I would personally love to see more GECs in stainless steel. "A lot" more probably isn't necessary, but I'd like to see one or two stainless options for every patter and blade configuration they come out with. For example, when I bought my #33 Conductor in buffalo horn, the dealer had it represented as 440C. Stainless steel and the clip/coping blade was the exact combination I wanted. But it wasn't stainless, it was 1095. GEC makes a 440C #33, but it doesn't have the coping blade.
Personally, I like both stainless and carbon steels. I like the simplicity and ease of sharpening of carbon steel. But there are certain times that I'd rather carry something in stainless. Could be a specific day, could be a stretch of time. For example, for the next several weeks here in the desert it's monsoon season. It's not the "dry heat" everybody talks about. It's humid, and every day there's the possibility of a 5-15 minute thunderstorm so powerful that floods the streets. And since I ride a bike everywhere, I can't risk having a carbon steel knife in my pocket because it'll turn into a slab of rust, either from my sweat, or because I get caught in the rain.
That's why, for every pattern that I like, I'd like both a carbon and stainless steel option. I like the 33 Conductor pattern, whether the single spring pattern with a coping blade, or the whittler. I own a whittler in ebony. But I'd like on in stainless as well. I don't own a #92 eureka yet, but it's next on my list. And if one was offered in stainless, I'd buy one of those too, for when I don't want to risk exposing it to moisture.
As for the debate on carbon vs stainless blades in "traditional" knives as a whole, my opinion is that tradition shouldn't be limited by technology, or lack thereof. Older traditional knives were made with carbon steel because stainless steel hadn't been invented yet, or hadn't been perfected yet. I read recently that it wasn't until the 40's or 50's when they figured out cryogenic quenching that stainless steel was worthwhile for knife blades. Since then, for obvious reasons, use of stainless steel in knife blades increased. Who is to say that, if they had the option 150 years ago, stainless steel wouldn't have been preferred for pocket knives that we now call "traditional"? Performance/maintenance/cosmetic arguments aside, the use of carbon steel in traditionals is largely nostalgic rather than practical.
I feel the same with synthetic handle materials. Synthetics are old. Celluloid, "French" ivory, wood composites, etc. And later, Delrin and acrylics. The modern synthetics are G-10 fiberglass, carbon fiber, and micarta. Earlier synthetics have their obvious limitations. Celluloid shrinks, outgasses, and is flammable. Delrin, although tough, isn't indestructible, and scratches and cracks (especially at the spring pin) can occur. "Traditionally", they were used because they were the best available at the time. Going back to what I said about quality stainless steels, who is to say that knife manufacturers from 100 years ago wouldn't have used something like micarta or G-10 for handles if they had that technology at that time?
GEC is my favorite company right now. They make amazing knives, by hand, and keep the price within reach. And it's obvious that they listen to their customers. I love that they make knives the "old way". But I'd like to see them embrace modern technology just a bit more. I don't think that a knife made with indestructible micarta handles and stainless steel goes against the "traditional" philosophy, because I don't think that there's plenty of people from 100 years ago that would have loved such a knife.
