Is it traditional or something else?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have seen some really nice slipjoints, with micarta and other synthetic scales. I was set to order a custom sodbuster with micarta scales, until my transmission went up.

Are they still traditional with micarta or other synthetic scales?

Just throwing it out there.
 
I don't see any advantage to a narrow definition of "Traditional" when classifying a knife. Stating this is a "Traditional pattern", should mean that it is a pattern made by known manufacturers 75 (?) or more years ago.
A Tony Bose "Back Pocket" is a Tradional style knife, but i don't think it is a Tradional pattern, more Tony's rendition of a Traditional pattern. (hope i'm correct here !).
That's what i mean for a broader definition of a "Tradition knife" and a more precise definition of "Traditional pattern".
roland
 
There's probably a time when my grand children or their children speak traditional old knives they speak Spyderco Delica... As time progress so does definitions, however, I love slipjoints and love to carry them, use them and own them.
 
rprocter said:
I don't see any advantage to a narrow definition of "Traditional" when classifying a knife. Stating this is a "Traditional pattern", should mean that it is a pattern made by known manufacturers 75 (?) or more years ago.
A Tony Bose "Back Pocket" is a Tradional style knife, but i don't think it is a Tradional pattern, more Tony's rendition of a Traditional pattern. (hope i'm correct here !).
That's what i mean for a broader definition of a "Tradition knife" and a more precise definition of "Traditional pattern".
roland
Click to expand...

I think you explained my point of view as well or better than I could have done, Roland. I mostly just call 'em pocket knives, though, unless I'm referring to a particular pattern. Or if I'm posting here, because we all know what a slip joint knife is. I hesitate to draw the line at scale materials, though, because I think that the construction is the determining factor. And I suspect that the old companies would have jumped at the chance to use micarta.

Blues said:
...
Case in point: I've tried for the past few years to explain the difference between a "bullhead" and a "moose". However, most folks (here and elsewhere) are bullheaded enough that they'd rather just call a "bullhead" a "moose" and let the chips fall where they may. They really just don't care and are too lazy to call the pattern by its proper name.
...
Click to expand...

So, Elliot, what's the difference between a bullhead and a moose?

James
 
KnifeHead said:
Muskrat: a slim, serpentine, equal-end frame with slim, clip blades pivoting out of each end.

This is a muskrat:
909_29274_1293220484_2.JPG


This is NOT a muskrat, unless, of course, you subscribe to the idea that if you call it "X", that's what it is. If that's the case, you probably think you can pick up a turd by the clean end too. :p

IMG_0413.jpg
Click to expand...

If enough people start thinking this is a muskrat, then all the new noobs will be saying the REAL MUSKRAT is not a muskrat....discuss.[/QUOT]



In this instance, it's GEC carrying out badge engineering in that the 53 and 54 Frame started to be used as a platform for a whole load of variations with different blade set-ups. Nothing wrong with that, but to my mind they could've used numbering system or invent a name for this in its own right. Muskrat it aint, far too bloated. Sewer Rat doesn't sound kool though...It's tradtional if it follows the spirit and dimensions of established patterns; (or revives a pattern that's been out of production for a significant time) otherwise, re-name it.
 
KnifeHead said:
Here's my questions:

1. When does traditional "pattern X" cross the line and become something that should be renamed?

2. What constitutes a traditional knife? (ie, materials used?, shape of blade(s)?, number of blades?, shape of handle?, etc.)
Click to expand...

I know nobody likes to have a question aswered with another question, but the answer to #1 depends on, "Who defines the line?" If the first maker to create a pattern names it something, then that is what it is. But most creators of patterns don't copyright a definition, so it's still open to interpretation.

Kerry, the example of the muskrat you gave-- who's definition was that? Is it taken as Gospel by the knife community at large? If it is, then the GEC you posted should be called a Cigar Muskrat or a Cuban Muskrat to differentiate it from a Muskrat.

As to question 2, I think all your criteria are important, but perhaps materials least of all. When I see a traditional pattern by a modern maker using G10 for a handle material, I still think of it as a traditional knife.
 
JAlexander said:
So, Elliot, what's the difference between a bullhead and a moose?
James
Click to expand...

James, the 2010 Forum Knife is a bull-head as is the knife shown in this thread.

According to Levine's Guide (IV), the two bladed, double-end, equal-end jack is also known as a bull-head.
 
Blues said:
According to Levine's Guide (IV), the two bladed, double-end, equal-end jack is also known as a bull-head.
Click to expand...

So is the GEC Muskrat. But the smaller #66 Mink Skinner is a Muskrat the because the frame is slightly serpentine.

If you ask some a jack is a knife with blades that all open from the same end, therefore a moose or a bullhead is not a jack because it is double end.

Using your definition above is a sunfish a bullhead...is a toenail a sunfish with a taper or a really big sleeveboard? Arghh


I like my Uncle Durph's it either a jack or a pen..makes things easy. :)
 
tomcrx said:
Using your definition above is a sunfish a bullhead...is a toenail a sunfish with a taper or a really big sleeveboard? Arghh
Click to expand...

Not my definition. It is an excerpt and can be found on p. 190 of Levine's Guide (IV) with appropriate (and instructive) illustrations. If one reads the book (in one of its many incarnations) all becomes clear in time.

However, that said, it is no longer my personal mission to carry on the quest for clarity. Those who wish to learn the nuances will do so of their own volition. In my opinion it is worth the effort.
 
Blues said:
James, the 2010 Forum Knife is a bull-head as is the knife shown in this thread.

According to Levine's Guide (IV), the two bladed, double-end, equal-end jack is also known as a bull-head.
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't have called that a muskrat anyhow. But thanks, Elliot. I learn something every day.

James
 
Blues said:
Not my definition. It is an excerpt and can be found on p. 190 of Levine's Guide (IV) with appropriate (and instructive) illustrations. If one reads the book (in one of its many incarnations) all becomes clear in time.
Click to expand...

Sorry Blues did not mean to personally attribute the definition to you. I just find the taxonomy of knives a kind of mish-mash of history, legend, marketing, convenience and personal preference. Levine does a nice job of trying to round it all up though.
 
Yes, knife nomenclature & taxonomy is a "mish-mash" of terms from different eras and countries. Knife companies further confused this by misnamimg some of their patterns and then this mistake gets spread through advertising/marketing.
That's why LG4 is so useful here. Bernard has sorted this all out and where multiple names might be in use, gives reasons for which is the most logical or accurate based on the history of the pattern.
Having a commonly accepted language for knives and their parts helps keep confusion to a minimum.
It's Knifeology 101.
roland
 
rprocter said:
Yes, knife nomenclature & taxonomy is a "mish-mash" of terms from different eras and countries. Knife companies further confused this by misnamimg some of their patterns and then this mistake gets spread through advertising/marketing.
That's why LG4 is so useful here. Bernard has sorted this all out and where multiple names might be in use, gives reasons for which is the most logical or accurate based on the history of the pattern.
Having a commonly accepted language for knives and their parts helps keep confusion to a minimum.
It's Knifeology 101.
roland
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly. There is one part of me though that likes what GEC is doing very recently. They seem to be nick-naming some their patterns. Some like it some don't. Take their new 65. Is it a copperhead, slimline trapper etc. No to them it is a "Ben Hogan". Their 62 half congress is an "Easy Pocket Congress". It kind of reminds me of the old way companies used to do it. The company that made the knife calls it what they want, sort of snake oil like but in a good way. That way use don't make immediate comparisons to what you think the archetype for the pattern is
 
A lot of people use the name "single blade trapper." This is a personal pet peeve of mine, being that by definition a trapper has two blades, specifically a long spey blade and a long clip blade.

From what I can tell by reading the book, the nomenclature in Levine's guide is derived from (but not derivitave of) the nomenclature used by manufacturers and retailers- not by collectors. So, a serpentine swell end balloon eureka harness jack, while a mouthful, would have been used in a catalog to describe a specific pattern (maybe not a real pattern, but the point is sound). There were 1000s of patterns, many were named and many more were not... And, while jacks were typically single ended and pen knives were typically double ended, there were also double end jacks (bull head, moose, etc.) and single end pen knives.

Where does Spyderco's UK Pen Knife fall in all of this mess?!?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top