How important is the shield in your purchasing?

chickenfried

chickenfried

Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Messages
1,065
I decided I may not care for a wharncliffe after all so I was shopping for a different two blade knife. Saw a couple that were tempting. But couldn't pull the trigger because I didn't love the shields. One at best reminded me of the michelin or the staypuff marshmallow man at worst a big old steamy "log".The other's shield reminded me of a hot dog.

It's definitely not the most important thing to me nor is it necessary to have a shield. I didn't buy the knife that had my favorite shield, beaver on a GEC. But it's up there.
 
Last edited:
On a scale of 1 to 10, (10 being high) I think the shield (or lack thereof) rates around a -23, in determining if I like/want a knife, provided it is not something inappropriate, EG: skull 'n crossbones, zombies, snakes, the Mona Lisa, etc.
 
I don't need a shield on every knife. But if the manufacturer decides to place one on they better do it right. I steer clear of knives with un-pinned shields.
 
I think the shield does impact decisions as I know it has impacted mine. To me the shield is much like a piece of art that might adorn a wall. Some fit, some don't. Some are understated, while some are gaudy. One shield on a particular knife may not appeal to me whereas it may appeal to another. I've seen some nice knives that I passed over because I didn't like the shields. I often compare the shields of a particular pattern GEC puts outs to see which looks better to me in the different lines.
 
I don't like unpinned shields either but it's not a deal breaker if I really like the knife otherwise. What I won't do is buy a knife if I don't like the shield. Even if I adore the knife otherwise. It's the reason I don't own a Case/Bose Lanny's Clip. Love the knife, hate the shield.
 
I really don't like the shields with the name of producer or anything else (like OLD TIMER or TIDIOUTE etc). I like the classic shields or nothing!!
 
If it's some nice stag, I'd rather there was no shield at all. Ihat nice pop corned stag with a shield right there in the middle of things. Distracting. Other materials, if there is a shield, I like small discrete or none at all.
 
I think it important. One lure for me of Traditionals is their very aesthetics, some are really beautiful. A well-chosen, cited shield can certainly enhance the knife depending of course on the pattern, scale material and size of shield. It's an ornament and as such it can make or mar the knife.
 
I don´t think it is unimportant but no deal breaker for me at all if there is none. On most of my knives, the shield is just a sidenote in design. As it has absolutelly no effect on the function of the tool. I know know, this might also count on bolsters and some kind of handle material, but there it is a little different.
 
For me it is about the whole knife, rather than it's individual features.
When i see a knife that just instantly 'grabs' me, then that is a knife i will buy if funds available. It might or might not have a shield. I try to refrain from talking myself into buying a certain knife if it does not immediately speak to me.
Over the years i have found that i still get the same positive feeling towards the knives that have 'grabbed' me at first sight; i.e. i do not tire of them. Knives i have bought because i 'sort of liked them' usually do little for me after some time has passed.
I find this 'whole knife' approach to buying gives long lasting satisfaction whereas choosing a knife based on individual features (like the shield) is never as rewarding.
kj
 
kootenay joe said:
For me it is about the whole knife, rather than it's individual features.
When i see a knife that just instantly 'grabs' me, then that is a knife i will buy if funds available. It might or might not have a shield. I try to refrain from talking myself into buying a certain knife if it does not immediately speak to me.
Over the years i have found that i still get the same positive feeling towards the knives that have 'grabbed' me at first sight; i.e. i do not tire of them. Knives i have bought because i 'sort of liked them' usually do little for me after some time has passed.
I find this 'whole knife' approach to buying gives long lasting satisfaction whereas choosing a knife based on individual features (like the shield) is never as rewarding.
kj
Click to expand...
+1 Well said sir.:thumbup: However I do like both Case and Buck Knives but both have a tendency for the shields to fall out with pocket carry and that really bugs me because you are left with an otherwise nice knife with an ugly indention on it.
 
Unless it's an incredibly dumb looking shield I don't pay much attention to it. The quality of the knife and it's blade(s) and cover materials is my main focus.
 
Ordinarily I will pick pattern and brand as my top consideration, getting whatever shield the manufacturer placed on the knife. However, in the case of this GEC SFO Jack knife, I just had to have the Mule shield - it reminded me of Francis the Talking Mule from the old Army comedies that ran on the late show on TV when I was a boy. OH

Krack-A-Jack_jackknife_opt.jpg
 
For me, a shield is pretty far down the list of important details in a knife. But there are still a few stinkers, that would at least make me think twice about buying a knife with such a shield. A plain bar shield to me is worse than useless; just leave it without one if that's the best you can do.

And don't make them too big, either. Some of the shields on the recent S&M Heritage series were just way to obtrusive. I'd much rather see the handle material than a whopper shield.
 
Shield is not necessary to me but I admit some are enhancing the knife, like Ka-bar dog's head or Old Hunter's Mule :thumbup:!
In fact except if it represents an insign I hate to see (some past political one, for exemple), I consider the knife as a whole, for some the shield is part of the pattern (trad Americans) others never had any (trad French).
Same way, the cross shaped nails on a Laguiole look good, but is not mandatory. On the other hand, a Moore Maker without shield would look naked.

Now, if you ask the same question about etching and stamps on the blade, my answer will be different.
I prefer a bare blade, etching means to me "don't use it or it will vanish". And I don't fancy stamped blades, except if very discrete and/or esthetic.
 
Last edited:
More so on an older vintage knife than a newer knife and also dependent on the pattern, certain patterns don't lend themselves well to certain shields. Serpentine Jacks in my opinion don't look good with any bar shield or variation of.

As a rule so long as it's done well I'm open to most any shield on most any pattern. I don't like shields that pop out, I prefer pinned to epoxy/glue and flush over proud...

I guess the more I think about it... I guess it is somewhat important but mostly depending on context.
 
The "UN-X-LD" shield has kept me from a few. Never liked it, think it's a little cheeseball and reminds me of XXX with Vin Diesle which is really cheesy.
 
Old Hunter, i had not seen "Ole Jack" before. What a great looking knife ! (and photography). I love the Mule shield. I would like to see unique and unusual shields used more often. That mule shield makes the knife a stand-out.
kj
 
I actually prefer the Northfield shield on my 73 and 83's because it readily shows a difference between Northfiled and the other GEC lines. If I buy a Case knife , I also prefer the shield , if it has one , to have the name of Case on it. I also do not have a problem of a knife with no shield at all if it is a pattern and brand that I like.


Harry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top