Knifemakers Guild / Shackleford / Terzuola

DaveH said:
I think the arguments made by Chuck Bybee, RJj Martin and Bob Terzuola are quiet persuasive.

It makes rational sense that I can get a better quality knife, at a lower price, and better support a knife maker because they use their intellectual ability to streamline production.

Unless of course people want to buy knives based on goofy mystical qualities such as "soul", "exclusivity" or romantic ideal of a lone knife maker against the world kind of thing.

Sweat equity is a nice antiquated concept, but the handmade requirements rather then help the knife maker, limit their ability to earn a living and stifles creativity.
Click to expand...

Dave,

It would really be time for you to stop the discussion of custom knives, and go play with your Sebenza's.:D

Terzuola, and Martin knives? Got 'em...love 'em, they are great....and they are at the affordable end of the spectrum.

Are they "BETTER" than the sole authorship pieces that I own, where the maker DOES make the screws? Well, that depends upon what your definition of "better" is. I like the Terzuola and Martin knives because, due to price and numbers produced, as well as methods used....I CAN and DO use the knives, without reservations.

My "one of a kind" knives that cost 4 figures tend to be admired for the happy meeting of craftsmanship and art that they are....they also, generally speaking, from a financial sense, offer better ROI, and sell a scosh quicker....not all of them, mind you, but the really tasty ones.....comparing, say, a medium Cashen bowie, to a Martin Japanese fighter or Terzuola medium fighter....that is my experience, and have bought and sold all of these knives.

People buy knives all day long based upon those "goofy" qualities that you mentioned, and they are happy to do so.

Insulting and denigrating people for doing so in a custom forum is not "wicked schmaht" it is frankly, something that a jealous and spiteful 14 year old who needs to get laid would do. Great Job!

GFU,

STeven Garsson
 
Bob Terzuola

“Bottom line? I believe that the Guild should not micro-manage how a maker crafts his knives or what manner of knives a customer must expect from a Guild member. I believe that the market place alone should dictate the success or failure of a craftsman and that he or she must be open and forthright with the customer as to how those knives were made.

I further believe that the customer, informed with an honest and complete assessment of the makers' skills and techniques, should be able to decide for himself which knives he will buy and which he will reject.”

R.J. Martin

“Machines don't make the knives. Knifemakers make the knives. Machines can help make better knives, but, ultimately it is the dedication, drive and skill of the knifemaker that pulls it all together.”

That about sums it up for me personally. Any association with “The Guild” has no relevance for me. I buy the knife and I buy the maker. I expect honesty from both.
 
I have not expressed my opinion one way or another.

Some people viewed my questions as too complicated. The questions I wrote are part of the thought process I went through to develop my opinions.

Examples:

If I think it is OK to have an assistant do work in the knifemakers shop then I cannot have a problem having work performed outside the shop. Help is help regardless of whom is providing the help. The type of work is irrelevant.

If I think having parts made by CNC equipment outside the shop is OK, I cannot have a problem with CNC equipment in the shop. The part being made or process being performed is irrelevant.

If I define sole authorship as the knife being made by a knifemaker, all parts and processes must be accomplished by the knifemaker. No parts and or process involved in making the knife can be accomplished by anyone but the knifemaker.

Sole authorship is a slippery slope that can go to a ridiculous level. My definition is very limited. The exception I make for sole authorship is steel but does not include damascus. If a billet of steel was made at a hammer-in by a group of knifemakers, it cannot be used in a sole authorship knife. If a collector provides a part or material that was made by someone else, the knife is not sole authorship.

Wood and ivory is easy for me to define sole authorship rules. Having a knifemaker fall the tree or find the mammoth tusk does not add value to the material. Having the material professionally stabilized outside their shop crosses the line and cannot be used on a sole authorship knife. Having sambar stag professionally dyed amber also crosses the sole authorship line.

The downside of sole authorship is when the quality of a knife is not as high as it could be if parts and/or processes are accomplished by experts outside the knifemakers shop. The collector has the final say in deciding if sole authorship is something they want.

At one time the Knifemakers Guild felt the need to draw a line. My opinion as to where the line is drawn irrelevant. What the Guild now has to decide, if a line needs to be drawn.

If yes:
- Where is the line
- Why is the line is drawn where it is
- If drawing the line will help or hinder the organization

As a collector I want to know:
- Who did what processes
- Where did the materials come from

I think Keith is an example of someone who has written his opinion and is consistent in regards to processes and parts. I’d like to read other people detailed opinions and why they have their opinion. My intent is to test my opinions to determine if I’ve thought through the issues.
 
Being one of the Harry's(as in Tom, Dick and Harry) in the world, successful at three of the four tasks assigned above to qualify for an informed opinion and a probationary member of the Knifemakers Guild, I thought I would wade in here. I heard Bob T's request at the Guild meeting first hand. I didn't have a problem then or now with what he is doing and respect his ability at knife making and marketing. I also respect his method of handling a requested rule change. I think that the Guild was listening and I have no idea what the outcome will be. I don't think this is the only problem affecting the Guild and I am comfortable that other problems are being addressed as well.

As a probationary member I am in the process of attaining full membership in the Guild. As a partner in the knifemaking team of Twin Blades, I am required by the Guild to make an individual application for membership. This, according to the Guild, will assure that I am capable of making a knife that is up to the standards established by the Guild for membership. Included is a detailed description of the process I use to make knives, the way I conduct my business, a separate brochure of my knives, and having an individual table at the Guild Show. This process was completed by the other half of Twin Blades Charlie (First Twin) this past July. It has not been easy to complete because it is difficult to separate the knives in our normal shop process as to which was made by who, but it is an application process that Charlie and I both support completely. The Guild has been very informative and helpful in every step of the way. I can’t address what happened in the past to others, but the experience of applying for membership in the Guild has been a great one for me. At every step along the way the Guild members have been knowledgeable, and helpful. Some of the members that judged my knives along the way I now consider friends. Gil Hibben and Don Lozier judged my knives for my probationary membership. Hell, I knew who they were. I introduced myself to them. Both were gracious and complimentary of my work. We talked at length about my knives while they examined each one. They asked about how I did certain tasks, why I designed certain aspects of each knife and how I conduct myself in the knifemaking business. Sitting there talking about my knives with these two masters of the craft is an experience I'll never forget. Later at the Guild Show the directors and many of the members made a point to come by my table look at my knives and welcome me to the Guild. The experience has been very rewarding to me and I would encourage any knifemaker to give it a shot. I think that you will be glad that you did.

I don’t know what Knifemakers Guild membership means to collectors or knife buying customers. For me, I was always more comfortable doing business with a member of the Knifemakers Guild because of the process the maker went through to attain that membership. I hope that it means the same to others today. From the process that I am going through I think that it should. Knifemakers Guild membership is a goal that I established for myself years ago and it isn’t easy to get. Membership in the Knifemakers Guild, or the ABS for that matter, indicates to me that the maker has placed himself, his work and his business practices up for judgment by his peers and has been approved. I do believe that the Guild has the responsibility to ensure that its members are working at levels that meet the Guild standards of quality, construction and most of all that the knifemaker is honest about how he makes his knives. I don’t have a problem with those standards being revisited from time to time or the work I do being reviewed either.
 
Chuck Bybee said:
If I think it is OK to have an assistant do work in the knifemakers shop then I cannot have a problem having work performed outside the shop. Help is help regardless of whom is providing the help. The type of work is irrelevant.

If I think having parts made by CNC equipment outside the shop is OK, I cannot have a problem with CNC equipment in the shop. The part being made or process being performed is irrelevant.

If I define sole authorship as the knife being made by a knifemaker, all parts and processes must be accomplished by the knifemaker. No parts and or process involved in making the knife can be accomplished by anyone but the knifemaker.

Sole authorship is a slippery slope that can go to a ridiculous level. My definition is very limited. The exception I make for sole authorship is steel but does not include damascus. If a billet of steel was made at a hammer-in by a group of knifemakers, it cannot be used in a sole authorship knife. If a collector provides a part or material that was made by someone else, the knife is not sole authorship.

Wood and ivory is easy for me to define sole authorship rules. Having a knifemaker fall the tree or find the mammoth tusk does not add value to the material. Having the material professionally stabilized outside their shop crosses the line and cannot be used on a sole authorship knife. Having sambar stag professionally dyed amber also crosses the sole authorship line.

The downside of sole authorship is when the quality of a knife is not as high as it could be if parts and/or processes are accomplished by experts outside the knifemakers shop. The collector has the final say in deciding if sole authorship is something they want.

I’d like to read other people detailed opinions and why they have their opinion. My intent is to test my opinions to determine if I’ve thought through the issues.
Click to expand...

1. Chuck....I think assistants in the shop are ok....the type of work IS relevant, and it is NOT synonymous with outsourcing large parts to be produced outside the shop. The issue is one of accountability. I want the maker to know what was done to their parts, because they made them.

a. I will make allowances for lasering or watercutting of blades if of an unusual shape, or what is commonly agreed to as "mid tech", in other words, a benchmade or semi-custom knife...price must be proportionally lower.

2. I want the maker or assistant to be operating the CNC machinery. I have, and assume you have, operated CNC machinery, and know what can go wrong. It again, goes back to accountability. I want the maker to KNOW how their parts got made, not THINK they know it.

3. My definition of sole authorship is that the maker, in the case of damascus, makes the damascus. In stainless or carbon steel, that the maker orders the steel from a reputable source, with proper documentation, and cuts out the blade, heat treats it(with stainless, a Bos or similar treat is acceptable because we want ACCOUNTABILITY, and some of these SS can be a bitch), grinds it, and sharpens it. Any unusual materials(damascus, mokume, wrought iron) will be made by the maker. There will be no assistants on a sole authorship blade. Wood and other handle materials will be sourced/selected by the maker, but that is the sole requirement, as far as that goes.

4. The reason that you pay more for a sole authorship by Don Fogg or Kevin Cashen is myriad, but the biggie is that , there will not be another one just like it. It will most likely be as unique as you are. There is something to be said about that, it is not romantic or "cute", it either works for you , and is important to you, or is not.

5. I will take note of a makers' membership in the Guild or ABS, but doesn't influence my buying a knife one way or another. It is however, something of note, and something that I do respect. Hard to put yourself out there like that amongst your peers.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
In response to one of the original questions, whether or not someone is a Guild member does not influence my buying one way or another. I have knives made by at least one Guild member, Chuck Gedraitis, but the fact that he was a member (I believe he was probationary when I first got a knife from him, now he's voting) didn't make a difference to me. The reasons for that are, first, that I liked his work a lot after seeing and handling it, decided I'd like to have him make me a knife, and, second, at that time I did not know what the Guild membership meant in terms of standards met and such, so I couldn't be influenced by some designation of which I had no understanding. I have a better understanding of it now than I previously did, but how much I might like a particular knife doesn't come, in any part, from a maker's Guild membership or lack thereof. I don't wish for any members to take that as denigrating or diminishing their membership, because I'm only judging, and potentially purchasing, the knife for myself. I can appreciate the judging of a maker's work and practices by their peers, but I find it more helpful to talk directly to other makers and ask their opinions rather than go by the standards of an organization that may or may not coincide with how I feel about knives and knifemaking.
 
Steven I don't find your arguments persuasive at all, are you surprised. :)

So back to the original question, I do not know nor do I care if a knife maker is a member of the knifemakers guild.
 
DaveH said:
Steven I don't find your arguments persuasive at all, are you surprised. :)

.
Click to expand...


No, I am not, Dave. SOMEONE had to assume the "Cleft Stump" role, it might as well be you, you have always been simultaneously intelligent, and dense as a lead turd.

At least you're American.:rolleyes:

Hey, some are bound to ponder these questions all day long, I would rather buy custom knives(or something resembling such, to a large degree)

STeven Garsson
 
I am a 25year voting member(joined when the show was still in K.C.) Any and all rules have been voted on by members and the rules that keep him from attending were voted on while he was on tbe board. Bob voted to keep makers out of the Guild without totaly checking into things and they wern't out sourcing any of their work,they had two operations going. One of the operations did have employes but the maker was submitting his own one off custom knives a Bob voted against hiim. I don't feel sorry that a simi manufacturing plant can't display at the Guild Show but the rules are the rules
 
Kohai999 said:
...

4. The reason that you pay more for a sole authorship by Don Fogg or Kevin Cashen is myriad, but the biggie is that , there will not be another one just like it. It will most likely be as unique as you are. There is something to be said about that, it is not romantic or "cute", it either works for you , and is important to you, or is not.

...

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
Click to expand...

There is a lot of heavy reading in this thread, and a lot of valid points made. But, of everything posted, Steven's #4 comment stands out as why I stay interested in collecting knives. That is what works for me.

- Joe
 
canineforge said:
There is a lot of heavy reading in this thread, and a lot of valid points made. But, of everything posted, Steven's #4 comment stands out as why I stay interested in collecting knives. That is what works for me.

- Joe
Click to expand...

I agree Joe,STeven. That about says it ALL.
 
Rj,
I make between 50-60 folding knives a year. When I hear that a maker comes to a show with 30 + folders I think that is a lot, especially since it is half of my total production for the year!

I think that the number of knives a maker brings to a show could have a bearing on the quality. If your cranking them out whose to say corners aren't being cut somewhere. Maybe a lock drifts over a little more on one knife than another, or the detent is a little sloppy.
If they are made one at a time, even if they are not one off's, more attention to detail can be spent on each knife, making a better knife. I'm not saying that it's can't be done, but I'm sure it is a lot of work, especially keeping everything organized.

Isn't that what we are all striving for, to make a better knife than the last one we built? I am!

If you work 16hr days, 7 days a week, when do you have time to fish?
 
Very interesting thread! It is hard to tell just where the Guild is heading at any given time. My experience when attempting to join the Guild was the exact opposite of RJ's. When I placed my knives up for judging, they looked at them for quite a long time. I knew I was in!!!

The very next day I was in for a huge disappointment. I was not to be admitted in. The why was the shocking part. I had a very impressive list of signers. I know that you only need three or four, but there were a lot of makers that had been trying to talk me into joining for years. Here is a List from top to bottom of the signers recommending my admittance into the Guild for probationary membership.

James B Lile
Harvey McBernett
Jim Serven
George Herron
D'Alton Holder-D'Holder
Norman Levine
Richard Browny
Wane Clay
Leon "the worm Pittman
Bob Terzuola
Ron Richard
Buster Warenski
Jim Pugh
Wayne Hensly
and a couple more that I can no longer make out in the photo of the application.

The reason given for my non acceptance was simple. I was told by the three members judging my knives that the Guild was not interested in having any more "Using knife makers" There were too many already. I should go home and learn to make "Art Knives". Man, this hurt. I am not interested now or then in making Art Knives. Nothing wrong with making them, Just not what turns me on.

This was in 1987. The Judges were The Guild President, DR. Fred
Carter, along with Billy Mace Imel, and Jim Sornberger.

There were only two makers allowed in that year. Wolfgang Lorchner-Well deserved, and the nephew as I understand it of Carter. George Herron and Jimmy Lile fought on my behalf in the business meeting, but t no avail. They're type of knives were not respected by these board members any more than mine was.

I learned much later that Bob Loveless himself, one of the, if not the founder of the Guild had already left for the very same reason.

I learned latter that a large Art Dagger make by one of the afore mentioned gentlemen was dropped in a prestigious show. The blade tip supposedly bent around on it's self. In explanation, the Famous maker said that he didn't have a lot of his Art Knife blades heat treated, as it caused too much warpage. Too much trouble. He was at the top of the pecking order. You rarely hear his name mentioned anymore. Some time what goes around, comes around.

I have several Top Guild Members encouraging me to go back and join. But I have no tolerance for Politics. If it ever changes, Maybe. But it will be a cold day in hell before I join as a probationary member. Not with what I have been through with the Guild. Not to mention over 30 years experience and teaching countless new makers how to make knives. Some who have gone on to become the Biggies of the Business.
Thanks for signature all those years ago Bob Terzuola. And Steven thinks I don't know how lucky I am! You have no Idea what I've gone through in this business. It's been a very long and at times hard road. But I still enjoy it every day.

For what it's worth, I think Bob Loveless and Jim Merritt would just about dis-own me if I joined. Very sad, as the Guild came from his fertile mine in the first place! Mike Lovett
 
Michael Lovett said:
Very interesting thread! It is hard to tell just where the Guild is heading at any given time. My experience when attempting to join the Guild was the exact opposite of RJ's. When I placed my knives up for judging, they looked at them for quite a long time. I knew I was in!!!

The very next day I was in for a huge disappointment. I was not to be admitted in. The why was the shocking part. I had a very impressive list of signers. I know that you only need three or four, but there were a lot of makers that had been trying to talk me into joining for years. Here is a List from top to bottom of the signers recommending my admittance into the Guild for probationary membership.

James B Lile
Harvey McBernett
Jim Serven
George Herron
D'Alton Holder-D'Holder
Norman Levine
Richard Browny
Wane Clay
Leon "the worm Pittman
Bob Terzuola
Ron Richard
Buster Warenski
Jim Pugh
Wayne Hensly
and a couple more that I can no longer make out in the photo of the application.

The reason given for my non acceptance was simple. I was told by the three members judging my knives that the Guild was not interested in having any more "Using knife makers" There were too many already. I should go home and learn to make "Art Knives". Man, this hurt. I am not interested now or then in making Art Knives. Nothing wrong with making them, Just not what turns me on.

This was in 1987. The Judges were The Guild President, DR. Fred
Carter, along with Billy Mace Imel, and Jim Sornberger.

There were only two makers allowed in that year. Wolfgang Lorchner-Well deserved, and the nephew as I understand it of Carter. George Herron and Jimmy Lile fought on my behalf in the business meeting, but t no avail. They're type of knives were not respected by these board members any more than mine was.

I learned much later that Bob Loveless himself, one of the, if not the founder of the Guild had already left for the very same reason.

I learned latter that a large Art Dagger make by one of the afore mentioned gentlemen was dropped in a prestigious show. The blade tip supposedly bent around on it's self. In explanation, the Famous maker said that he didn't have a lot of his Art Knife blades heat treated, as it caused too much warpage. Too much trouble. He was at the top of the pecking order. You rarely hear his name mentioned anymore. Some time what goes around, comes around.

I have several Top Guild Members encouraging me to go back and join. But I have no tolerance for Politics. If it ever changes, Maybe. But it will be a cold day in hell before I join as a probationary member. Not with what I have been through with the Guild. Not to mention over 30 years experience and teaching countless new makers how to make knives. Some who have gone on to become the Biggies of the Business.
Thanks for signature all those years ago Bob Terzuola1 And Steven thinks I don't know how lucky I am! You have no Idea what I've gone through in this business. It's been a very long and at time hard road. But I still enjoy it every day.

For what it's worth, I think bob Loveless and Jim Merritt would just about dis-own me if I joined. Very sad, as the Guild came from his fertile mine in the first place! Mike Lovett
Click to expand...

VERY interesting story. I find it quite ironic that they wouldn't let you in because you made users when you had the signature of Buster Warenski, the king of art knives, on your application. I know that in the early 90's, the Guild Show in Orlando was still a rather huge affair. When I attended my next one in 2005 back in Orlando.......well, you know the rest of the story. I wonder what the policy on admitting "user" makers is today? We know what the new policy on admitting ABS Master Smiths without a probationary period is. It would be an interesting and probably futile exercise to see what would happen if you asked to be admitted to the voting membership based on your "wrongly denied" application from 1987 and your subsequent work.....lol.
As for the story about the art dagger, I find that at least as troubling as you do. Some of us have discussed the proposition on this forum that all knives should be suitable for their intended purpose (cutting) no mater how "artistic" they aspire to be. To my mind, a policy that excludes makers based on some perceived "artistic" standard as opposed to a more general standard of quality does NOT promote the business of knifemaking to a large audience, but merely promotes the works of a select few makers to the equally limited and rather fickled market of high end collectors. Contrast this with the ABS. While some may have valid complaints about how the organization does certain things, general inclusiveness is not one of them. You join and that is the extent of it. The opportunities provided by the ABS you choose to avail yourself to do once you join is up to you. The net result is that the ABS, once a tiny little subgroup that arose out of the Guild now has what? 1500-1600 dues paying members?
 
I agree with Kohai99 assessment but with a few twists. I think a knifemaker should heat treat his own knives on sole authorship. This step is too important to be shopped out. For me, on any kind of knife, if a maker doesn't do his heat treat, that can and has been a deal breaker.

Full disclosure is necessary for me to buy a knife. Like Kohai99, I respect Guild membership but it is not a deal make/break issue. It doesn't add monetary value to the knife for me. If a maker uses subcontractors, I expect the price savings to be passed on to me. In other words, the more hand work, the more sole authorship, the more I'll pay. I pay more if the wood, bone, antler was harvested and treated by the maker, but it is not a deal breaker.

I think the use of shop assistants is an area where a lot of makers do not practice full disclosure. If I was a knife maker, and used assistants, the knife would be marked to indicate a shop knife. If you don't, you are not respecting the shop staff. I'd save my name for use only on sole authorship pieces. If I made a piece and had it engraved, I'd want the engraver's mark worked into the engraving...a sign of respect and truth. If I outsourced a sheath, I'd want the sheathmaker's mark on it.

I literally stumbled into my first knife show ever as a young man in the 1980s in Kansas City. Up to that point my knife collection consisted of blades my uncle, a NY cop, "collected" for me. I was enthralled by the show and it lit my fire for knives. At that time what impressed me the most was the variety of knives and prices. Everything from $100 users to thousands of dollar art knives. IMHO the guild should foster a base level of profesionalism and allow any maker who meets the standards enter irrespective of the kind of knives they make. Full disclosure is the secret.
 
I always know if a maker is a member of the ABS and it is something I consider when making a purchasing decision. Being a member of the Guild is irrelevant to me. I have never even thought about it when checking out a maker.
 
Keith Montgomery said:
I always know if a maker is a member of the ABS and it is something I consider when making a purchasing decision. Being a member of the Guild is irrelevant to me. I have never even thought about it when checking out a maker.
Click to expand...

Hey Keith....I'm a member of the ABS;):thumbup: Okay, okay......not a very talented one but a member nonetheless, so write that down somewhere for future reference:D
 
I am a new probationary member of the Guild as of the last guild meeting and show in July. The knives I presented for inspection were closely examined by 3 voting Guild members. Athough they did point out some areas that I need to work on, they determined that overall my work was worthy of probationary status. This thread is the first and only time that I have ever heard any mention of "users" vs "art knives" as a condition of Guild membership. The knives I presented certainly were not art knives.

As for the matter of handmade knives, I think new technology must be embraced to a degree. Not allowing new technology and tools retards the advancement of design and construction in my opinion. As far as I am concerned, it makes absolutley no difference to me whether a blank was cut by hand with a hacksaw or angle grinder, on a bandsaw, or laser cut by a machine. I can't see how it would make any difference in the quality of the finished product. I know I hate spending time standing at a bandsaw and would love to have a machine cut blanks to my design if I could afford it.

Likewise, I don't see buying Damascus billets from another maker as being a problem anymore than buying any other raw material to be used in the making of the knife.

I don't have a problem with the maker outsourcing heat treating or stabilization. I think it may even be preferable in some cases. I have not yet invested in a heat treating oven. I have my blades heat treated by Gil Hibben and I am confident that the heat treatment is done right and probably better than I would have done. I don't think any educated collector would have a problem buying any knife that was heat treated by Paul Bos or any number of other reputable craftsmen. Few custom makers are going to invest the time and money in a stabilization setup that would compare to those experts that have been doing on a large scale for years.

In my opinion there 3 things that make a knife unique to the maker:

1. The blade is hand ground by the maker. This is where I would rule out CNC machining. I think the grind is the heart and soul of the knife and having a machine do it would not be accepable to me as a handmade knife. It is also where the "personality" of the knife is born. A machine can perfectly and exactly repeat an operaton over and over again. No two hand ground blades are going to be exactly alike and it the skill and experience of the maker to determine when it is right.

2. The handles, guards, pommels and any other main components of the knife are made by the maker regardless of what machinery was used to do so. Buying a bar of brass and milling a guard is a lot different than buying a pre-made guard.

3. The knife was assembled and finished by the maker. The fit and finish is one of the main criteria by which a knife judged and this where the skill and attention to detail of the maker shines through.

I think the hardest part to deal with is having an apprentice help in the shop. It is crucial to keep introducing and teaching new knifemakers the craft. There is no substitue for hands-on experience and learning from a master knifemaker. I would have no problem with a helper doing some of the grunt work like cutting blanks or doing some sanding or polishing as long as the 3 elements I described above were done by the person whose name is on the knife.

I think the Guild serves a real and good purpose for collectors and knifemakers alike. I hope it continues to serve as a model as it has for many years. All things changes with time and the Guild needs to occasionally change with the times. I do think that the Guild needs to do more to promote and inform the public about what the Guild logo means and that membership means that a knifemakers work has been judged by his peers as being of the high standards demanded by the Guild.

Anyway, that my 2 cents worth.
 
The guild is an irrelevant anachronism whose only achievement is a mediocre knife show in the florida off season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top