Lets talk GEC!

birdsbeaks said:
I've actually wondered if it would be considered sacrilege to modify the guard in order to achieve a flatter presentation to a cutting board...

I'm planning on picking up an H40 in the Daybreak Camo when they start appearing - maybe I'll consider it again.
Click to expand...

If done carefully I don't think it would be bad. The only issue to consider is the ricasso of the blade itself also extends down past the tang so you can only bring the guard back so far.
 
Another dilemma: When GEC reverses their patterns, they often reverse the pattern numbers. I surmise that they might reverse the BF #34 to make a "Surveyor", but #43 is already taken!!! Railsplitter 1.jpg Railsplitter 2.jpg
The above knife, called a Rail Splitter by Schatt is actually a traditional Surveyor!! As you can see, the transition would be pretty much a no-brainer!! Just reverse the "frame"!!!
But what pattern number should it carry???
 
waynorth said:
Another dilemma: When GEC reverses their patterns, they often reverse the pattern numbers. I surmise that they might reverse the BF #34 to make a "Surveyor", but #43 is already taken!!!View attachment 2323033View attachment 2323035
The above knife, called a Rail Splitter by Schatt is actually a traditional Surveyor!! As you can see, the transition would be pretty much a no-brainer!! Just reverse the "frame"!!!
But what pattern number should it carry???
Click to expand...
View attachment 2323052
 
waynorth said:
Another dilemma: When GEC reverses their patterns, they often reverse the pattern numbers. I surmise that they might reverse the BF #34 to make a "Surveyor", but #43 is already taken!!!View attachment 2323033View attachment 2323035
The above knife, called a Rail Splitter by Schatt is actually a traditional Surveyor!! As you can see, the transition would be pretty much a no-brainer!! Just reverse the "frame"!!!
But what pattern number should it carry???
Click to expand...
Wow, the similarity in the handle shape is uncannily similar to the #34.

Before getting one in hand I questioned the utility of the "hump" but I've found that, as somebody mentioned in a thread on Swaybacks, when making cuts pulling in toward yourself - the way some folks cut off apple slices - that the hump gives a little extra purchase and therefore more control for finer work. I imagine in the above example, it would do the same just in the opposite direction.

Very classy knife.
 
Source : has been several at least one is on BF so if they want to chime in they are welcome. Reason: I was told was that they were very difficult to make and turned out to be a $ loser. Hope that is not the case and they make them again, along with the 79s.
 
Coinfolio said:
Source : has been several at least one is on BF so if they want to chime in they are welcome. Reason: I was told was that they were very difficult to make and turned out to be a $ loser. Hope that is not the case and they make them again, along with the 79s.
Click to expand...
So, that means they should be up on the production schedule by the end of the year, right? 🤣
 
The flippers are getting $500 plus for 98s, so why could'nt GEC make them and sell them for $2-300 if that's what they cost to build?
 
black mamba said:
The flippers are getting $500 plus for 98s, so why could'nt GEC make them and sell them for $2-300 if that's what they cost to build?
Click to expand...
Seems like it would be an unfortunate and reactionary approach for GEC to do anything based on the actions of online creeps.

I'd like a 98, but only on GEC's terms.
 
Well, I have no problem with them charging what they have to in order to make a profit. The market would certainly bear it.
 
black mamba said:
Well, I have no problem with them charging what they have to in order to make a profit. The market would certainly bear it.
Click to expand...
🤷

Could be wrong, but I don't believe this section of the forum is an appropriate place for a discussion on the economics of pocket knife manufacturing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top