Ken--
Thanks for the thread. As a customer, performance is of paramount concern to me, and most of my knife purchases are in anticipation of getting a knife that performs better in the following order of priority:
1. Cuts more aggressively;
2. Holds an edge longer;
3. Exhibits good toughness, while achieving the above;
4. Is light and well balanced in the hand; and
5. Is low maintenance and durable in all respects.
As buying the best can get rather expensive, I also appreciate good fit and finish and a pleasing design, and Ive been known to splurge a little on handle material and some decoration from time to time.
I currently own custom knives by (or have orders placed with): Ross Aki, Jens Anso, David Boye, Jerry Busse (custom and production), Kit Carson, Keith Coleman, Rick Dunkerley, Clyde Fischer, Ron Gaston, Phill Hartsfield, Ed Schott, Steve Schwarzer, PJ Tomes, and Phil Wilson, among others. I have multiple knives from many of these. I have intentionally listed them alphabetically to eliminate any suggestion of ranking them, because my respect for all of these gentlemen is enormous. Fit, finish, design, materials and customer service have been, without exception, a joy.
Two caveats:
1.) Some of these knives cut much better than others (again--my first priority), and
2.) I have bought knives, from some of these makers (more than one), that have been undeservedly hyped in the blade press, in my opinion, and that hype has affected some purchases I would not have made, had I known the whole truth.
The first instance is understandable and expected--not every knife can be the best. However, expanding on the second point, I have been referred by more than one maker listed above, to material published in the blade press, that either turned out to be extremely dubious if not outright misrepresentation, or was simply not the whole truth in terms of giving what I would consider to be a full account of a blades properties--even when the whole picture certainly should have been obvious to the maker. In no case did a maker promise his knives would do anything specific that might have been suggested by the review, but I felt these makers were certainly less than clear about how those reviews might have overstated performance. The end result is that I have spent something in excess of $2,000 on knives, which I would not have bought, if Id known what I know now about their performance from my own testing.
I do understand that, as a maker, a good review is a hard thing not to use as a sales tool, and I understand that sometimes its hard to be objective about performance. It may be that none of the makers from whom Ive bought would feel they did anything wrong. Ive not asked for my money back on any of these knives, and certainly would not say I was cheated in any way. In the long run, I look at it as part of my education.
So is there a problem, in my opinion? Probably not a big one, and whatever problem is there can be easily mitigated by a little more vigilance on all fronts. But I do think this is something that shouldnt be taken lightly.
I would like to add that these experiences certainly have left me feeling that absolutely unbiased, controlled testing is absolutely essential to the understanding all of us have, about knives and their propertiesmakers and customers alike. And its just that kind of objectivity, technical proficiency, and integrity that make reliable reviewers few and far betweenand often maligned to boot, sad to say. In the same way that Ive spent more than $2000 on knives I would not have bought except for hype, Id venture to say that the reviews published by Cliff Stamp alone have saved me at least that amount and moreprobably much more in the long run.
If anything, such experience has given me a real appreciation for anyone who devotes himself to reviewing knives fairly and openly, without motive for profit or self-promotion, and who offers that information freely to our community for the edification of all.
--Will
