Is this ganzo based on an existing design?

[Oklahoma Outlaw]

.

 

[Sharp & Fiery]

Ganzo now produces “in house original designs” funded by clone dollars.

Just say no to Ganzo.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

No. Your synopsis of my position is grossly negligent and you present further errors. Let me help you with your reading comprehension and logic. Based on what I actually said:

1. There certainly exists a mechanism by which the existence of an inexpensive design copy can prevent a sale of the original design. However, this mechanism is limited. It only involves consumers who (A) were already planning to buy the more expensive original and definitely would have except (B) they then saw the cheap copy and subsequently changed their mind, based on on that factor alone, in favor of buying the cheap copy instead of the more expensive original design.

2. There certainly exists a mechanism by which the existence of an inexpensive design copy can cause a sale of the original design. This is not hypothetical. It does happen. I offered a concrete example of it happening.

While 1 and 2 are not refutable, there is a reasonable question as to the frequency of these mechanisms occurring. This is where we run into trouble with counterfactual reasoning. It is not possible to differentiate the affected consumers in 1 from those who made their decisions based on an infinite number of other factors.

While Sal Glesser is an amazing human being and I sincerely appreciate all that he has done for this hobby, he is no more perfect than you or I. He is no more able to differentiate the affected customers in 1 from those who made their decisions based on an infinite number of other factors. Counterfactuals are a matter of logic and not personal reputation in a given community. While I can't speak for Sal, I think it is a safe bet that he would be upset to see unauthorized copies of designs or design elements that his company spent time, money, and effort to develop and bring to market. I am sympathetic to this and let's remember, I have already stated that I do not think it is right or good for Ganzo to be improperly copying designs or design elements.

As far as Sal's choice to devote resources towards fighting this practice, or the much more concrete and actually arguable damage caused by the different practice of counterfeiting, it is certainly within his prerogative to try. Remember folks, this isn't about supporting Ganzo. It's about being real with our analyses and not making absurd claims about the intent, morality, or effects of members of this forum who choose to own a Ganzo product.

The real analysis is very simple and goes as follows, the person with the absolute most to gain or lose and the best access to all available information has made it extremely clear that the data he has available concludes that clones and counterfeits harm his company and, by extension, the customers that support that company.

Nothing in your argument has any hard numbers, data or evidence to suggest otherwise, and relies on individual anecdotes in an attempt to justify purchasing behavior.

So do we trust the expert that we know is in possession of more actual, hard evidence than any of the rest of us, as well as far more to gain or lose or the wild conjecture of a single forum member with absolutely no numbers, no sales data and no experience in the field?

Your argument wouldn't be as absurd and weak if there wasn't a position directly opposing yours that's vastly more credible and has concluded precisely the opposite of what you've tried to argue. But there is, which makes what you're trying to accomplish utterly ridiculous and draws people to the conclusion that it's simply self serving post hoc rationalization of your purchases.

 

[DocJD]

Then buy a Kershaw...
or a CIVIVI
or a Kizer
or a Boker
or a CJRB.... etc


Also, This is not about buying Chinese products or any political issue. The company's country of origin is irrelevant.
Ganzo are thieves.

Sorry my friend , I'll buy any dang thing that's legal that I want .

Unless YOU are buying , you have no business and zero say-so in what I buy with MY $$!

I only have a handful , but I'm not ashamed , that's all I wanted .

Free , (deleted racial non PC term), and over 3X 21 .

 

[Chronovore]

The real analysis is very simple and goes as follows, the person with the absolute most to gain or lose and the best access to all available information has made it extremely clear that the data he has available concludes that clones and counterfeits harm his company and, by extension, the customers that support that company.

Nothing in your argument has any hard numbers, data or evidence to suggest otherwise, and relies on individual anecdotes in an attempt to justify purchasing behavior.

So do we trust the expert that we know is in possession of more actual, hard evidence than any of the rest of us, as well as far more to gain or lose or the wild conjecture of a single forum member with absolutely no numbers, no sales data and no experience in the field?

Your argument wouldn't be as absurd and weak if there wasn't a position directly opposing yours that's vastly more credible and has concluded precisely the opposite of what you've tried to argue. But there is, which makes what you're trying to accomplish utterly ridiculous and draws people to the conclusion that it's simply self serving post hoc rationalization of your purchases.

Go back and read my last post. The issues you raise here have already been conclusively answered. In summation, neither appeal to authority nor any amount of numbers trump logical truth. Counterfactuals cannot be known.

If you have carefully read my last post and still think that my argument is "absurd", "weak", or merely a "post hoc rationalization" of my personal purchases, please do yourself a favor. Go down to your local university and take a course in logic. Feel free to bring a transcript of this exchange and show it to your teacher. If it is indeed what you say, I'll buy you dinner.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

Go back and read my last post. The issues you raise here have already been conclusively answered. In summation, neither appeal to authority nor any amount of numbers trump logical truth. Counterfactuals cannot be known.

If you have carefully read my last post and still think that my argument is "absurd", "weak", or merely a "post hoc rationalization" of my personal purchases, please do yourself a favor. Go down to your local university and take a course in logic. Feel free to bring a transcript of this exchange and show it to your teacher. If it is indeed what you say, I'll buy you dinner.

Simply put, no they have not, your logic is deeply flawed and ridiculous and you have a child's understanding of what an appeal to authority is. If you were actually mounting an evidence based argument, then Sal's words wouldn't be sufficient to counter it without supporting evidence, but your argument is pure conjecture and expert testimony trumps the absolute hell out of amateur speculation.


ETA: You're also the one that insisted that others making anti-Ganzo arguments were the reason you were buying them and tried to deny responsibility for your actions in that, so your grasp of logic is extremely tenuous at best.

 

[NorthernSouthpaw]

No. Your synopsis of my position is grossly negligent and you present further errors. Let me help you with your reading comprehension and logic. Based on what I actually said:

1. There certainly exists a mechanism by which the existence of an inexpensive design copy can prevent a sale of the original design. However, this mechanism is limited. It only involves consumers who (A) were already planning to buy the more expensive original and definitely would have except (B) they then saw the cheap copy and subsequently changed their mind, based on on that factor alone, in favor of buying the cheap copy instead of the more expensive original design.

2. There certainly exists a mechanism by which the existence of an inexpensive design copy can cause a sale of the original design. This is not hypothetical. It does happen. I offered a concrete example of it happening.

While 1 and 2 are not refutable, there is a reasonable question as to the frequency of these mechanisms occurring. This is where we run into trouble with counterfactual reasoning. It is not possible to differentiate the affected consumers in 1 from those who made their decisions based on an infinite number of other factors.

While Sal Glesser is an amazing human being and I sincerely appreciate all that he has done for this hobby, he is no more perfect than you or I. He is no more able to differentiate the affected customers in 1 from those who made their decisions based on an infinite number of other factors. Counterfactuals are a matter of logic and not personal reputation in a given community. While I can't speak for Sal, I think it is a safe bet that he would be upset to see unauthorized copies of designs or design elements that his company spent time, money, and effort to develop and bring to market. I am sympathetic to this and let's remember, I have already stated that I do not think it is right or good for Ganzo to be improperly copying designs or design elements.

As far as Sal's choice to devote resources towards fighting this practice, or the much more concrete and actually arguable damage caused by the different practice of counterfeiting, it is certainly within his prerogative to try. Remember folks, this isn't about supporting Ganzo. It's about being real with our analyses and not making absurd claims about the intent, morality, or effects of members of this forum who choose to own a Ganzo product.

So essentially what your saying in your ever so charming, intellectually condescending way. Is that if the counterfeits/clones did not exist then the people in group 1 would buy the actual original product, and group 2 to would purchase another, less expensive one, or not at all.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

No. Your synopsis of my position is grossly negligent and you present further errors. Let me help you with your reading comprehension and logic. Based on what I actually said:

1. There certainly exists a mechanism by which the existence of an inexpensive design copy can prevent a sale of the original design. However, this mechanism is limited. It only involves consumers who (A) were already planning to buy the more expensive original and definitely would have except (B) they then saw the cheap copy and subsequently changed their mind, based on on that factor alone, in favor of buying the cheap copy instead of the more expensive original design.

2. There certainly exists a mechanism by which the existence of an inexpensive design copy can cause a sale of the original design. This is not hypothetical. It does happen. I offered a concrete example of it happening.

While 1 and 2 are not refutable, there is a reasonable question as to the frequency of these mechanisms occurring. This is where we run into trouble with counterfactual reasoning. It is not possible to differentiate the affected consumers in 1 from those who made their decisions based on an infinite number of other factors.

While Sal Glesser is an amazing human being and I sincerely appreciate all that he has done for this hobby, he is no more perfect than you or I. He is no more able to differentiate the affected customers in 1 from those who made their decisions based on an infinite number of other factors. Counterfactuals are a matter of logic and not personal reputation in a given community. While I can't speak for Sal, I think it is a safe bet that he would be upset to see unauthorized copies of designs or design elements that his company spent time, money, and effort to develop and bring to market. I am sympathetic to this and let's remember, I have already stated that I do not think it is right or good for Ganzo to be improperly copying designs or design elements.

As far as Sal's choice to devote resources towards fighting this practice, or the much more concrete and actually arguable damage caused by the different practice of counterfeiting, it is certainly within his prerogative to try. Remember folks, this isn't about supporting Ganzo. It's about being real with our analyses and not making absurd claims about the intent, morality, or effects of members of this forum who choose to own a Ganzo product.

Oh, and a very easy way to differentiate the effect on consumers would be to look at release dates of Ganzo clones and see what the effect was on the sales of the corresponding Spyderco model, vs models that hadn't been cloned. All data that Sal Glesser has very easy access to. The fact that you think there's no way to measure how those mechanisms would impact sales just drives home the point of how completely out of your depth you actually are.

 

[Hackenslash]

My experiences suggest that Ganzo's QC and overall quality is at least as good or better than QSP and Artisan.

Rather than get too far in the weeds on this argument, I want to focus on your statement above. I'm not sure if I'd call current production Ganzo better than QSP, but I won't quibble that they're in the same ballpark. We agree there.

The point is, we both consider QSP QC to be unacceptable. Therefore the Ganzo QC is unacceptable too. There are so many better quality options at a similar price point there's no reason to buy a Ganzo.

Without any morality or politics, it's obvious to not buy the knife using simple common sense.

 

[bdmicarta]

Ganzo has, and still does, STEAL other makers designs.

I thought at one time there was a rule that knives like this weren't discussed on bladeforums any more. Recently l've seen a few of the brands mentioned and I was thinking about asking which brands were now acceptable. I thought back in the day Civivi, Ganzo, cjrb, navy, steelwill, and san remu were the brands that were officially or unofficially off limits.

 

[Hackenslash]

I thought at one time there was a rule that knives like this weren't discussed on bladeforums any more. Recently l've seen a few of the brands mentioned and I was thinking about asking which brands were now acceptable. I thought back in the day Civivi, Ganzo, cjrb, navy, steelwill, and san remu were the brands that were officially or unofficially off limits.

I think the only rule was about selling clones. Of the brands you’ve mentioned, CIVIVI, CJRB and Steel Will are considered original designs. Depending on you how you feel about point of origin, they’re otherwise considered “good” choices. Ganzo and Navy originated as outright clones or theft of IP. SanRenMu is an interesting case. Although they have roots making small Sebenza clones and used a stolen Axis style lock, they are now responsible for the Real Steel brand which is generally accepted.

Stay tuned to Blade Forums for updates on the ever changing topography of naughty and nice knives!

 

[NorthernSouthpaw]

Sorry my friend , I'll buy any dang thing that's legal that I want .

Unless YOU are buying , you have no business and zero say-so in what I buy with MY $$!

I only have a handful , but I'm not ashamed , that's all I wanted .

Free , (deleted racial non PC term), and over 3X 21 .

I apologize if I offended you, or if I somehow seemed to be forcing my will upon you. Please allow me to rephrase my response.....

As I stated before, buy what you want.
That being said, if you do not wish to fund the stealing of other peoples property, then buy a Kershaw...
or a CIVIVI
or a Kizer
or a Boker
or a CJRB.... etc
Also, This is not about buying Chinese products or any political issue. The company's country of origin is irrelevant.
Ganzo are thieves.

 

[Danke42]

So I'm tutoring a young student in reading. She recently closed a book after just a few pages, proclaiming the story over. She additionally claimed, without argument, that everything in that book is stupid and that anyone who likes that book is stupid. Also, I'm totally the worst teacher ever and I was ruining her life by making her read. For anyone here who wouldn't by swayed by such a potent intellectual authority, I'll take the time to respond to our esteemed colleague, NorthernSouthpaw.

First, duplicating an idea or concept without proper permission or attribution is not the same as stealing a tangible item. I'm not saying that it is good to do such a thing but we should be real about it. Second, not only does such an act not necessarily damage the hobby as a whole, there are cases in which the opposite will be true. There are plenty of people who get introduced into this hobby via their experiences with a cheap Ganzo, whether it be a copycat design, a design mash-up like a Rat with an Axis lock, or an original design like the knife in question here.

A common refrain is that all those cheap copies of some Design X, however loosely copied or inspired, are necessarily blocking sales of the much more expensive original Design X. That is bad logic. For that to be true of any given consumer, that particular consumer would both need to have already been planning to buy the expensive original Design X and then to have subsequently changed their mind in favor of buying the cheap copy of Design X. While counterfactuals cannot actually be known, this probably represents a very small portion of the potential customer base for the original Design X.

In reality, the reverse can also happen. There absolutely exists consumers who buy the cheap copy of Design X and doing so later causes them to buy the original Design X. For instance, my own experiences with a couple of Spyderco-like Ganzo knives led me to buying a couple of actual Spyderco knives. Those are Spyderco sales that would not have occurred if not for Ganzo. Further, those experiences would in turn lead me to buying even more Spyderco knives. So if not for Ganzo, I wouldn't have purchased six real Spyderco knives from authorized dealers and wouldn't be eagerly awaiting my seventh.

Smart kid. Of course it's always faster to size someone up in person but even online they'll tend to reveal what they are.

 

[Chronovore]

I think the only rule was about selling clones. Of the brands you’ve mentioned, CIVIVI, CJRB and Steel Will are considered original designs. Depending on you how you feel about point of origin, they’re otherwise considered “good” choices. Ganzo and Navy originated as outright clones or theft of IP. SanRenMu is an interesting case. Although they have roots making small Sebenza clones and used a stolen Axis style lock, they are now responsible for the Real Steel brand which is generally accepted.

Stay tuned to Blade Forums for updates on the ever changing topography of naughty and nice knives!

Sanrenmu is interesting. They still make a few of the Sebenza clones under their Land brand. The cheapest is a liner lock with G-10 and 12C27. (Coincidentally, it might be the best-made knife of its type for $20.) They also make a variety of other knives ranging from tip-down-only "gas station" knives in 3Cr13 to titanium frame locks in S35VN. They also do OEM work. They make the generally accepted Real Steel knives you mentioned. They also make the knives for Ruike, which seems to be the same company as Fenix flashlights.

 

[DocJD]

I apologize if I offended you, or if I somehow seemed to be forcing my will upon you. Please allow me to rephrase my response.....

As I stated before, buy what you want.
That being said, if you do not wish to fund the stealing of other peoples property, then buy a Kershaw...
or a CIVIVI
or a Kizer
or a Boker
or a CJRB.... etc
Also, This is not about buying Chinese products or any political issue. The company's country of origin is irrelevant.
Ganzo are thieves.

In the largest context everyone is a " thief ", nothing is truly original .
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Back in the Nixon days a deal was done with China . This was continued and expanded by both political parties .

That deal basically screwed USA labor and manufacturing in favor of cheap Chinese labor and opened a vast potential market in mainland China .

This may very well have averted a nuclear war because China was separated from the USSR in their strategic self interest .

Brilliant in some ways but also terribly destructive to the manufacturing heartland of America . Many Americans have terribly suffered, economically and otherwise .

Basically converted the USA into a third world country that is completely dependent upon imports for basic survival . Mostly from China . A strategic nightmare .

Your moral outrage is petty in this greater context .

China never has respected "intellectual property " from the West and never will . They have their own agenda , for their own benefit .

It's kinda late to be alarmed .

 

[POCEH KOCEB]

I think Ruike is owned by Fenix or it’s Felix spin off. They do have few good models, I have the Hussar and it is decent knife for the $30 so bucks they ask for it…

 

[Chronovore]

Oh, and a very easy way to differentiate the effect on consumers would be to look at release dates of Ganzo clones and see what the effect was on the sales of the corresponding Spyderco model, vs models that hadn't been cloned. All data that Sal Glesser has very easy access to. The fact that you think there's no way to measure how those mechanisms would impact sales just drives home the point of how completely out of your depth you actually are.

You keep saying things about me being out my depth or whatever, but you still don't seem to understand that counterfactuals are unknowable.

Refer to the mechanisms in post 39. You can't know it. Sal can't know it. Nobody can. You can try to infer from data but you'll never really know. Also, causation and correlation are not the same thing. For instance, the following statement is obviously false: "Everyone who breathes air will die, therefore breathing air is fatal".

For instance, let's say that an original design is released. Call it Knife A. Then Ganzo makes a knife that has some obvious design similarities. Call if Knife B. You can track the sales of those knives over time and try to correlate them, but what would you actually be measuring? Remember that the number of other factors from post 39 are infinite. The consumer who would have bought Knife A but didn't might have done so for any number of possible reasons, including but definitely not limited to the existence of Knife B.

For instance, that consumer might have instead bought Knife C in a similar steel, Knife D with a similar action, Knife E in a similar color, Knife F that they just liked better, any number of other non-knife products ranging from pepperoni pizza to vintage posters, or nothing at all. It's possible that Knife A was simply out of stock when the customer tried to order it. Heck, that customer might have fallen off a cliff or gotten struck by lightning.

Meanwhile, the number of people who bought Knife B will have done so for any number of possible reasons, regardless of whether they even know that Knife A exists. You cannot isolate the number of customers who would have definitely bought Knife A but definitely didn't because they bought Knife B instead.

Simply put, no they have not, your logic is deeply flawed and ridiculous and you have a child's understanding of what an appeal to authority is. If you were actually mounting an evidence based argument, then Sal's words wouldn't be sufficient to counter it without supporting evidence, but your argument is pure conjecture and expert testimony trumps the absolute hell out of amateur speculation.


ETA: You're also the one that insisted that others making anti-Ganzo arguments were the reason you were buying them and tried to deny responsibility for your actions in that, so your grasp of logic is extremely tenuous at best.

The argument continued above is not "conjecture". It is logic.

Also, the "ETA" in question is that in a previous argument against people who clearly did not understand logic or take the time to read and understand what they were arguing against, I got sick of it. I started this effort because no intelligent or objective discussion of Gano is possible on Blade Forums without a torch-bearing mob of self-righteous fools barfing negative comments all over it, often with less regard for reading or logic than you've demonstrated here. It's an ugly stain upon this forum. Failing to win with civil discourse and logic, I offered to turn this economic activism on its head by purchasing a Ganzo for every time it happens.

 

[Chronovore]

So essentially what your saying in your ever so charming, intellectually condescending way. Is that if the counterfeits/clones did not exist then the people in group 1 would buy the actual original product, and group 2 to would purchase another, less expensive one, or not at all.

Your first point is correct, though my argument only deals with copied designs and not counterfeits which purport to be the original design.

The group of people in 1 is all of the people who are relevant to the earlier claim of lost sales: consumers who (A) were already planning to buy the more expensive original and definitely would have except (B) they then saw the cheap copy and subsequently changed their mind, based on on that factor alone, in favor of buying the cheap copy instead of the more expensive original design.

If the cheap copy didn't exist then B would not be possible. Of course, it is possible that some number of consumers satisfying A might be blocked from completing the sale by other means. However, they would not be stopped by Mechanism 1.

If the cheap copy didn't exist, then 2 would not be possible either. The group of people in 2 are effectively inspired to seek out the original based on their experiences with the cheap copy. The reasoning varies, such as liking the copy and wanting to get the real deal, or hating the copy but seeing potential in the design and wanting to see it done well. I'm a real member of this group, not only for Spyderco but also the RSK. (I have other reasons for not buying Benchmade, which seem much more real to me than the reasons people give for railing against Ganzo.)

 

[NorthernSouthpaw]

In the largest context everyone is a " thief ", nothing is truly original .
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Back in the Nixon days a deal was done with China . This was continued and expanded by both political parties .

That deal basically screwed USA labor and manufacturing in favor of cheap Chinese labor and opened a vast potential market in mainland China .

This may very well have averted a nuclear war because China was separated from the USSR in their strategic self interest .

Brilliant in some ways but also terribly destructive to the manufacturing heartland of America . Many Americans have terribly suffered, economically and otherwise .

Basically converted the USA into a third world country that is completely dependent upon imports for basic survival . Mostly from China . A strategic nightmare .

Your moral outrage is petty in this greater context .

China never has respected "intellectual property " from the West and never will . They have their own agenda , for their own benefit .

It's kinda late to be alarmed .

Who's alarmed?
This is just another example BS-ing to justify your buying habits.
"Waaah!! The world is broke already so what's the point?"

I'll say it again, buy what you want, but understand that when you support the work of originators and innovators you are encouraging them to continue innovating.
When you support the thieves innovation eventually stops because there is no reward in it for those creators. Ultimately we as consumers are stuck with nothing new.
I do my best to never buy counterfeits or clones, and that is the main reason why.

 

[NorthernSouthpaw]

Your first point is correct, though my argument only deals with copied designs and not counterfeits which purport to be the original design.

The group of people in 1 is all of the people who are relevant to the earlier claim of lost sales: consumers who (A) were already planning to buy the more expensive original and definitely would have except (B) they then saw the cheap copy and subsequently changed their mind, based on on that factor alone, in favor of buying the cheap copy instead of the more expensive original design.

If the cheap copy didn't exist then B would not be possible. Of course, it is possible that some number of consumers satisfying A might be blocked from completing the sale by other means. However, they would not be stopped by Mechanism 1.

If the cheap copy didn't exist, then 2 would not be possible either. The group of people in 2 are effectively inspired to seek out the original based on their experiences with the cheap copy. The reasoning varies, such as liking the copy and wanting to get the real deal, or hating the copy but seeing potential in the design and wanting to see it done well. I'm a real member of this group, not only for Spyderco but also the RSK. (I have other reasons for not buying Benchmade, which seem much more real to me than the reasons people give for railing against Ganzo.)

For all your bluster and purposefully over-complicated explanations, this is all just theory and conjecture.
You claim it is based on logic, but without any "mechanism" to prove your logic is sound it is invalid. Especially when your claims directly oppose the word of someone who has experience with, and actual working knowledge of the system.