I own both Regular Sebenza's and the newer 21's and I've said in several posts that in the hand, I prefer the feel of the Regular over the 21.
I know something like "feel" is purely a subjective, regardless here's my issue with the 21, I'm just curious to know what others think.
It's obvious the slabs on the 21 incorporate a considerable amount of fine detail profiling with respect to contours and edge treatments. I'm not a machinist, so I can't say if the slabs on a 21 take more machine time to produce than the Regular. However, it's safe to say the machining on the 21 doesn't look like it was meant as a cost savings exercise over the Regular or Classic.
I also think it's safe to say that the edge treatments on the 21 are more stylistic than that of the Regular. Now when I transition from simply looking at the knife to actually holding it in the hand, these visually stylistic elements become tactile touch points. Given the Sebenza is meant to be a hand tool, I for one would have preferred the 21 incorporate wider radiuses on edges especially at the transition points i.e. corners. Wider radiuses may not be as visually striking, but they would certainly improve the overall comfort level of the handle.
Does anyone know of, or have access to any commentary from Chris Reeve speaking to his reasoning behind creating the Regular in the first place?
I ask about comments from Chris regarding the introduction of the Regular, as it seems the design of the Regular was an acknowledgment of adapting form to follow function. After all the original Sebenza, the Classic and the 21 all share common design elements, and it was Chris that replaced the original with the Regular.
I know something like "feel" is purely a subjective, regardless here's my issue with the 21, I'm just curious to know what others think.
It's obvious the slabs on the 21 incorporate a considerable amount of fine detail profiling with respect to contours and edge treatments. I'm not a machinist, so I can't say if the slabs on a 21 take more machine time to produce than the Regular. However, it's safe to say the machining on the 21 doesn't look like it was meant as a cost savings exercise over the Regular or Classic.
I also think it's safe to say that the edge treatments on the 21 are more stylistic than that of the Regular. Now when I transition from simply looking at the knife to actually holding it in the hand, these visually stylistic elements become tactile touch points. Given the Sebenza is meant to be a hand tool, I for one would have preferred the 21 incorporate wider radiuses on edges especially at the transition points i.e. corners. Wider radiuses may not be as visually striking, but they would certainly improve the overall comfort level of the handle.
Does anyone know of, or have access to any commentary from Chris Reeve speaking to his reasoning behind creating the Regular in the first place?
I ask about comments from Chris regarding the introduction of the Regular, as it seems the design of the Regular was an acknowledgment of adapting form to follow function. After all the original Sebenza, the Classic and the 21 all share common design elements, and it was Chris that replaced the original with the Regular.
I have to say that in general I prefer the original/Classic/21 style for its greater ease of access to the thumb stud and lockbar, but this is obviously totally a personal preference issue.
