Flow & Design or Fit & Finish or Performance?

[2knife]

Performance for custom knives? Here, i will play devil's advocate.

MOST custom knives are safe queens, it is just a sad fact of life. I myself am building my own museum! ..and we all have shrines where we give them the proper (anal retentive) maintenance , someone said he actually used diapers for his knives...

Lets face it,.. most of us (me too) are art collectors. We can't afford to use every knife, most, or many. Am i wrong? We use "blue collar" stuff and prize and hoard the treasures we acquire.

How important is performance? Not that important to most of us who say its important. Heck, i think its important- but im the biggest hypocrite here. Have i ever put my knives to the real test? ..Yes, if your talking $100 customs and under. No, for everything else. A Plain "No" will suffice.

How can we appreciate performance when we only collect? We cant, it is a vision of lovliness, never to be had.

Are there makers who go to extreme limits to push the steel to great frontiers? yes. Most? probably settle for good enough, focus on more immediately gratifying artistic pursuits - damascus. No hangups about that please, just making one example- done in large part for effect.

Im not unhappy, i know i sound this way. i am conflicted in some ways i guess.. the whole theory of the using knife.. I'm going to use one of my high ticket knives "regularly" one day. I say this a lot.

Are custom knives better than perfomance enhanced customs? who knows. What's so great about flat ground blades, hollow ground- they are easier to bend and break, not having lateral support as convex knives.. more efficient for given tasks, maybe.
Don't beat me up too bad .
David

 

[Will Leavitt]

One thing that's not being mentioned is that the collector (high end consumer) knives are made by makers that spents years developing the REPUTATION of making a knife that PERFORMS.

 

[lwrhea]

One thing that's not being mentioned is that the collector (high end consumer) knives are made by makers that spents years developing the REPUTATION of making a knife that PERFORMS

Will, my point, exactly. Lin :thumbup:

 

[ddd]

A high-end custom knife will command a high price not only because of
the maker behind it but also because he puts quite a lot of time into
a near ultimate fit and finish of his product.

When one such knife is an art piece, kept nearly untouched in a collection,
its qualifications as to performance will never be tested so they will remain
an unknown factor.

When, on the other hand such a high end knife is created to last for years
of hard work in the field, fit and finish will be absolute but its tested
high performance will be there too...

Have a look at this bunch of "Working Knives" meant to be used over more
than one life-time in the field. Such knives made Edmund Davidson,
are famous for fit, finish and long-lasting performance!

Design is a totally different story. Fantasy-design knives will not be very
comfortable to hold, but, in many cases, are considered world class ART
pieces (Jensen, Hibben, etc.). Whereas functional knives cannot compromise
in their practical design. See Edmund's knives displayed here....

All the best,
David Darom (ddd)

From my book: "Edmund Davidson, The Art of the Integral Knife"

 

[Kevin Jones]

Collectors can assess flow & design and fit & finish, however performance for collectible knives predominately lies in the reputation of the maker as Peter so correctly stated.

And perhaps the reason I'm place less importance on performance is that performance is a given for maker's knives I collect.

If a collector supports the makers that he/she knows and is familiar with their heat treat techniques and construction methods than more emphasis can be placed on flow & design and fit & finish. High performance knives are made in ALL price ranges.

One thing that's not being mentioned is that the collector (high end consumer) knives are made by makers that spents years developing the REPUTATION of making a knife that PERFORMS.

I touched on that point earlier Will. But some newer makers have also built a reputation for knives that perform.

Just one more reason for a collector to partner with specific makers, as you know what performance is built into their knives.

Supports the maker first, piece second collecting philosophy. :thumbup:

 

[RogerP]

I touched on that point earlier Will. But some newer makers have also built a reputation for knives that perform.

Just one more reason for a collector to partner with specific makers, as you know what performance is built into their knives.

Supports the maker first, piece second collecting philosophy. :thumbup:

I don't follow where partnership with specific makers is required for a collector to become informed as to the performance aspect of a given maker's knives. Most makers will be happy to discuss this with you if you but ask. Partnership is not required.

As for supporting the "maker first" collecting philosophy - not really. In fact, not at all. Whether you put the maker or the piece first, the wise collector will want to be informed of the maker's approach to all all aspects of his craft, performance included. Though I guess if one were to decide that they only wanted to collect the work of a half-dozen or so makers, there would be less information to seek, so in that sense, there would be less work involved.

Roger

 

[Kevin Jones]

I don't follow where partnership with specific makers is required for a collector to become informed as to the performance aspect of a given maker's knives. Most makers will be happy to discuss this with you if you but ask. Partnership is not required.

As for supporting the "maker first" collecting philosophy - not really. In fact, not at all. Whether you put the maker or the piece first, the wise collector will want to be informed of the maker's approach to all all aspects of his craft, performance included. Though I guess if one were to decide that they only wanted to collect the work of a half-dozen or so makers, there would be less information to seek, so in that sense, there would be less work involved.

Roger

Roger, don't think I see the word "required" anywhere in my post. Do you?

It's just one of many examples of the benefits of a maker and collector partnering for the common good of both.

How many different makers are represented in your collection? On second thoughts, don't bother, as I'm sure no one is interested in observing us bickering back and forth. So I won't do it. So you just post back and I will allow you to get the last word since that's always so important to you. Then we can all get back to this good discussion.

But just for the record, even though I only have 9 maker's represented in my collection I probably have as much knowledge on as many different makers as the average collector. Probably even as much as you......

 

[RogerP]

Roger, don't think I see the word "required" anywhere in my post. Do you?

...

No it was in mine. You didn't see me quoting you as saying is was required, do you?

My point is that it gaining information about performance is not "one more reason" for collectors to partner with specific makers. It is not a reason at all.

Is there some reason why you feel the need to keep stating that you will not respond to my posts (usually while responding to my posts)? Never mind, I know the answer.

Is there some reason you are possessed of an evaangelical drive to convert others to your "maker first" "philosophy"? Can't you just acknowledge that there is more than one valid approach instead of contemptuously dismissing anyone with the temerity to advance an opposing view?

Don't bother responding. I actually know the answers to those questions, too.

Roger

 

[Tai Goo]

I think “fit” and “finish” are good examples of how the classic definitions differ from some of the implied or subjective definitions that we see today.

The classic definition of “fit” means, that the parts come so tightly or closely together that they are primarily held in place by “friction”.

The classic definition of “finish” simply means, "surface treatment".

I would also like to point out that “concept” and “design” are not the same things…

 

[Kevin Jones]

I think “fit” and “finish” are good examples of how the classic definitions differ from the implied or subjective definitions that we see today.

The classic definition of “fit” means, that the parts come so tightly or closely together that they are primarily held in place by “friction”.

The classic definition of “finish” simply means, "surface treatment".

I would also like to point out that “concept” and “design” are not the same things…

I agree Tai.
As the "concept" is the idea or vision and "design" is the implementation of the "concept".

 

[Tai Goo]

I agree Tai.
As the "concept" is the idea or vision and "design" is the implementation of the "concept".

That is correct!

... and also why I would put "concept" first.

 

[RJ Martin]

Concept is the idea or vision.

Design is the arrangement and coordination of the parts necessary to produce the intended outcome. A good design is a true representation of the concept or vision, but it's theoretical until it's actually made.

Execution is the physical production of the design. It is in the execution that reality comes into play. The ececution of any design is seldom exactly as intended.

As an aircraft designer for some 16 years, I can tell you that coming up with the concept is the most fun. When it's in your mind, it's perfect.

Getting the design onto paper or into a computer or whatever is more difficult. Problems crop up, comprimises must be made, issues must be anticipated, etc. Still, producing a good design is satisfying. Only occasionally does a design look as good on paper as it did in your mind.

By the time the design is executed, more compromises have usually been made. But, if all attempts have been made to faithfully execute the design, the result is often made more interesting by how the problems of reality and design were dealt with to still preserve the intent of the concept.

It's about making your concept real despite the limitations of reality.

 

[David Schott]

IMHO, my breakdown is:
-Performance: If the knife cannot perform for its intended use, it is worthless as anything other than a pretty, shiny piece of steel. Performace is a 100% requirement for any "real" knife. It has to be done and done right, period.
-Fit and finish: Regardless of flow, a knife should have good fit and finish at least proportinal to the cost, maker's skill, and intended use.
-Flow: Flow is meaningless unless exectued well in fit and finish. Most would agree that they'd rather have a near-perfect "clean" knife in a simple sytle than a very nicely designed knife with horrid fit and finish.

I would say that as a general rule, all knives need spot-on HT and fit/finish of a quality level that is proportinal and achievable given the maker's skill, flow/design choices and intended use.

 

[Tai Goo]

Concept is the idea or vision.

Design is the arrangement and coordination of the parts necessary to produce the intended outcome. A good design is a true representation of the concept or vision, but it's theoretical until it's actually made.

Execution is the physical production of the design. It is in the execution that reality comes into play. The ececution of any design is seldom exactly as intended.

As an aircraft designer for some 16 years, I can tell you that coming up with the concept is the most fun. When it's in your mind, it's perfect.

Getting the design onto paper or into a computer or whatever is more difficult. Problems crop up, comprimises must be made, issues must be anticipated, etc. Still, producing a good design is satisfying. Only occasionally does a design look as good on paper as it did in your mind.

By the time the design is executed, more compromises have usually been made. But, if all attempts have been made to faithfully execute the design, the result is often made more interesting by how the problems of reality and design were dealt with to still preserve the intent of the concept.

It's about making your concept real despite the limitations of reality.

Good points,... but there are those rare occasions and exceptions when the execution exceeds the concept and expectations. It happens!

 

[Kevin Jones]

Concept is the idea or vision.

Design is the arrangement and coordination of the parts necessary to produce the intended outcome. A good design is a true representation of the concept or vision, but it's theoretical until it's actually made.

Execution is the physical production of the design. It is in the execution that reality comes into play. The ececution of any design is seldom exactly as intended.

As an aircraft designer for some 16 years, I can tell you that coming up with the concept is the most fun. When it's in your mind, it's perfect.

Getting the design onto paper or into a computer or whatever is more difficult. Problems crop up, comprimises must be made, issues must be anticipated, etc. Still, producing a good design is satisfying. Only occasionally does a design look as good on paper as it did in your mind.

By the time the design is executed, more compromises have usually been made. But, if all attempts have been made to faithfully execute the design, the result is often made more interesting by how the problems of reality and design were dealt with to still preserve the intent of the concept.

It's about making your concept real despite the limitations of reality.

Very true RJ as the same applies from concept to architectural design of a building to it's construction.

 

[Kevin Jones]

IMHO, my breakdown is:
-Performance: If the knife cannot perform for its intended use, it is worthless as anything other than a pretty, shiny piece of steel. Performace is a 100% requirement for any "real" knife. It has to be done and done right, period.
-Fit and finish: Regardless of flow, a knife should have good fit and finish at least proportinal to the cost, maker's skill, and intended use.
-Flow: Flow is meaningless unless exectued well in fit and finish. Most would agree that they'd rather have a near-perfect "clean" knife in a simple sytle than a very nicely designed knife with horrid fit and finish.
I would say that as a general rule, all knives need spot-on HT and fit/finish of a quality level that is proportinal and achievable given the maker's skill, flow/design choices and intended use.

Exactly. :thumbup:

 

[RJ Martin]

Yes, Tai...

I made a career out of doing things that I wasn't really good enough to do.

It is very satisfying when the final product is even better than we imagined it.

 

[NickWheeler]

I know everyone is saying performance first... But I don't think that's really how most of you look at it.


When you open a thread, and see a picture... what is the very first thing your mind computes???? If the knife looks good.

I am pretty sure most people look at the overall lines (flowing or not) and combination of materials/colors FIRST.

That is what draws you in or turns you away.

Most folks, that know those of us that have been doing this for awhile (especially the yay-hoos that show pictures of their salt baths and Rockwell testers and cutting tests etc in threads ) are probably going to assume or even know that the maker put their all into heat-treat, so that isn't really going to be questioned.

Don't get me wrong... I feel a knife is crap if the heat-treat and edge geometry are not spot on. Few things bug me more than a beautiful knife with a thick, fat, poor for cutting anything, edge.

BUT! I still think you look at flow first, then fit and finish...

The ultimate knife has top notch heat-treat/geometry, smooth flowing lines, and fit & finish that approaches perfection.

But it's really about the overall lines of the knife (IMHO).

 

[Kevin Jones]

I know everyone is saying performance first... But I don't think that's really how most of you look at it.


When you open a thread, and see a picture... what is the very first thing your mind computes???? If the knife looks good.

I am pretty sure most people look at the overall lines (flowing or not) and combination of materials/colors FIRST.

That is what draws you in or turns you away.

Most folks, that know those of us that have been doing this for awhile (especially the yay-hoos that show pictures of their salt baths and Rockwell testers and cutting tests etc in threads ) are probably going to assume or even know that the maker put their all into heat-treat, so that isn't really going to be questioned.

Don't get me wrong... I feel a knife is crap if the heat-treat and edge geometry are not spot on. Few things bug me more than a beautiful knife with a thick, fat, poor for cutting anything, edge.

BUT! I still think you look at flow first, then fit and finish...

The ultimate knife has top notch heat-treat/geometry, smooth flowing lines, and fit & finish that approaches perfection.

But it's really about the overall lines of the knife (IMHO).

I agree Nick that "the look" draws me to the knife at a glance, but poor fit & finish will have me looking away in a hurry. There's just too may great knives out there to tolerate poor fit & finish, unless it's by a maker that's just starting out. So though flow & design is first, fit & finish is more important to me.

 

[Lorien]

That is a really good point, Nick, way to show some spine! Although you seem to like to live on the edge, you really bolster your argument well, so you must have a good handle on the topic. Whew, sorry I really had to get those puns out. Forgive me please!

I'll admit, that although my dollars are seeking the best value, (in performance) my heart seeks the esoteric. I am always drawn to the design first.
After all, my recent decisions to spend more than $1000 in cash on a couple of knives have a lot to do with the general aesthetic of the makers, even though these blades are going to be put into some pretty serious service.

The real clincher when it comes to dropping the coin, is the maker's reputation for ensuring the longevity of the tool and the stability of the edge.

So many production knives fall short on performance, while the design is often very good. This is one reason why people should buy, and pay extra for, handmade knives. If the maker can't ensure exceptional performance, then why pay extra? I'd like to see a little proof of their insistence on the quality of the tools they produce.

Paying extra to have something that few others do is another thing. As is art collecting. But that stuff is not something I buy handmade knives for personally. Maybe when I'm rich!:thumbup: