-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Knife World Article on Camp Knives
- Thread starter Gus Kalanzis
- Start date
I have a John Fitch hunter with a 1084 blade and ironwood handle with n/s trim. It is one of the best performing custom knives I've ever owned or used, the overall workmanship is as good as anyone's work I have ever seen. I don't know Mr. Fitch personally, but I can see his knives are among the best being made today!
not2sharp
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 1999
- Messages
- 20,449
Here is a summary of the comments
John Fitch
1) Knife is heavy and awkward
2) Not sharp enough
3) Handle is too flat and too short
Terry Primos
1) Couldn't cut rope
2) Handle is too flat (caused blisters)
Glen Marshall
1) Good edge
2) Good handle
Judson Barr
1) Good Edge
2) Handle too flat and too straight (caused blisters)
David Dempsey
1) Not sharp enough
2) Bad handle shape, too thin, too flat (caused blisters)
Wally Hayes
1) Great edge
2) Great handle
Grant Fraser
1) Not very sharp
2) Handle very painful (More painful then David's knife)
John Fitch
1) Knife is heavy and awkward
2) Not sharp enough
3) Handle is too flat and too short
Terry Primos
1) Couldn't cut rope
2) Handle is too flat (caused blisters)
Glen Marshall
1) Good edge
2) Good handle
Judson Barr
1) Good Edge
2) Handle too flat and too straight (caused blisters)
David Dempsey
1) Not sharp enough
2) Bad handle shape, too thin, too flat (caused blisters)
Wally Hayes
1) Great edge
2) Great handle
Grant Fraser
1) Not very sharp
2) Handle very painful (More painful then David's knife)
- Joined
- Oct 4, 1998
- Messages
- 4,131
There is a lot to this, and maybe my reactions to the article are too strong. I have to keep in mind that English might be a second language to the author. Coming from a Greek family, it is not to hard for me to understand that my interpretation of what I read as dis-respect may be way off the mark.
Now matter how hard I try it is also tough to seperate myself from John as a genuine friend whose knives also happen to perform. Hearing these opinions on the article (coupled with some thoughts from good friends) helps me understand more. In the words of another friend "we will be most likely laughing about this in a year." I hope I will be able to laugh at myself and some of my conclusions.
One good thing that is going on the the incredible amount of support that John has gotten. We need to make sure it is the right kind of support devoid of anger.
Thanks everyone, keep them coming.
Now matter how hard I try it is also tough to seperate myself from John as a genuine friend whose knives also happen to perform. Hearing these opinions on the article (coupled with some thoughts from good friends) helps me understand more. In the words of another friend "we will be most likely laughing about this in a year." I hope I will be able to laugh at myself and some of my conclusions.
One good thing that is going on the the incredible amount of support that John has gotten. We need to make sure it is the right kind of support devoid of anger.
Thanks everyone, keep them coming.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 40
I am not a regular participant on the forums, but have been advised by some 'regulars' that it might be helpful to present the background behind the camp knife article for those who are interested. Here it is, so you can make up your own mind.
The project that led to this article started well over a year ago, with the author's desire to do a legitimate test of custom camp knives by several makers, both known and unknown. It was essentially a follow up to a similar article by the same author, which ran in "Knives Illustrated" approximately five years ago. The knives were subjected to two edge/sharpness tests, namely shaving and rope cutting, and most importantly a wood chopping test - this being perhaps the primary task that a camp knife should perform well. Several of the knives were also used on other materials such as meat, fish, and vegetables. I cannot imagine these tests being perceived as inappropriate for a camp knife. All of the makers present in the finished version voluntarily committed their time, money, and effort to the project on the basis that the article would see print in KNIFE WORLD.
When the results came back, I was shocked that the knives submitted by John Fitch had not met expectations. Several discussions followed with the author, the maker, and the maker who had directed two of the participants (including Fitch) to the author in the first place. Before it was all said and done, I personally sat and watched the approx. 8 hours of videotape documenting of the entire proceedings in order to verify whether or not the tests were conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Based not only on the testing, but also on careful observation of the author and others who participated, I concluded that the testing was absolutely legitimate and fair.
Nearly all of the commentary I have received has been directed at the results of John Fitch's knives. I have known Big John since not long after he started making knives in the first place. I have the utmost respect for him as a knifemaker, and consider him a personal friend. Believe me, it was not an easy decision to run an article whose results contrast with Fitch's many successes at cutting competitions across the country, a piece that would obviously draw the ire of a great many people who know John as a dedicated, hardworking knifemaker, and a valued friend. But these tests did not allow for second chances, as one poster pointed out, and I firmly believe that a test sanitized to make everyone happy is of NO USE whatsoever, and has no place in KNIFE WORLD.
I don't know why the tests turned out the way they did. Perhaps the knives Fitch sent were just too big for a much smaller man. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding about how the knives would be tested, leading to the wrong type of knives being sent. Perhaps the fellow who actually packed and sent the knives to the author did something to them that impacted the tests. Apparently some folks would like to think that this was nothing more than a plot to hurt Big John. I saw the tests and talked to everyone involved, and I find that very difficult to believe.
To be perfectly clear:
(1)These tests were absolutely scrutinized and judged to be legitimate and fair. This call was made by myself and myself alone, and I stand by it.
(2) John Fitch makes a hell of a knife, in the opinion of myself and many others; and the results of testing by one individual, no matter who that person is or what the tests are, should NOT be considered the final word on the subject.
My sincere thanks to the makers who were willing to submit their knives to an honest test in the knife public's eye. These men have guts, and they have all earned my respect regardless of how each fared. I hope and believe that every participant will gain from it in some way, be it personally, professionally, or some combination of the two.
The project that led to this article started well over a year ago, with the author's desire to do a legitimate test of custom camp knives by several makers, both known and unknown. It was essentially a follow up to a similar article by the same author, which ran in "Knives Illustrated" approximately five years ago. The knives were subjected to two edge/sharpness tests, namely shaving and rope cutting, and most importantly a wood chopping test - this being perhaps the primary task that a camp knife should perform well. Several of the knives were also used on other materials such as meat, fish, and vegetables. I cannot imagine these tests being perceived as inappropriate for a camp knife. All of the makers present in the finished version voluntarily committed their time, money, and effort to the project on the basis that the article would see print in KNIFE WORLD.
When the results came back, I was shocked that the knives submitted by John Fitch had not met expectations. Several discussions followed with the author, the maker, and the maker who had directed two of the participants (including Fitch) to the author in the first place. Before it was all said and done, I personally sat and watched the approx. 8 hours of videotape documenting of the entire proceedings in order to verify whether or not the tests were conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Based not only on the testing, but also on careful observation of the author and others who participated, I concluded that the testing was absolutely legitimate and fair.
Nearly all of the commentary I have received has been directed at the results of John Fitch's knives. I have known Big John since not long after he started making knives in the first place. I have the utmost respect for him as a knifemaker, and consider him a personal friend. Believe me, it was not an easy decision to run an article whose results contrast with Fitch's many successes at cutting competitions across the country, a piece that would obviously draw the ire of a great many people who know John as a dedicated, hardworking knifemaker, and a valued friend. But these tests did not allow for second chances, as one poster pointed out, and I firmly believe that a test sanitized to make everyone happy is of NO USE whatsoever, and has no place in KNIFE WORLD.
I don't know why the tests turned out the way they did. Perhaps the knives Fitch sent were just too big for a much smaller man. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding about how the knives would be tested, leading to the wrong type of knives being sent. Perhaps the fellow who actually packed and sent the knives to the author did something to them that impacted the tests. Apparently some folks would like to think that this was nothing more than a plot to hurt Big John. I saw the tests and talked to everyone involved, and I find that very difficult to believe.
To be perfectly clear:
(1)These tests were absolutely scrutinized and judged to be legitimate and fair. This call was made by myself and myself alone, and I stand by it.
(2) John Fitch makes a hell of a knife, in the opinion of myself and many others; and the results of testing by one individual, no matter who that person is or what the tests are, should NOT be considered the final word on the subject.
My sincere thanks to the makers who were willing to submit their knives to an honest test in the knife public's eye. These men have guts, and they have all earned my respect regardless of how each fared. I hope and believe that every participant will gain from it in some way, be it personally, professionally, or some combination of the two.
- Joined
- May 9, 2000
- Messages
- 29,205
Mark, I applaud your decision to go ahead and publish this article even though you knew that it would be unpopular in some circles. Hopefully this will not dissuade makers from submitting knives for testing in the future.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 1999
- Messages
- 716
First-rate discourse! It's nice to see a thread that doesn't end up all one sided. I could have sworn that this one was going there. It's nice to be wrong.
I subscribe to Knife World and appreciate their broad coverage of the world of knives. I have to put my self in the camp of wanting accurate reviews that don't make "nice" just for the sake of avoiding potential upsets. I'm encouraged by Mark's oversight of published articles. I have to admit that I wouldn't have imagined that may checks. I guess that excludes me as an editor.
I subscribe to Knife World and appreciate their broad coverage of the world of knives. I have to put my self in the camp of wanting accurate reviews that don't make "nice" just for the sake of avoiding potential upsets. I'm encouraged by Mark's oversight of published articles. I have to admit that I wouldn't have imagined that may checks. I guess that excludes me as an editor.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 1999
- Messages
- 620
I haven't read the article, because apparently knifeworld doesn't make it to North Dakota. I have never seen the magazine, although I do read every knife mag I can get my hands on. Being I haven't read the article I can't comment on the tone of the article, but I can say that every other knife review I have ever read has been positive in tone. I think if I read a knife review that was very neutral in tone I might see it as negative at first due to the shock. I would very much like to get a copy of knifeworld in order to read the review. I think there is a big problem with reviewing knives in a magazine, because if a maker submits a knife and the review is no good the maker will be pissed as will the people who bought the makers knives. If this happened on several occasions, no one would let their products be reviewed. Then the magazine is out of business. I would love to see real unbiased reveiws of knives. I think most magazines have an agenda to promote the products they review, and foster good relations with makers and production companies. I also feel that it will have to stay that way for the knife mags to survive.
Kyle Fuglesten
Kyle Fuglesten
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 3,148
Instead of "Custom Camp Knives" this article should have been entitled "Custom Hatchet Job".
Maybe the arrogance of the tester and the naivete of the editor are a bad combination?
Maybe the arrogance of the tester and the naivete of the editor are a bad combination?
- Joined
- May 9, 2000
- Messages
- 29,205
Kile, Knife World is not sold on news stands as far as I know. There may be some knife shops that sell it, I am not sure. If you want to check out Knife World, they offer a free trial on their web site.
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
The question was asked, with the answer obvious to illustrate the bias present. It is no more unreasonable to send back a sharper than average knife than one which is blunter than average.
As soon as the outcome of a test influences if it will be made public or not this indicates a very strong bias. As you are letting your own desire to either promote the knife or some competition dictate what is written.
Again, not arguing the tone of the review as I have not read it, just some of the other points made. It is easily possible for a knife to be very awkward and unbalanced with an uncomfortable grip in one persons hand, and the exact opposite in another.
There are of course ways to deal with this, have the knife looked at by a friend of different structure, ask the maker about use. At the very least bring out the point in the review about hand size, citing the grip and hand size of the reviewer.
However again this should be done for the opposite as well when performance is strongly positive. And yes I don't doubt that some would not see as necessary, which makes a fairly obvious point.
-Cliff
As soon as the outcome of a test influences if it will be made public or not this indicates a very strong bias. As you are letting your own desire to either promote the knife or some competition dictate what is written.
Again, not arguing the tone of the review as I have not read it, just some of the other points made. It is easily possible for a knife to be very awkward and unbalanced with an uncomfortable grip in one persons hand, and the exact opposite in another.
There are of course ways to deal with this, have the knife looked at by a friend of different structure, ask the maker about use. At the very least bring out the point in the review about hand size, citing the grip and hand size of the reviewer.
However again this should be done for the opposite as well when performance is strongly positive. And yes I don't doubt that some would not see as necessary, which makes a fairly obvious point.
-Cliff
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2001
- Messages
- 26,713
So are you saying that if you were conducting a test and a knife arrived dull you would start the test without contacting the maker? The bias of shipping the knife back to the maker for correction was your thought not mine.
(that was clearly my point - contacting never did I mention sending a knife back for the maker to correct. You brought up the point of sending the knife back before testing not I.)
Cliff please read the article and let me know what you think about the tone.
Another thread would be approprite for testing procedures.
(that was clearly my point - contacting never did I mention sending a knife back for the maker to correct. You brought up the point of sending the knife back before testing not I.)
Cliff please read the article and let me know what you think about the tone.
Another thread would be approprite for testing procedures.
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
I do various tests on the sharpness and cutting abilities of knives, I don't change these based on how well or poorly the maker has sharpened the knife. After the knife has dulled, it would be sharpened and the work repeated and expanded.
The initial sharpness would also be compared to other knives by that maker or manufacturer when possible to make a comment on variance. The edge would also be inspected under magnification a few ways to seek to determine just what was the problem with sharpening.
Most makers are contacted when a review starts asking specific details about the knife, mainly what was it intended to do, what were the design goals of various aspects, how is it best used, etc. .
Makers are also often contacted during the review if something really unexpected happens, and contacted by email when the review is made public on Bladeforums.
If after reading a review a maker commented that something wasn't the expected behavior this would be added to the review. If they wanted to offer alterations to the design, this would be included as well.
If they actually wanted to be involved with the review from the start and go over the result of every test I would do this as well. Some do, some don't.
However no, if a knife arrived dull, I would not simply send the knife back to the maker and have it reworked and not comment on the initial conditons. There are many reasons why this is not a good way to present an independent unbiased opinion.
Consider you have worked with a maker for awhile and know his sharpening skill, then one day for whatever reason, he really hits the job right on and his edge is screaming sharp, far sharper than he has done before.
Upon testing the sharpness for a review do you immediately contact the maker and ask for him to redo the edge because it was sharper than he usually does, and probably sharper than he will ever do again. Do you fail to comment that his other knives were not this sharp.
Again I am not commenting on the tone, the guy might very well be a yob. However if english isn't his first language, he could come off very strong when not intended. Though the editor should be able to deal with that.
I have no access to the article, in fact no store around here carries knife magazines of any kind.
-Cliff
The initial sharpness would also be compared to other knives by that maker or manufacturer when possible to make a comment on variance. The edge would also be inspected under magnification a few ways to seek to determine just what was the problem with sharpening.
Most makers are contacted when a review starts asking specific details about the knife, mainly what was it intended to do, what were the design goals of various aspects, how is it best used, etc. .
Makers are also often contacted during the review if something really unexpected happens, and contacted by email when the review is made public on Bladeforums.
If after reading a review a maker commented that something wasn't the expected behavior this would be added to the review. If they wanted to offer alterations to the design, this would be included as well.
If they actually wanted to be involved with the review from the start and go over the result of every test I would do this as well. Some do, some don't.
However no, if a knife arrived dull, I would not simply send the knife back to the maker and have it reworked and not comment on the initial conditons. There are many reasons why this is not a good way to present an independent unbiased opinion.
Consider you have worked with a maker for awhile and know his sharpening skill, then one day for whatever reason, he really hits the job right on and his edge is screaming sharp, far sharper than he has done before.
Upon testing the sharpness for a review do you immediately contact the maker and ask for him to redo the edge because it was sharper than he usually does, and probably sharper than he will ever do again. Do you fail to comment that his other knives were not this sharp.
Again I am not commenting on the tone, the guy might very well be a yob. However if english isn't his first language, he could come off very strong when not intended. Though the editor should be able to deal with that.
I have no access to the article, in fact no store around here carries knife magazines of any kind.
-Cliff
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2001
- Messages
- 26,713
Cliff, my minor point was that if a knife arrived dull I would contact the maker. (I still do not know if what your opinion would be on that action.)
Cliff please focus, I do not understand why you are bringing up points that I have not alluded to. (Your points on keeping a test unbiased are quite obvious to me and I agree with them - get it.)
You are the one who mentioned sending the knife back to the maker for correction. Yes that would be biased and would compromise the integrity of the test (shipping the knife back to the maker for correction not.) Please understand that I agree with you on that point and that is not a reversal of anything I have stated. (you are beating this obvious point into the ground and I never brought it up). I also agree and have all along that initial sharpness should be a part of the review.
From what I understand the maker was never directly contacted after the knives arrived. As a matter of fact when the test was completed the knives were not even shipped back directly to the maker.
Simple yes or no question stated again. - If the knife arrived dull would it be proper to contact the maker? To be honest I think it is a legit question and I am not sure what would be the correct thing to do.
(Please notice the word contact (it does not mean ship the knife back to the maker for correction which is a conclusion you have jumped to without any support on my part.) That is the point I originally made and you still have not addressed it.
I am not talking about changing the test to suite a maker or a knife (again your introduction into this discussion.) Yes it is quite obvious that the action would undermine the integrity of the testing.
(Again I never brought that up, you did.)
Another yes or no question. A test knife was not performing well at all would you discontine the testing of that particular knife or put it down in the middle of the test. (This happened on another makers knife.)
This thread is not about obvious actions that compromise a test. It is about the tone that should be used in conveying negative aspects of a test in the results!
I have seen you convey negative aspects in your testing very well. Presenting facts and in a tone that was constructive, but this thread is not about you and your techniques nor is it a basing of knife testers. (although I am begining to doubt your ability to focus on an issue
). The only problems I have ever seen on your a few of your conslusions have been when you have taken things on paper and applied them as fact when I know better.
P.S. (my opinion) a subscription to Knife World offers more unbiased informationa than any other knife publication that I am aware of and the price is quite reasonable.
Cliff please focus, I do not understand why you are bringing up points that I have not alluded to. (Your points on keeping a test unbiased are quite obvious to me and I agree with them - get it.)
You are the one who mentioned sending the knife back to the maker for correction. Yes that would be biased and would compromise the integrity of the test (shipping the knife back to the maker for correction not.) Please understand that I agree with you on that point and that is not a reversal of anything I have stated. (you are beating this obvious point into the ground and I never brought it up). I also agree and have all along that initial sharpness should be a part of the review.
From what I understand the maker was never directly contacted after the knives arrived. As a matter of fact when the test was completed the knives were not even shipped back directly to the maker.
Simple yes or no question stated again. - If the knife arrived dull would it be proper to contact the maker? To be honest I think it is a legit question and I am not sure what would be the correct thing to do.
(Please notice the word contact (it does not mean ship the knife back to the maker for correction which is a conclusion you have jumped to without any support on my part.) That is the point I originally made and you still have not addressed it.
I am not talking about changing the test to suite a maker or a knife (again your introduction into this discussion.) Yes it is quite obvious that the action would undermine the integrity of the testing.
(Again I never brought that up, you did.)
Another yes or no question. A test knife was not performing well at all would you discontine the testing of that particular knife or put it down in the middle of the test. (This happened on another makers knife.)
This thread is not about obvious actions that compromise a test. It is about the tone that should be used in conveying negative aspects of a test in the results!
I have seen you convey negative aspects in your testing very well. Presenting facts and in a tone that was constructive, but this thread is not about you and your techniques nor is it a basing of knife testers. (although I am begining to doubt your ability to focus on an issue
). The only problems I have ever seen on your a few of your conslusions have been when you have taken things on paper and applied them as fact when I know better.P.S. (my opinion) a subscription to Knife World offers more unbiased informationa than any other knife publication that I am aware of and the price is quite reasonable.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 1998
- Messages
- 2,598
Mark, with all respect it would be very hard to validate the testing via video. Way out of character for John, and makes me raise a very suspicious eyebrow to say the least.
I enjoyed the Camp Knife tests that were done years ago by the same author, and im looking forward to reading the current "at issue" test.
Wonder how they performed in the famous French "sand drop" test.
I enjoyed the Camp Knife tests that were done years ago by the same author, and im looking forward to reading the current "at issue" test.
Wonder how they performed in the famous French "sand drop" test.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2001
- Messages
- 26,713
Well said Keith and Golok! Mark and I have been discussing this pleasantly behind the scenes a little. I know for a fact that I can not fathom the number of levels Mark had to deal with and he had to seperate his function as an editor from his close friendship with John.
I am still struggling with my interpretaion of the tone of the article.
(as well as trying to get Cliff to focus on what I posted rather on what he thinks I posted)
.
I am still struggling with my interpretaion of the tone of the article.
(as well as trying to get Cliff to focus on what I posted rather on what he thinks I posted)
.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2001
- Messages
- 1,152
Hey All,
I tried to get a copy of the article before replying but haven't been able to find one. I have subscribed for the free trail peroid, thanks for the link Keith.
I do own a 10" bladed competition style knife John made about three years ago. My own impressions are that the handle is shaped quite well and offers a comfortable and secure grip. It has a comfortable rounded guard. It's very light-weight for it's size, and is a great chopping blade. It's sharp enough to shave hair, but being designed as a chopper, it does sacrifice a bit of it's cutting ability for strength. I would say it wouldn't function very well for any kind of prying, for those who would be inclined to use their blades in such a manner. IMO, it's weight makes it especially useful for a hiker and it would offer good protection against wild dogs or other critters as well as being useful for normal camp chores.
Not having read the review I can't comment on the author's tone. I do feel that everyone has their own ideas on design and how a knife should function, so someone writing a review would naturally be inclined to favor knives made by a maker with those same ideas, without bias necessarily having to be present. Also, if English isn't the author's native tongue, there's the possibility his review seemed more harsh than he intended.
-Jose
I tried to get a copy of the article before replying but haven't been able to find one. I have subscribed for the free trail peroid, thanks for the link Keith.
I do own a 10" bladed competition style knife John made about three years ago. My own impressions are that the handle is shaped quite well and offers a comfortable and secure grip. It has a comfortable rounded guard. It's very light-weight for it's size, and is a great chopping blade. It's sharp enough to shave hair, but being designed as a chopper, it does sacrifice a bit of it's cutting ability for strength. I would say it wouldn't function very well for any kind of prying, for those who would be inclined to use their blades in such a manner. IMO, it's weight makes it especially useful for a hiker and it would offer good protection against wild dogs or other critters as well as being useful for normal camp chores.
Not having read the review I can't comment on the author's tone. I do feel that everyone has their own ideas on design and how a knife should function, so someone writing a review would naturally be inclined to favor knives made by a maker with those same ideas, without bias necessarily having to be present. Also, if English isn't the author's native tongue, there's the possibility his review seemed more harsh than he intended.
-Jose
