Whoever said anything about spring assisted, ceramic glass breakers and non-existent invisible Barlows?
My point was:
What changes or alterations might a Barlow have to undergo before you no longer consider it to be a Barlow I wonder, you appear to think it is an endless process of development? Would the inclusion of a spring-assist make a difference for example? How about a ceramic window-breaker? Surely, putting an end-cap on the knife is a small matter? At what point does it cease to be a Barlow and become something else, in your opinion?)
Im surprised you missed what I was alluding to with my reference to invisible Barlows (below), but I dont think it was missed by others. It was also an attempt to inject some levity into a debate which I thought was becoming a little fractious
I am beginning to suspect that there might be a market for an INVISIBLE Barlow! I'm sure I could get some made up, and they'd be very reasonably priced. And they'd come with whatever blades you'd like to have
The fact is Wharncliffes are one of the most common blades, found on all sorts of traditional knives
Compared to what? Ive mentioned this previously, you might be interested to read up on the history of the Wharncliffe KNIFE.
and some of the ridiculous things you mentioned have absolutely nothing to do with traditionals.
More ridiculous than changing the primary blade of a pattern and substituting a non-traditional (for that pattern) blade, originally designed for a quite different knife?
It is your contention that if a knife with a large bolster has a wharncliffe, it is disqualified from being classified as a Barlow.
This is what I said originally, and after weeks of reluctance to post on the subject:
I think that #77 Wharncliffe blade looks great, but I have to confess to whinceing every time i see it on a Barlow frame.
But, I dont consider a long-bolstered knife with a Wharncliffe knife to be a traditional Barlow, anymore than I consider Trevor Abletts long-bolstered Ettrick (of which I posted a photo earlier), or my long-bolstered Richards fishing knife (pic also posted) to be a Barlow.
I disagree with you, that's all.
I'm sorry Sugarleaf, but that doesn't seem to be all there is to it, you seem really angry about this, that your concept of a traditional knife might be challenged? It certainly seems like that from some of your phrasing.
From my reply to Cory Hess earlier:
Cory, Ill try and answer your post as best I can, but to some extent its a matter of personal taste. I dare say theres something knife-related you think looks wrong the same as the rest of us...
And apparently, so does Bill Howard, who has produced Wharncliffe Barlows, who I think holds a bit more sway than you do. I think maybe you should get in contact with Bill and tell him he's crapping on history.
I'm sorry you regard me as such an ignoramus Sugarleaf, but Id be very surprised if Bill Howard disagreed at all with what Ive said. Bill is not a poster here, and even if he was I would not make the offensive remark you suggest.
Im no Bernard Levine fan-boy, but I dont think theres any dispute among the informed members of this community that he is the singular best authority on traditional knife patterns. Indeed his book (Im referring to
Levines Guide To Knives & Their Values), which you say you have not read, and which I think you would find very informative, is the basis for what defines a traditional knife here (Good point BTW Deskil, youll have to ask Charlie). Bernard Levine IS a member here, he even has his own forum -
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/f...-Levine-s-Knife-Collecting-amp-Identification . His username is Bernard_levine:
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/member.php/109750-bernard_levine Im sure hed be very interested to discuss the Barlow pattern with you, and perhaps you would think his opinion on this matter more valid than my own.
What I hate to see is established members criticizing new posters, or even going so far as to literally say that they should post/read elsewhere, simply because they have a less stringent view of what qualifies a knife as fitting under a traditional name.
Im sorry for not quoting your post, which makes some very fair points, in full ALLHSS (other posters should refer back), but I just want to address this. If youre referring to my post below, you have misread it. Here it is in the context of what Sugarleaf posted previously:
We could be talking about anything that was something "new" at any point in time and there were people around to cry "foul" and resist change (or maybe not, because there weren't knife forums at the time and people didn't get so personally invested on the insignificant semantics of what to call a knife and had better things to do with their time, like putting their knife to real "hard-use" other than slicing apples to get a cool patina)
This is the TRADITIONAL knife forum, where the names of patterns and suchlike are not regarded as "insignificant semantics", and where we generally adhere to long-established tradition. If you find that all rather tedious, you'd probably find it more interesting elsewhere.
I have to say that if I had anticipated that my original post (quoted again below) would have led to my having to invest the next 24 hours explaining what I regard as some fairly basic knife knowledge, I would not have bothered to express an opinion.
I think that #77 Wharncliffe blade looks great, but I have to confess to whinceing every time i see it on a Barlow frame.
The obvious beauty of Charlies Barlows, and the fact that thanks to the likes of GEC, its now possible to very quickly accumulate a collection of contemporary traditional patterns if you have sufficient wealth, has indeed had an impact on our community here (its been discussed in Carls Lounge if anyone cares to look, and certainly elsewhere). We have attracted a large number of thoughtful intelligent posters, and some others. Problems have been caused for the mods because few new posters stray as far as the Forum Guidelines, and theres an ongoing problem with the commercialization of the forums by inappropriate posts. We have always had new posters here, but just not in such large numbers. It would be helpful if all of them read the forum guidelines before posting, and maybe read up a bit on traditional knives (theres plenty of good reading here) :thumbup:
As long as someone has an interest in traditional knives who cares if they call a knife by a name that it doesn't deserve? Show that they are not correct by citing Levine's and move on, especially if you are a long time poster and should represent the friendly nature of this forum. One of my first posts in this subforum developed into my defense of a Spyderco Squeak as a traditional knife, when now (not that long later) I would absolutely never consider it traditional and see why it is not. Someone who has a real interest in traditionals will learn, as I did. You wouldn't expect someone in any other area of interest to know every term and custom from the start, and it is not productive to shun someone for a lack of knowledge.
Fat lot of good quoting Levine has done me ALLHSS!
Made absolutely no difference! Whos HE?!
While the content of some of the posts here have been of concern to me, I think on the whole this has been a friendly discussion. As I recall you were shown a good deal of patience here as a new poster
I hope that I am doing the same with our newer posters now. If you posted about the Spyderco Squeak, then I hope you didnt get too irate when you were politely referred to the forum guidelines!
Posters here have always passed on their knowledge, and been generous in doing so, but I dont think its unreasonable for posters coming to the traditional knife sub-forum to at least have the basic knowledge of what a traditional knife is, and certainly not to have the arrogance to start challenging the whole concept of a traditional knife.
So, I hope no-one felt like I was being offensive in any way. If so, my apologies (especially Jack Black since my discussion was mostly with you this evening) Was just trying to learn and figure out the inconsistencies, that's all. We are all entitled to a viewpoint and opinion, and this horse has been beat pretty dead. Thanks folks...
Look forward to seeing more of you over the months and years to come Sugarleaf :thumbup:
Just thought I would share my photo of the Instagram post for the "blackandwhitechallenge" for knife enthusiasts, from the other day. I normally don't need to post so dang much to feed my own self esteem, but let's just call today, Black Sunday for me (Christmas shopping just started and more, Choice with a capital T, presents to myself are en route...bwahahaa) After missing some of the earlier thoughtful and intelligent posts in this thread, the hallmark on which the traditional subforums prides itself on, all this talk about "special reserve stock of unicorns", got me a little choked up, so I wanted to give a big thank you to all the REAL keepers of the tradition, who passed these on to me without the "additional charge", as they are much sought after. For anyone looking to add to their "unicorn" collection, I just want to say it's possible without you feeling the need to post all the time and having to kiss butt and be fake. Be real, respect garners respect and those that don't deserve it, shouldn't get it.
Nice Charlow collection Sugarleaf :thumbup: I know its getting rather long and unwieldly, and the same questions sometimes get repeated, but since youre clearly such a fan of Charlies Barlows, I really think that you would enjoy reading through the Traditional Barlow thread, theres a lot of information in there, and Charlies collection of old Barlows is worth visiting for in itself.
Respect is generally accorded to all posters here, so I hope that you will edit out some of the comments in your post above, which are disrespectful to other members. That, like your choice of knife, is to a large extent up to you :thumbup:
Jack
