GEC 3 1/2" Dogleg Jack

[Arathol]

So Kerry,
Let's see if I learned anything here today. You are saying that they should have had a slightly longer spring and back square, so that the spring could be rounded down to better meet the run up?

Not kerry but, yes, a bit longer on the spring but shorter on the runup.

A slight change in the design geometry can make a big difference.

 

[waynorth]

I tried to draw a picture, but photoshop is SOOOO much better!!
Nice graphic.

 

[Durwood]

Anyone who has ever collected vintage CASE knives knows about the "under bladed" design. When I first got into collecting factory knives (over a decade ago) I was told by other collectors this was "proper fit" regardless of the brand. I did come to notice over the years that it was more common among some brands than others...

 

[mckgreg]

All I can say is "WOW"!! A lot goin' on about this GEC underbladed stuff. From a guy (that being me) that mainly uses production knives until they end up lost or just worn out, I could really care less if a knife is underbladed or not. That is my thinking for an American made knife that costs around 60 bucks or so. Anything more than that I tend to look at them a little closer. (don't worry knifeswapper, I'm not trying to tell the new guys how to pick their knives or most importantly for you, who to buy them from) When I look at knives above the 60 dollar range, I get a bit more critical. (it is my money and I don't really get too wound up in internet hype and the latest and greatest.) Things like blade fall, snap and ease of use come into play. That's what is in my mind and pocket book. Your mind and pocket book may be different. When you get close to or above the 100 dollar range for a production pocket knife, all hype, promotion, marketing, endorsements from any peddler that wants to make a dollar or a authenticated endorsement from the exhalted "Son of Zeus" will have a hard time separating me from my money. For a production knife that costs over a hundred dollars I get pretty critical. I don't expect anything close to a custom built knife but I do expect more. "More" being decent blade fall, good snap and all things exterior being flush for starters. Flush is where the underbladed thing comes into play. It should be flush. To me "more" is not the exact same knife that has different scales or different paint on the blades of a knife priced lower in the production run. Why should I, or anybody else, pay more for a knife that is no different than it's lower priced models just because it has a different shield and "same cost" but different scale material? Does that make sense to ya? Hey, do what ya want on that one. So, I guess what I am gettin' at here on this underbladed GEC thing is this, just because it is the "norm" for a lot of other knife companies (as knifeswapper pointed out because he thinks it might cost him some money if he didn't) we should expect the same from GEC. Well, I have come to expect something different from these guys. Maybe Hope, instead of expect, is the word I'm lookin' for. Not just different oddball patterns in an attempt to find a "niche" in the market, but just honest knives that are worth what you pay for, which in my opinion is the track that they are on if we give them time and let them know what we want. (peddlers don't like that) Will they do it? Of course they will, they're Americans fellas. I won't suport them blindly just to be the guy that bought the most GEC knives but I will support them when they build something I like. I'm like most folks. I don't mind paying for something I like.
Greg

 

[338375]

O.K, we are 8 pages into this discussion, and there are a variety of opinions.
That is good, it keeps us thinking and may help keep certain things in perspective. I for one can be overly critical at times. However, there are certain things that I will not change my opinion on, no matter what the attempted rationalization is.... We all have personal preferences about things that we feel strongly about.

I think it looks tacky and very unprofessional. That said, PLEASE UNDERSTAND, I do not intend this to be a personal insult against the owners or employees of GEC, or a slam of their products in general. My comment pertains only to the topic at hand... I'm going to make a completely unscientific guess that there are very few knives, vintage or current production, that have this "issue" to the extreme that the GEC's in question have. So are we suppose to accept the idea that some knives have it, and therefore it is o.k?

Here is the reality IMHO. GEC is a fairly new company, and in that time have developed what seems to be a very strong following. They have broken from the norm in offering some old patterns and scale materials that other production companies don't currently offer. They are to be commended for that. I don't intend for this entire post to be negative, so on a positive note, I personally think they offer some of the nicest Stag to be found on a production knife, and the majority of the reviews up until this thread started have been very good...

My question is, will they take note of the dissatisfaction from some consumers regarding this issue, and correct it ? Or will they take the stance that they sell enough knives as it is, and don't need to worry about it ? They are obviously concerned about offering a quality product, and I'm sure by now they are aware of this discussion.

It would be very interesting to hear some input from one of the owners of the company regarding this topic.

 

[rprocter]

Well 8 pages into this thread and what have i learned ? The answer is that design is a crucial step in building a folding knife. Be sloppy in your design and you will not end up with a great knife regardless of workmanship and materials. And this applies to everything that is man made. For example design is what architecture is all about.
I only have 4 GEC knives, all of which are underbladed, but only slightly.
The Dogleg is my favorite Jack knife pattern but i will not be buying this GEC Dogleg because the degree of under blading is ridiculous, sloppy, and shows complete disregard for the longstanding esthetics of Traditional style folders.
I think GEC decided to produce this Dogleg and then cut corners by using existing blade patterns.
I have over 100 Rough Rider folders and not one is this under bladed. Many are flush and the others only slightly off.
There is no reason to expect less from GEC. I hope they get this message and design new offerings 'from the ground up' so that all aspects of fit are well met. If this means charging a little more, most of us will gladly pay this to get a "Great" knife.
roland

 

[FLymon]

Not kerry but, yes, a bit longer on the spring but shorter on the runup.

A slight change in the design geometry can make a big difference.

I think I was typing when you posted earlier

This is exactly what I was thinking, but I think they could have even just gone about half as far as your illustration, and rounded the spring, and it would have looked just fine. Any spring that does not line up with the blade should be rounded over IMHO. It looks finished that way where these look like the ball got dropped on the design editors desk.
I'm sure it is a sound knife, but I really hope the the Northfield versions have this shortcoming addressed.

 

[Will Power]

The whole thread has been very interesting indeed:thumbup:
Wealth of opinion and pictures thank you. It's caused me to examine most of my collection Frankly, not really been aware of this 'underblade' issue before, the GEC Dogleg would very likely look better for not having it, or at least to the extent that this one does.

The CASE Swaybacks appear to have none at all, some of my Whittlers and a Small Canoe(single spring)have it to a very pronounced degree.GEC 25s both single and twin blade have a lot of underblade, but I assumed this was by design. I don't mind it provided it doesn't come with blade play or rough raised springs as well. Significant gaps around the liners etc bother me much more

 

[KnifeHead]

Charlie, if you're referring to the last part of my post, try looking at it like this-
Heres a 3 1/2" Henry Sears dogleg, same pattern as the GEC. Looking at the knife in profile, the master blade is centered vertically on the bolster, which flows nicely into the blade on top and bottom. If the spring were set back a bit and cut off straight as in the GEC example, and not contoured into the shape of the bolster, in order to be flush with the spring the run-up would have to be higher and longer, extending above the line of the bolster and losing the aesthetics of the knife. So, the spring is made a bit longer and contoured to meet the blade. You can see how its done pretty clearly in the side by side in the above post.

So Kerry,
Let's see if I learned anything here today. You are saying that they should have had a slightly longer spring and back square, so that the spring could be rounded down to better meet the run up?

They definitely should have done that.

I get it - thanks Arathol et. al.

Yay...you all got it! Blade and spring designs need to fit the frame in such a way that, on rounded bolster knives, the top-corner of the spring can be slightly rounded over to meet the spine of the blade. It's that simple....well its not SIMPLE simple, or everyone would do it, RIGHT? In other words...if it was easy, well, you get the picture.

 

[KnifeHead]

...another thing that I think is important to say... I'm sure the folks at GEC can and do make some very fine knives. There certainly are plenty enough of them posted here to see that they have done their homework. I simply think on some of their patterns they are getting a "C" when, with a little more studying, they could get an "A".

This is opinion, not the gospel.

 

[KnifeHead]

Yes, I can see now how the knife on the right is just as acceptable as the Robeson on the left.

​

I know which one I'd keep and which one I wouldn't look twice at.

Oh, and the spring ends are rounded down because, well, so are the bolsters. The run-up sits low because you can't center the blade vertically in the frame and have the spine sticking up outside the curve of the bolster to meet the spring. The contour of the spring folllows (or should anyway) the shape of the bolster to meet the blade.

This is it in a nutshell. Even though the spring sits high on the Robeson (seriously high) the side by side comparison clearly shows how the front of the knife could be designed to transition the spring ends better into the blade spine. The GEC image shows that the spring ends before the radius of the bolster. The correction would be to lengthen the spring so that it extends into the radius. Of course then there will be more space between the tip of the blade and the inside-back of the spring when the blade is closed. You can't change one thing without it effecting something else.

 

[Bastid]

I own a few GEC's and like them. So this is not a bash towards them. It is just a general statement of what I prefer in a higher end knife.

When I start looking at a knife and quality that is built the fit of the spring to the tang and the spring to the liners is a key point for me. I pay close attention to that area.

Greg's post summed my feelings well. Even mirrored the price point at which I start paying more attention.

 

[KnifeHead]

I own a few GEC's and like them. So this is not a bash towards them. It is just a general statement of what I prefer in a higher end knife.

When I start looking at a knife and quality that is built the fit of the spring to the tang and the spring to the liners is a key point for me. I pay close attention to that area.

Greg's post summed my feelings well. Even mirrored the price point at which I start paying more attention.

I couldn't have said it better. Seriously, I don't think I have the mental capacity to say it any better. :thumbup:

 

[Bastid]

I couldn't have said it better. Seriously, I don't think I have the mental capacity to say it any better. :thumbup:

uh, I am not so sure you chose the right person for the comparison there. That is sinking kind of low. .

 

[puukkoman]

Bah... All these new knives coming out are TOO SMALL! If the 56 was maybe 3 7/8" or 4" long, and had a 3" main blade (or so), I'd have considered picking one up.

What about all us ham-fisted clod-hoppers with big mitts??

 

[KnifeHead]

uh, I am not so sure you chose the right person for the comparison there. That is sinking kind of low. .

I was talking about Greg

 

[Bastid]

Whew, ya had me worried there. (quite a bit).

 

[Mack]

Discussions like this are great learning tools. I'm sure glad they are allowed to continue in rational ways in this forum. I certainly learn a lot from you gentlemen.

 

[knifeswapper]

Sometimes it doesn't matter what you type, there are those that try and figure out your motives and what your subliminal message must be. Or maybe it is that I just do a crappy job at putting thoughts on the keyboard.

But, let me clarify a couple of points. I could not care in the least if this pattern was scrapped tomorrow because of this very issue. Most dealers figure out pretty quickly to not try and determine what the collector will like; it is an effort in futility. Offer the selection and let the base make their decision. So these little back-handed comments about my "inspiration" for trying to have a discussion on this topic are not appropriate nor fair to me. But I am a big boy (much more than I like) and can handle it...

So, quickly, I will once again try to state my position. I would much prefer a perfect interconnect between blade / backspring! My only issue is that this thread took a right turn when some started acting like this was the first knife in American cutlery to have this issue. We can now acknowledge from pictures and first hand reports; it is not. Since this thread started down this track, the position has been changed from "all interconnects should be flush" to the current iteration of "this backspring could be rounded down for a more appealing aesthetic". In the background I have been talking to the factory to try and have them address this themselves.

Now, having said all that..... I have just had another conversation with Bill Howard. He went back and looked at the design -vs- the initial run of the product being shipped. Somewhere in the tooling/assembling the blade fit was left a little forward; which simply means that in open position the blade is not as in line with the backspring as his original design. This is due to the tang shape, and can be remedied in the tang itself. Adjusting the tang to original design will bring the blade to more align with the backspring and bring the run-up / backspring closer to the same level. Not flush, but closer. He also said that he would work with his craftsmen to get this implemented to design with future runs and would alter any customers knife that feel it is not acceptable in its current setup.

So, they now know realize this is a BIG issue with the perception of quality build of a knife. And will tune this new pattern to be more in line with customer expectations. Not bad for a couple days of play on a forum...

 

[nphelps4130]

Very interesting thread. I certainly do enjoy these threads that give some expert info from some knowledgeable members regarding build.

Personally, I think this GEC #56 in ebony is fantastic as-is. As a user/consumer, the 'under-bladed' issue is of lower importance to me than many other factors on a knife, but I certainly do appreciate and admire knives that have that seamless look.