Having someone else forge the blade vs. stock removal

Patrice Lemée

Patrice Lemée

Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
5,703
The scenario is this:

A) Sending a design to a Damascus maker and having him forge a blank.
B) Buying a billet from him and cutting/grinding to shape.

How is it perceived? I mean will option (A) feel more like a collaboration knife and (B) like a knife made by the knifemaker himself? Of course I am talking random pattern Damascus here, not something that has to be forged to shape to preserve pattern/alignment.

Thanks
 
Patrice Lemée;11636846 said:
How is it perceived? I mean will option (A) feel more like a collaboration knife and (B) like a knife made by the knifemaker himself? Of course I am talking random pattern Damascus here, not something that has to be forged to shape to preserve pattern/alignment.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Honestly, there is sole-authorship, and there is everything else.

Bill McHenry called his business McHenry Forge....he mostly took other maker's damascus and re-forged it to shape of the blade he needed to preserve certain design elements he wanted...that added complexity and personal touch....but it still wasn't sole authorship.

Some collectors buy you, the maker. Some collectors buy the knife, and some buy the story. Some buy it all. As a maker, you have to eventually figure out what kind of collector you wish to attract and start approaching those people with your work....posting here is a good thing for the makers, because you can sort of see the personalities of all the collectors that post here....it comes through in the writing/posting.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
Yes to both. Using a billet is no different to stock removal using tool steel in my opinion. The only reason to credit where the Billet comes from is as a form of guarantee of quality/provenance (in that the materials used are very likely to be as stated and that the billet is more likely not to contain flaws).
 
Kohai999 said:
Honestly, there is sole-authorship, and there is everything else.

Bill McHenry called his business McHenry Forge....he mostly took other maker's damascus and re-forged it to shape of the blade he needed to preserve certain design elements he wanted...that added complexity and personal touch....but it still wasn't sole authorship.

Some collectors buy you, the maker. Some collectors buy the knife, and some buy the story. Some buy it all. As a maker, you have to eventually figure out what kind of collector you wish to attract and start approaching those people with your work....posting here is a good thing for the makers, because you can sort of see the personalities of all the collectors that post here....it comes through in the writing/posting.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
Click to expand...

that's a great post
 
From a purely technical standpoint, it doesn't matter as much with random pattern. It is going to look pretty much the same. With stock removal, you might actually have fewer larger visible patches of one type of steel on the surface. Oddly enough, with some patterns like twist, you may actually be better off stock removing from a flat bar as you will expose some of the more interesting aspects of the pattern as you grind deeper into the billet. The little "stars" are in the middle of a twist billet. That is particularly the case with some of the more complex twist patterns like firestorm or explosion.
 
Steve, I wasn't looking for sole authorship. Sorry, should have said so. I know that both options don't qualify for that. I wanted to know more about where a collaboration begins.

A) Knife made by me (stock removal) using a billet from Damascus maker X
B) Knife forged by Damascus Maker X and then I make the rest.

Since in both instance I would include in the specs the origin of the steel and in one instance say that it had also been forged by said maker.

Makes sense?
 
Patrice Lemée;11637101 said:
Steve, I wasn't looking for sole authorship. Sorry, should have said so. I know that both options don't qualify for that. I wanted to know more about where a collaboration begins.

Makes sense?
Click to expand...

Having a billet forged to spec would be the beginning of a collaborative process, including specifying materials, for example, buggy axles you have laying around or meteorite---....buying something of the shelf....not. Say you want random, but you could have it patterned, like ladder or raindrop....that would be cool and collaborative.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
Option A is a collaboration, not just "feel more like a collaboration". Option B, you buy a billet and make the knife stock removal, you are the maker. If the knife is forged to shape and then finished by you, you and the forger are both the knifemakers. If the forger is good and had no input into the finishing of the knife, it could be a whisker hair away from being the same as finishing a blank from Jantz. If it truly is a "collaboration" it should have a mark from both makers.
 
As long as you disclose the origin of the blade steel, I would not be too concerned.
Even the bar stock steel 99 out of 100 makers use is actually made by someone else. ;)
Make the knife however you want and just say it's made from "Joe Blow Damascus".
 
Yes, No

In addition;
I Personally, prefer the maker to create his own damascus. One of the reason's I'm so drawn to damascus knives is it gives the knifemaker another avenue to
be creative and set his/her work apart from all others. It also adds another degree of uniqueness to the knife as no two damascus blades are the same.
 
Patrice Lemée;11636846 said:
The scenario is this:

A) Sending a design to a Damascus maker and having him forge a blank.
B) Buying a billet from him and cutting/grinding to shape.

How is it perceived? I mean will option (A) feel more like a collaboration knife and (B) like a knife made by the knifemaker himself? Of course I am talking random pattern Damascus here, not something that has to be forged to shape to preserve pattern/alignment.

Thanks
Click to expand...

from my "end-user perspective"
a) is a collaboration. one person forged the blade, the other assembled and did the artwork end of things to the fittings.
b) you made the knife using XXXX's damascus billet -- so long as you give credit for the billet maker, there is no perceived dishonesty.
c) sole authorship -- you make the billet, shape it and assemble. It would be your option to list provenance for the materials.
 
You're describing the situation that I hope to be in, I won't be able to forge my own anything I'll have to buy billet and and run that route.

If I were to want say a Damascus knife which would I do?
If I were to do "A" I would want to call it a collaboration, and hope that the person I have forging the blank would like to go along with that too.
If I were to do "B" which would be like every other knife that I would ever do I would definitely credit the my billet source, as well as my heat treating source and any other source that I would need to credit.

But I think that's all been said... As far as "where collaboration begins" your option "A" would be a good start, if someone were to create a Damascus billet just for you and this project. That too could be collaboration... I used to do this thing in both art and music classes where we would start something, (create the billet) then pass it to the next person to do the next stage (say cut the blank) then on to the next person to do something else (put the grind on it) etc... etc... etc... you get where I'm going don't ya?

Anyways plenty of grey area to be played with there... I don't consider collaboration: you buying Damascus stock from Jantz or the like and going that route... That's just you wanting to do something in Damascus...

Oh and donations don't make collaborations either, I mean if I gave you some Koa and you used them a "thank you, look what your wood made" should be good enough for anyone...
 
Kohai999 said:
Honestly, there is sole-authorship, and there is everything else.

Bill McHenry called his business McHenry Forge....he mostly took other maker's damascus and re-forged it to shape of the blade he needed to preserve certain design elements he wanted...that added complexity and personal touch....but it still wasn't sole authorship.

Some collectors buy you, the maker. Some collectors buy the knife, and some buy the story. Some buy it all. As a maker, you have to eventually figure out what kind of collector you wish to attract and start approaching those people with your work....posting here is a good thing for the makers, because you can sort of see the personalities of all the collectors that post here....it comes through in the writing/posting.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
Click to expand...


My head's spinning with that info,

THANK YOU

Mark
 
Top-grade makers: Michael Walker, Joe Kious, Charles Bennica, Curt Erickson, et al....

They all uses billets from another forger. No second billing on the knife.

Good thread.

Coop
 
Mark Behnke said:
My head's spinning with that info,

THANK YOU

Mark
Click to expand...

It wasn't the information that Patrice was looking for, but it seemed to resonate with a few people.

When you have been around the knife community for a while, it's easy to forget that the knowledge you take for granted is new and useful to other people who might not be looking at it from your perspective.

That goes for all of us....we all have a valuable perspective to share that might result in an "aha" moment for a fellow of the knife community.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
If you buy a damascus bar from a Smith or other source and you cut and grind via stock removal, then it is YOUR knife. If you have identified yourself as a stock removal maker then I, and I would think anyone else, would just naturally assume you obtained the billet from another source. Coop made a good point that if the billet comes from a recognized source then it would be good to include that information more as a point of provenance and quality. This is much the same as noting the steel by identifier such as CPMXXX or D2, or what have you.

Also as Coop mentioned many of the top tier makers such as Joe Kious, and the late Leon Treiber identified themselves as strictly stock removal makers and never really go into much detail about the steel except to identify if asked.

Conversely, if I see a knife (damascus) by John White, Jerry Fisk, or any other of the great Smiths, I just naturally assume they created the steel.

Finally, while I do admire sole authorship, it is way down on my list of qualifiers as to whether or not I like a knife....I Mean WAY DOWN!


Paul
 
Thanks again guys. As I thought, using Damascus in it's raw form (billet) is not a collaboration. But of course, the origin of the Damascus is usually disclosed.
I was pretty sure about the forging by someone else being a collaboration, even if the design was my own. Thanks for confirming what I thought and your additional input.

Oh and Kevin, I will try my hand at making Damascus someday but sadly I don't see that happening for probably a good 10 years. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top