Fixin' it? "Code of ethics"

[RogerP]

On top of that, we have enough to keep us busy making our own knives without taking time to work on someone else’s. The customer usually expects you to drop what you are doing to work on it and doesn't want to pay you squat for the work anyway.

I think that here you touch upon some of the very reasons why the buyer might seek out another maker to do the work. A very successful maker with a packed order book and long waits for delivery may be disinclined to make time and space for an entirely unprofitable "fluff and buff" -or worse yet - every maker's least favourite chore - a re-handle.

The buyer and owner of the knife who just wants it made pretty again, or maybe wants a handle change or upgrade, and wants it done quickly may effectively be forced to choose to have someone else do the job. I have a hard time seeing the exercise of this choice as an "atrocity" in any context.

Roger

 

[Ed Fowler]

I hate to see anyone steamed on a form that they will never read, rumors spread and one day they hear about it and they wonder where that one came from?

I also fail to comprehend how anyone can make definitive statements about what has happened in Bob's shop daily for over 20 years.

Les if you want to know, I suggest you call Bob and ask him for an explanation, I assure you he will be brutally honest with you.

As far as asking folks at shows for information, there are still many who believe the various Damascus blades are better at cut than those of one steel. We try to provide information, some get it, others don't.

 

[elkins45]

Regarding the Loveless thing--I suspected he wasn't making the current production, but I didn't know he hadn't been making them for 25 years. To my mind that does make a difference.

The discussion got me to thinking about a somewhat analogous situation in photography. Probably the most expensive photographic prints you can buy are those by Ansel Adams. That was the case even when he was living. There's never been anyone to suggest that he didn't take even a single one of the photos attributed to him--but it's also well-known that if you bought a handmade original print from Adams in the last several years of his life the chances are it was made by one of his students and only approved by him before being sold.

Now, is the consumer being cheated in this case because the master didn't actually put the sheet of paper under the enlarger and swish it around in the trays himself? Or is it good enough that he took the negative it was printed from? How does this compare to a Loveless pattern knife with the Loveless name on it that Loveless never touched?

Discuss among yourselves.

 

[resinguy]

How about a more specific situation that gets back to the original topic...remember that?

Tom Krein Regrind. Tom does a fair bit of regrinding/thinning/reprofiling of blades. Mostly factory knives, I would assume, but AFAIK he doesn't turn down work. He has for the last year or more etched these blades to indicate the rework. You can't get much more full disclosure than that.

 

[Kevin Jones]

Regarding the Loveless thing--I suspected he wasn't making the current production, but I didn't know he hadn't been making them for 25 years. To my mind that does make a difference.

Les doesn't know that either, but that small detail doesn't keep him from stating it as fact. :thumbdn:

 

[Les Robertson]

Kevin,

Les doesn't know that either, but that small detail doesn't keep him from stating it as fact.

You should do a little research and check it out for yourself.

First year that Steve Johnson worked in Bob's shop was?

Then go forward.

Get back to us when you have that answer. I know...I want you to find out for yourself.

Now that you have some "Skin in the Game."

 

[Les Robertson]

Hi Ed,

No one is getting "steamed".

The definitive statement(s) are made by Bob and those who visit his shop and the video's showing someone else making the knives in shop. No reason to be there every day.

Ed, I have only owned 1 Loveless knife, which I got in a trade years ago. I met him and George Herron at the same 1986 Blade Show. After watching Bob Loveless berate and humiliate potential customers merely asking questions. Compared that to George Herron taking the time to explain to the detail that the customer required.

George explained to me that it was Bob Loveless, who was so far behind. That suggested that people wanting one of Bob's knives to contact George Herron.

To me there was no comparison.

I appreciate Bob's position in the market. I appreciate that he is a legend. I appreciate his designs. However, IMO he should have been more forthcoming with regards to what was going on in his shop daily for the last 20 years.

Example of a simple solutions (and he did this with Steve Johnson) Loveless on one side of the blade or Johnson or Merritt on the other side of the blade. Then there would be no confusion as to exactly what was going on in the shop.

At this point I realize that Loveless owners could give a rats ass what my opinions are on the subject. As they are the ones with "skin in the game". I completely understand that.

While I appreciate you sticking up for your friend. You have not so deftly avoided my questions about ethics.

I found that odd, as this thread was started because of your comments about ethics.

So you have chosen the later and would recommend to custom knife buyers to "Caveat Emptor" and do their own due diligence.

Which of course, at least in my opinion, renders your position on ethics to be taken with a grain of salt. As your definition of ethics does not apply equally across the board. As it would appear that while you don't think one maker should work on another makers knife...you have no problem with one maker building the knife and putting another makers name on it.

As I said I appreciate you having your friends back.

 

[Les Robertson]

Just a quick note here.

This thread is about ethics.

I used Bob Loveless, primarily because he is so well known and that those who have been in custom knives for any length of time are familiar with others making the knives marked Loveless coming out of his shop.

Kevin was trying to make the point that I do not know the exact moment this started and he is correct.

However, I would submit that with regards to ethics is their a particular amount of time that has to pass before the "ethics" of a situation can be discussed?

As Roger posted earlier he heard an individual at the 2009 Blade Show that he was unaware of how Loveless knives were made.

Kevin and others...lets say Jim Merritt didn't start making the Loveless knives until 1999. Is 10 years enough time for the ethics of the situation to be discussed?

As someone pointed out to me last night. That a world famous glass blower who lost an eye was unable to blow anymore glass. However, the trained others to do so and their work kept his name on the glass. This glass is prominently displayed at the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas.

I suggested that in this case it is probably more like a "Brand" and that everyone was familiar with the fact the master was not the one in fact blowing the glass.

Full disclosure...no problem.

But I understood his point of view and how others can view the knives coming out of the shop as Loveless knives...even if Bob didn't make them.

Ok, how about a well known folder maker who goes into retirement within weeks of another well known folder maker dying. As well another incredibly well known maker no longer offers folders shortly after this very well known folder maker dies.

Would you consider this an ethical problem as the maker who died was making the folders for these two makers. Without letting anyone know.

It was common knowledge to some...but not most.

No, Im not going to tell you Kevin...find out for yourself.

 

[RogerP]

Example of a simple solutions (and he did this with Steve Johnson) Loveless on one side of the blade or Johnson or Merritt on the other side of the blade. Then there would be no confusion as to exactly what was going on in the shop.

That thought has popped into my head more than once. It certainly wouldn't make the knife any less desireable to me to have Merritt's name on it. In fact it would make it more desireable.

Tom Krein Regrind. Tom does a fair bit of regrinding/thinning/reprofiling of blades. Mostly factory knives, I would assume, but AFAIK he doesn't turn down work. He has for the last year or more etched these blades to indicate the rework. You can't get much more full disclosure than that.

The whole "disclosure" thing is a bit of a red herring in this discussion. Nobody really disputes that refinishing should be disclosed. The proposition being advanced is that it is fundamentally morally wrong for one maker to do any work on the knife of another (living) maker, whether disclosed on future resale or not. By this standard Krein is an absolute fiend - assuming he has in fact done work on another maker's knife - disclosure notwithstanding.

And while it should be abundantly clear to this point, for the sake of those that don't read long threads except for the last couple posts, by no means do I consider Krein or anyone else similarly situated to have done anything wrong at all, much less to have committed an "atrocity".

Roger

 

[sheathmaker]

And while it should be abundantly clear to this point, for the sake of those that don't read long threads except for the last couple posts, by no means do I consider Krein or anyone else similarly situated to have done anything wrong at all, much less to have committed an "atrocity".

Roger

Roger, you probably saved at least another ten pages of band width by adding that last paragraph. A Krein regrind is a highly sought modification, and it is performed on an inordinately high percentage of FACTORY knives as opposed customs.

Paul

 

[Kevin Jones]

Kevin,

You should do a little research and check it out for yourself.

First year that Steve Johnson worked in Bob's shop was?

Then go forward.

Get back to us when you have that answer. I know...I want you to find out for yourself.

Now that you have some "Skin in the Game."

Unless either Bob Loveless and/or Jim Merritt has told you when Bob stopped making knives then you DO NOT KNOW.

Sounds like from the above that you think the day Steve Johnson started working in the Loveless shop, Bob washed his hands of making knives? Then I guess you would have us believe Jim Merritt totally took over from Steve.

It's much more likey that Bob became less involved in both making knives and and performing various processes in the making of knives gradually over a period of many years as he trained Steve and Jim on creating the Loveless designs.

As far as my having skin in the game? I guess you are referring to my recent puchase of a single Loveless? As I have already stated, I don't care whether Bob or Jim made my knife. Besides, I don't buy into your theory that knives actually made by Loveless will eventually rise to the top in regard to value.
If the maker (Bob, Steve, Jim) of specific Loveless knives could be determined then there would be no doubt as to when Bob Loveless stopped making knives.

 

[John T Wylie Jr]

The proposition being advanced is that it is fundamentally morally wrong for one maker to do any work on the knife of another (living) maker, whether disclosed on future resale or not.

That proposition is , regardless who it comes from , nothing more than an opinion.

My opinion differs greatly , if a customer buys a knife and sends it off to someone who can put a superior grind on it ( like Tom Krein ) because the knife does not perform as desired from the original maker , I sure as heck can't fault the person doing the regrind or the customer wanting it done.

Policing what happens to a knife after it is sold by the original maker doesn't make sense.

Say Joe Buyer purchases knife , gets it and realizes it aint all he thought it was , but with a few small changes it would be , original maker isn't interested in making these changes or wants to charge an amount that is outside of what the customer deems worthy or has a very long lead time to make the changes.

The customer might
A. Sell the knife perhaps at a loss.
B. Pay the added $$ to original maker and wait the added time.
C. Send off to another maker who will mod it to suit at a reasonable price.
D. Become turned off by custom knives all together.

Of those which hurts the buyer most ? Which hurts the original maker most ? Which hurts the market as a whole ? Do any of those do as much damage as the integrity of the original maker ?

If the knife is to be used , what does it matter ? The only thing that it effects is resell value and in that case it should be disclosed. ( which by the way as mentioned , Tom does do on his re-grinds ).

Fault the person doing the re-work by saying they are morally wrong ? Doesn't make sense , as Les alluded to , apparently there are more makers than just Loveless having knives marked with their name when they didn't even make it.

I just wish someone would make a list of those makers that do the same as Bob , and get it out in the open already. Not everyone is in the "secret society" , but I am guessing cubic dollars invested keeps that info from being commonplace.

 

[Kevin Jones]

Kevin was trying to make the point that I do not know the exact moment this started and he is correct.

Exactly, as not only do you not know the exact moment, but exact day, month, year or decade. Yet there are those that will now leave this thread thinking Bob Loveless has not made a knife in 25 years and will probably tell others such as well.

Don't see how that's fair.

 

[Hmathews]

Roger I don't know how other makers would handle it, but if one of our customers wants us to work on a knife that we made, we will work it in. If it is just a resharpen and clean-up we try to get it back out in a day or so. The only cost is return postage. Service to our customers is very important to us and we will always do what we can for them and the knives they purchased from us.

We just aren't comfortable working on a knife that another maker made and don't want to do it.

 

[John T Wylie Jr]

Don't see how that's fair.

While Les may/may not be accurate on the time frame ( I admit , I don't have a clue there ) , Bob doesn't make his own knives any longer , would you agree that is correct ?

Serious Question:
Is it fair to have forum readers , or blade magazine readers getting the impression " one maker altering and/or refinishing another's knives is highly unethical."

That is an opinion , is it a fair opinion ? Perhaps , perhaps not .

Ed , in my opinion , it doesn't seem fair to call other makers unethical based on one your perception , that is like a slap in the face to those makers , however it is your opinion and I do thank you for sharing it.

 

[Kevin Jones]

While Les may/may not be accurate on the time frame ( I admit , I don't have a clue there ), Bob doesn't make his own knives any longer , would you agree that is correct ?

Of course. I believe it's well known that Bob Loveless has not been the principle maker of Loveless knives for some time.

 

[severedthumbs]

whether bob hasn't made knives for 30 years or 1 year is really moot to me. the fact that he does not disclose that he no longer makes the knives that bear his name in the shop that bears his name is highly unethical in my opinion.

 

[Ed Fowler]

It is too bad that a name had to enter this discussion for it tends to mislead my intent of the article.

Many pitfalls await the new maker, some of us started out on our own and had to make mistakes without benefit of advice from old hands. We naturally made mistakes, some of them flat blindsided us - trespasses without intent on our part.

I try to stimulate discussion in order to inform others about the potential consequences that can arise from decisions we make. I stated my opinion and stated that I don't expect everyone to agree with me and invited debate.

We are free to do as we please as long as it does not hurt clients or other makers or unknowingly dilute the history that can be found in knives made by others.

Honesty between buyer and seller is never a bad thing.

 

[John T Wylie Jr]

It is too bad that a name had to enter this discussion for it tends to mislead my intent of the article.

As with most discussions , having solid examples always adds stimulation to the conversation. I find it better to be specific than to generalize.

Honesty between buyer and seller is never a bad thing.

agree 100% , and that should extend to maker and buyer and maker and dealer as well.

Ed: sorry I missed getting to talk with you at Blade West , I did have a few good laughs with Butch Deveraux about his " Obama knife " though.

 

[peterinct]

This has been a VERY interesting and thought provoking thread and I think Ed Fowler's "opinion" as stated in the Blade article has done what he hoped it would.

It is obvious that Ed Fowler is passionate about his knives, and how he makes them. I've a lot of respect for that, and it was a pleasure handling his knives and speaking with him at the Blade show.

As to the original question of "ethics", I think there is a huge difference between a few hundred dollar knife that some would use, and a high dollar collectible that would virtually never be used as a knife.

My personal feeling is that when a knife is purchased, the purchaser HAS the right to do anything with it that they care to.

If the purchaser should sell the knife it is then that ethics SHOULD come into play, and the new buyer should be informed of anything that could affect the future value of the knife. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of what is "ethical", and there will never be ONE consensus. Like many things that involve money, some people are honest and some are not.

There are an infinite number of examples that can be sited, but in the world of HIGH value collectibles, I was surprised myself a while back when I happened to pick up a book and browse through it at the local library. It was the works of Faberge'. Hearing that name, I had always thought of "him" as the incredible talent that created amongst other exquisite objects, the famed "Easter eggs". In reality, Faberge' himself was the "taskmaster" and while his name was the recognized one, it was others that actually made the eggs.

I have a camera that clearly says "Leica" on the lens which is immediately recognizable as the highest quality optics. The reality I was surprised to find, was that the lenses are actually made in Japan "to" Leica specifications.

I had known that others were doing the hands on building of Loveless knives for a long time, but I would be interested to know if/how Mr. Loveless acertained that each AND every knife leaving his shop met his expectations for being the quality that is expected in a Loveless knife?

Peter