Fixin' it? "Code of ethics"

[2knife]

Here's the link:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1123591/index.htm

 

[Ed Fowler]

I posted the above link for several reasons:
First of all it is easy to see how one can take one sentence out of 5 pages and make it stand alone, as representative of the whole. This is sad when in fact it may not have been exactly what Bob meant for it was written my another and Bob may not have had the opportunity to edit it.

When you read the entire article you get a glimpse of a true Icon in our community. He well understood the history and function of the knives of men since man became a tool maker. A Bob Loveless knife is filled with emotion, knowledge and function, there there are few like him. His knives are an extension of his total life experience, he used his time well, researched extensively, lived the life his knives were meant to serve and put it all together in a package for us to admire - or criticise.

Jim and Bob have been partners for a long time, Bob taught and guided Jim well, a knife from Jim coming from Bob's shop, made with his quality control is a prize trophy that signifies a spirit that stands alone.

Some will get the message, others will not - we each make up our minds.

 

[John T Wylie Jr]

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.

In the future if a student works on a knife their name will go on the knife along with mine. What was done and by who will be included in the letter of authenticity. Call it ethics ? morality? or simply being honest - I feel the client has a right to know.

Ed this is a sincere honest question , you feel the client has the right to know , so do you feel that the amount of work Bob does on his knives should be clearly stated in print with each knife ?
Granted that Merritt is capable of making a knife to the Loveless standard , but is it a Loveless or is it a Merritt ?
Is there a point at which a certain % of the work must be performed by the person who's name is on the blade for it to be truely THEIR sole knife ?

just a a question from a young hand hoping to learn from those who have far more experience that I can ever hope to achieve.

Just trying to sort out how one maker doing work on another makers knife in the aftermarket is unethical or frowned upon , yet it is ok as long as it is in the original shop. That has me bewildered.

 

[sheathmaker]

Some will get the message, (according to their own perception or interpretation) others will not -(Hence) we each make up our minds.

Ed, I screwed around with your words in the quote to make my point. The part in parentheses illustrates my take on your original quote, and to me, emphasizes my point way back up at the beginning of this thread that the only concensus we are probably going to reach is disagreement. We truly will each make up our own minds.

Paul

 

[Ed Fowler]

John - a little story: A good friend brought me three Scagels he had purchased for his collection. One look authentic to me, the second was an absolute forgery and the third looked OK from a distance, it did not have what I feel are the traditional Scagel finish on the blade or handle. He had paid 5 figures for the knife. Normally I don't comment on others knives but he was a good friend. I told him I did not feel the knife was correct. We were at a show and he took it back to the dealer he bought it from.

The fur flew!! We went outside to discuss the knife with some privacy. I told the dealer why I did not feel the knife was a pristine Scagel and he chewed on me for a while. Took it to another student of Scagel knives and got a second opinion - same as mine. Then and only then he stated that the knife was a little rough and he had a "Mastersmith" re-finish the knife. He refunded my friends money but remains very hostile to me.

Naturally the man who owned the knife had a right to do with it as he wished. When he took it to another man to work on it part of Scagel left that knife never to return. Each maker leaves his little and often unnoitced trademarks of craftmanship on the knives he makes. My personal decision is to leave those tracks as they were when the maker sold the knife. To some they are as significant as the makers mark, and maybe more so as they are much more difficult to fake.

Any maker can attest how easy it is to burn a hardened and tempered blade and change its properties. Just another reason to leave other's makers work alone - in my opinion.

Some can fake knives very well - but will they perform as well as the origonal makers work? Will the handle hold up or crack around the pins? Fakes can predate on the origonal maker's reputation, this is a sad fact and I hope we all do our best to keep our community honest, for a customer burned may not return and we all share in this responsability - in my opinion.

Is it a Loveless or a Merritt? or a Loveless/ Merritt? In my personal opinion it really does not matter, but this is my opinion and it is not my place to judge these makers or what others feel.

When it comes to my knives I will protect them as much as I can, I will also leave others knives alone, unless I own them and use them. Threads like this one are learning opportunities for all of us. I have a well used Richtig that I broke testing it - I reground the blade and use it daily. As a result of this discussion I will add my mark to the blade - yes without his concent but - my attempt at being honest to someone who may buy it after I am gone.

Paul - you are correct: We each must make up our own minds and the more information we consider when making individual decisions the better our community will be.

 

[RogerP]

Is it a Loveless or a Merritt? or a Loveless/ Merritt? In my personal opinion it really does not matter, but this is my opinion and it is not my place to judge these makers or what others feel.

That's odd. You clearly felt it was your place to judge makers who would willingly refinish a knife made by someone else as committing "One of the most contemptible atrocities known in the world of knives." Assuming Coop got that quote right.

I find HUGE disconnect between your categorical pronouncement that refinishing is an "atrocity" but that producing and selling a knife which bears your name that someone else made (something you say you would never do again) "does not matter".

Roger

 

[John T Wylie Jr]

Ed , thanks for the reply. I can easily see your point on the Scagel , reworking and not disclosing is a bad thing indeed , but on the part of the seller , not the maker who was asked to do the work. In some cases another maker may be approached and asked to freshen it up with intent to display and it never leave their collection , or that line may be used to get another to freshen it up in hopes of selling it undisclosed. Either way , honesty counts .

I hope we all do our best to keep our community honest, for a customer burned may not return and we all share in this responsability - in my opinion.

Is it a Loveless or a Merritt? or a Loveless/ Merritt? In my personal opinion it really does not matter, but this is my opinion and it is not my place to judge these makers or what others feel.

Those two statements seem to contradict each other , which could be since Bob is a friend of yours , it hits a bit too close to home.

Just trying to see how one way ( Scagel refresh ) is deception , where the Loveless shop way is not. To be fair , there can't be double standards , a master maker should not be given a free pass just because that is the way things are done , have been done or will continue to be done.

Don't want you to feel I am singling out Bob at all , he is a maker that is iconic in the knifemaking world and is being used as an example. Me feelings would be the same regardless of the maker.

In the end , just because something has been done one way for awhile ( Merritt/Loveless ) , doesn't automatically make it right.

 

[Ramm9]

Jim and Bob have been partners for a long time, Bob taught and guided Jim well, a knife from Jim coming from Bob's shop, made with his quality control is a prize trophy that signifies a spirit that stands alone.

No question, no doubt, if they carry the Loveless logo they are damn fine knives.

Is it a Loveless or a Merritt? or a Loveless/ Merritt? In my personal opinion it really does not matter

This is probably a very true statement for knives that will be used. In regard to collecting there can be no doubt it matters very much.

Les was spot on earlier. A proven sole authorship Bob Loveless knife will command a far greater collectible price than one that is "shop made". How much greater a price is an interesting question...1.5x, 2x, or possibly more?

Although I don't see Bob Loveless sitting back on a chase lounge while Merrit slaves in the shop, I can't imagine that the collector holding a sole authorship knife wouldn't be singing that fact from the rooftops were he to put it up for sale.

 

[2knife]

.......

 

[Les Robertson]

HI David,

I have to go with Roger on this one.

How can one maker refinishing another makers knife be an "atrocity".

Yet one maker building a knife that the other maker does little or nothing to and puts their name on it...Does not matter.

WHAT????

Using Bob Loveless as an example is not a "witch hunt". Bob's knives were used to show the hypocrisy of Ed Fowler's ethics.

You can't be a little bit "pregnant".

If Jim Merritt cleaned up a Loveless knife and everyone knew it (the same as maker X cleaning up Maker Y's knife) no big deal.

To me the subject is "disclosure".

This has not been the case with many makers, collectors and dealers. That is being completely forthcoming with the facts.

Almost without exception failure for full disclosure or "gray area" is done to get more money for the knife than it would have gotten with full disclosure.

 

[2knife]

.......

 

[RJ Martin]

comments deleted

 

[RogerP]

I think you are painting with too wide a brush, Roger. "Categorical pronouncement?"

Clearly, to you this is pure hypocrisy- you've said this matter of fact.
But, consider the "shades of grey" which exist.. If YOU were to refinish an authentic Loveless knife, compared to Jim Merritt doing the same job. (you must agree, this would be a more apt choice of describing "atrocity".)

I don't think it has yet been established the CONTEXT of each situation, may bear some relevancy.

Despite this, i do not like the "witch hunt" the tone has -at points- taken in this thread, regarding one maker.. or one knife writer's ideals. I think the ideas have been clearly expressed.

One interesting, related diversion would be to ask "how" knives are usually altered? ..what repairs are most often requested? .. refinishing, being most common?
David

1) David - WHERE EXACTLY did I describe Ed's position as "pure hypocrisy"? I tend to choose my words carefully. Most of the time, anyway. Kindly do not place words in my mouth. At a minimum, Ed's thunderous moral condemnation of the refinishing issue is inconsistent with his characterization of putting your name on a knife you didn't make as unimportant.

2) Witch hunt? Please. YOU brought Ed's position to this forum and solicited opinions on same. Not everyone sees the issue your / Ed's way. You need to realize that this is not Ed's forum - where never is heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day, and Ed congratulates himself on how everyone seems to agree with him.

Roger

 

[John T Wylie Jr]

To me the subject is "disclosure".

This has not been the case with many makers, collectors and dealers. That is being completely forthcoming with the facts.

Almost without exception failure for full disclosure or "gray area" is done to get more money for the knife than it would have gotten with full disclosure.

from another thread this morning:

So I would ask you to cite names or withdraw your comment bad mouthing dealers.

Yes, I take it personal when collectors "generalize" without specific examples to back up their claims.

I look forward to your response naming names...or withdrawing your comment.

Yea I know...here we go with that whole "ethics" thing again.

Perhaps take your own advice Les , name names or withdraw your comment. And no sorry , telling one to " search for yourself" is not naming names.

Lets see if your ethics apply here , or is it " silence to make a buck" for you as well ?

 

[RogerP]

Perhaps I am missing the point here, but if a maker stands behind his work and takes care of performing repairs/refurbs that his customers need, why would the customer need to approach another maker to perform the work?

As a maker, isn't it my responsibility to make sure that I support my customers so well that they would never even consider asking another maker to work on my knife?

RJ - as has been mentioned earlier in this thread (and as I have graphically presented in my quote of your post), that can sometimes be a big IF. Not all makers can be expected to perform refurbs quickly and at a reasonable cost. Just the reality of things. Yes, your approach to customer care is highly commendable - but it is not completely universal.

Also, if the knife is one of a modest price - say, a basic using hunter - and the owner resides half way around the globe from the maker, the cost of shipping and import tarriffs alone may militate against having the original maker do the work.

I also think it is important to distinguish a "fluff and buff" refurb of a knife from a situation where a repair is required that may have been necessitated, at least in part, from some deficiency in its manufature. There, clearly a maker should be expected to "stand behind his work" as you have described.

Roger

 

[WalterDavis]

Perhaps I am missing the point here, but if a maker stands behind his work and takes care of performing repairs/refurbs that his customers need, why would the customer need to approach another maker to perform the work?

As a maker, isn't it my responsibility to make sure that I support my customers so well that they would never even consider asking another maker to work on my knife?

RJ, one situation would be in the case of a Scagel or Ruana that someone wants refurbished. Since the original maker is no longer around, it would fall to someone else's hands to do the job. Or it could be a situation where the maker doesn't work with a certain material, or even simply a matter of turnaround time.

 

[RogerP]

If Jim Merritt cleaned up a Loveless knife and everyone knew it (the same as maker X cleaning up Maker Y's knife) no big deal.

I think you got that one wrong. If Jim Merritt cleans up an early sole authorship Loveless knife, that's an "atrocity" by Ed's definition (as I understand it) - regardless of disclosure.

But if Jim Merritt does the lion's share of the work in crafting a contemporary Loveless knife - which bears the Loveless name alone - that is okay because of disclosure.

Don't ask me to make sense of that - I can't.

Roger

 

[RJ Martin]

RJ, one situation would be in the case of a Scagel or Ruana that someone wants refurbished. Since the original maker is no longer around, it would fall to someone else's hands to do the job. Or it could be a situation where the maker doesn't work with a certain material, or even simply a matter of turnaround time.

Obviously!

 

[Kevin Jones]

Les,
Dont be so easily swayed by your own thinking!

First of all, i like your point "you can't be a little bit pregnant", but Harry and Charlie Matthews might not agree with you since they too work as a team. Secondly, i think it doesnt add anything to keep bringing up Loveless, unless you want to call him on the phone- and ask..
I think this thread isnt about one man, whether he be the "best in the world" or not.. i admit to being curios why myself, regarding the signature issue. But, I'm not Kevin, who just bought his first "Merrit fake". (just kidding Kevin)

Being a hypocrit means you say one thing and DO another. Saying Ed's ethis are hypocritical is using the wrong terminology for your meaning, since there is no deceit of action on his part. Not exactly right, how you construe your arguements, besides siding with Roger, which i feel is wrong ethically.

If this doesnt make sense, i'll get Lorien to explain it to you better!
He's far more eloquent.

Les, you have been a bull in the China shop with Loveless. What will it solve to villify him?
David

No offense taken David as I knew well the situation when buying the knife.
If you go back through this thread you will find I'm pretty neutral regarding the Loveless/Merritt part of this discussion, as I see both sides. And against what a particular someone would have you believe, my view has not changed since I added the Loveless to my collection.

I have examined quite a few Loveless knives (both old and new) and my New Orleans Special has the best fit/finish of any I have seen. That's more important to me than how involved Jim and/or Bob was in it's creation.

My issue in this thread was in Les who is in a position to influence collectors/buyers makes a statement as fact as to when Bob Loveless stopped making knives (25 years ago) when he has absolutely nothing to back up such statement.

 

[Hmathews]

"you can't be a little bit pregnant", but Harry and Charlie Matthews might not agree with you since they too work as a team.

We try to avoid the grey areas by disclosing our shop practices on our web site. The first sentence on our web site says that Twin Blades is a partnership. I don't think anyone that buys a Twin Blades knife thinks anything other than it was made by Charlie and Harry, maybe one or the other, maybe both....we don't tell.

There is no one else in our shop. We have had a few makers that wanted to work for us, but to us that would just create the kind of problem we want to avoid. We are glad to help other makers and sometimes offer a one on one class for a weekend, but the participants won't be working on a Twin Blades knife.

There are about 30 knives out there with 1T on them and another 30 or so with 2T in addition to the Twin Blades logo. These are the sole authorship knives used during the process of gaining voting status in the Knifemaker's Guild. Charlie is the first twin (1T) and I am the second twin (2T). I didn't work on any of the knives Charlie submitted for judging and he didn't work on any of the knives I submitted.

We try to be honest and fair with our customers and are willing to explain any process and how it is done. We feel that full disclosure of our business practices up front is going to work the best for us in the long run, and so far it has.