not honest and forthcoming with the information on their knives.

Why should the collectors be held accountable for what they know.

How many collectors do you think 10 years ago who sold a newer Loveless told them that Bob did not make the knife?

Of course that could be because they did not know he didn't make the knife.

So there is no problem with complete disclosure by Bob Loveless.

However if Joe Schmedlape the knife maker cleans up Johnny Tentpegs knife...that everyone needs to know?

Just seems a little hypocritical.
__________________
Les Robertson

Les,

As I already stated the owner of a knife can do whatever they want to something that they own.

But the ethical thing in my opinion anyone, makers, collectors, and purveyors should disclose if a knife that they are selling has been altered.

Loveless is an exception. Most people who collect knives and especially those who buy Loveless knives know that Bob Loveless has not made most of the knives coming from his shop in a long time. Anyone who has seen his video is watching Jim Merritt make the knife. He's not hiding anything. I have a 30 year old Loveless fighter. I don't know if Bob made it or someone else.

If a knife has been worked on by the maker, it should be disclosed. If it has been worked on by anyone else it should be disclosed.

The fact that some people can get away with being dishonest, doesn't mean that all of us should be dishonest.

Jim Treacy

 

[Les Robertson]

Hi Jim,

You would be amazed at how many collectors do not know that Bob Loveless stopped making his own knives 20+ years ago.

Everyone giving Bob a pass. Nothing new there.

My point to all this is Ed Fowler feels that one maker should not work on another makers knife.

However, if another makes a makers knife (without full disclosure from the time it first happened) then that is unethical.

BTW Jim, Jim Merritt was not the first maker to make Loveless knives. So if all you saw was the video...there would still not be full disclosure.

 

[Les Robertson]

Bob,

You are right. Your ethics are your ethics.

I was discussing the larger view of custom knives.

My ethics are...if you are not telling the truth...you are lying.

Yes, it is as black and white as that.

 

[betzner]

Bob,

You are right. Your ethics are your ethics.

I was discussing the larger view of custom knives.

My ethics are...if you are not telling the truth...you are lying.

Yes, it is as black and white as that.

By the looks of your previous comments about disclosure, it sounds like your "truth" is suspect when you say why should a collector be accountable for all he knows.

My truth and your truth seem to be at odds, since I think full disclosure is appropriate, and it sounds to me like you do not.

 

[jjtjr]

BTW Jim, Jim Merritt was not the first maker to make Loveless knives. So if all you saw was the video...there would still not be full disclosure.

If I only saw the video, I shouldn't be buying a Loveless knife.

I think that the real Loveless experts (not me), can tell by the subtle differences in the grind to know who made the knife.

 

[Les Robertson]

Hi Bob,

By the looks of your previous comments about disclosure, it sounds like your "truth" is suspect when you say why should a collector be accountable for all he knows.

You couldn't be more wrong.

My point was and is...if the best known maker in the world today is not being held accountable for full disclosure...why should others be expected to.

 

[Les Robertson]

Hi Jim,

I agree with you that Im sure the experts can tell the difference.

And after Bob is truly done with knives that he could oversee coming out of his shop.

These experts will make sure that everyone knows the differences. As the new selling prices will be evidence of that.

Kinda of like how the "Dot" over the "i" in Lile made a huge difference in the after market prices....once people found out what that actually meant.

 

[Les Robertson]

If the seller tells the buyer everything they know about the knife.

And the buyer is happy with that.

Then their shouldn't be any problems.

 

[cotdt]

What about all the makers and companies who are making Loveless style drop point hunters? Is that unethical?