Lets talk GEC!

I think both cover materials were very good choices. I'm glad he's using a different shield and grind than the Case/Bose Lanny's clip so that it's not a close reproduction.

I agree. I think it'll stand on its own reasonably well. He's been kicking this idea around since he did a video on the 74 Saddle Trapper back in February.

So I have a question regarding the Lanny's, and it isn't at all rhetorical - I really don't know the answer and would love to hear input. Here goes: at what point is the Lanny's Clip established enough to be considered a standard traditional pattern in its own right rather than just a proprietary design of Mr. Bose? I know that it has become fairly ubiquitous in the custom traditional world, but I'm not aware of a lot of production versions outside of the Case/Bose collaboration.

I'm not really thinking of intellectual property or trademark/patent concerns. I was thinking more about where the line is between tribute and ripoff. All of the traditional patterns that we know and love so well had to start somewhere.

Anyway, hope everyone is having a good morning.
 
So I have a question regarding the Lanny's, and it isn't at all rhetorical - I really don't know the answer and would love to hear input. Here goes: at what point is the Lanny's Clip established enough to be considered a standard traditional pattern in its own right rather than just a proprietary design of Mr. Bose? I know that it has become fairly ubiquitous in the custom traditional world, but I'm not aware of a lot of production versions outside of the Case/Bose collaboration.

I'm not really thinking of intellectual property or trademark/patent concerns. I was thinking more about where the line is between tribute and ripoff. All of the traditional patterns that we know and love so well had to start somewhere.

Anyway, hope everyone is having a good morning.

That's an excellent question. And views around here will probably vary considerably. I view it as being like a design patent, but with a handshake instead a piece of paper. So my bad answer is 14 years.
 
The simple answer is that the youtuber should pick up a phone and call Tony. To the my knowledge he didn't ask permission even when he interviewed him. Instead he seemed to use the discussion on price as a setup to market the knives that he was planning.

This is pretty much what I was hoping to avoid after the run of Zulus. But it is at least not using the same grind. I do have concerns that's coming next. I find it both frustrating and embarrassing. It makes collectors look completely self absorbed. And it could be very damaging to the hobby in many ways.

Social media has been the subject of a lot of news recently and I'm sure that we are all aware that it is a very powerful way of marketing ideas and products. Making a video that advertises a knife as a less expensive version of Tony Bose knife, is not marketing the knife on its own merits. It's clearly using the Bose name and pattern in the marketing of that knife.

Tony Bose is one of us, sitting on the porch. He's made years of contributions to discussion. He's shared his knowledge with aspiring knife makers and made a huge impact on custom knife making. The best have learned from him and made their own way, not just pump out replicas of Tony's work. Tony has led the way for traditional knife makers to collaborate with manufacturers as has been also done with modern knives. In that respect, his work with Case has been good for everyone --manufacturers, custom knife makers, and collectors. Dan Burke and Bill Ruple have had productive collaborations with Queen. All of this is only possible because of mutual trust and respect. If opportunists want to take advantage of this system, it may not last. I hope that his son Reese will pick up the collaboration with Case when his father retires so that it will continue for many more years. I hope that GEC will seek out collaborations with knife makers rather than just copy their work directly or through SFOs.

The name "Lanny's Clip" has no meaning without Tony Bose. Tony's friend saw Tony's new pattern and bought the first ten knives. It's a curved jack. Curved jacks have been around a long time. I've seen a two blade that is a dead ringer but smaller. I don't recall seeing a single blade that's an exact match.

Rebirthing old patterns is fine. Using the name "Tony Bose" in marketing and stealing patterns from custom knife makers is just lazy and disrespectful. Not cool. Innovate. Open a book. Look at old catalogs. There are literally thousands of old patterns waiting to be reborn.
 
Last edited:
Just to give some insight as to what the 74 with a single clip will look like, I had modified a BF 2012 to a single clip, so here's a preview. The 74 clip blade is also in GEC's What's Happening pics.







 
One of the interesting things about that example is that Charlie asked Tony Bose for permission to do the run. :thumbup:
 
Just to give some insight as to what the 74 with a single clip will look like, I had modified a BF 2012 to a single clip, so here's a preview. The 74 clip blade is also in GEC's What's Happening pics.


Love that one Bob! See, you are an innovator!
That bomb shield is GREAT! I wish they would use it more.
 
The simple answer is that the youtuber should pick up a phone and call Tony. To the my knowledge he didn't ask permission even when he interviewed him. Instead he seemed to use the discussion on price as a setup to market the knives that he was planning.

This is pretty much what I was hoping to avoid after the run of Zulus. But it is at least not using the same grind. I do have concerns that's coming next. I find it both frustrating and embarrassing. It makes collectors look completely self absorbed. And it could be very damaging to the hobby in many ways.

Social media has been the subject of a lot of news recently and I'm sure that we are all aware that it is a very powerful way of marketing ideas and products. Making a video that advertises a knife as a less expensive version of Tony Bose knife, is not marketing the knife on its own merits. It's clearly using the Bose name and pattern in the marketing of that knife.

Tony Bose is one of us, sitting on the porch. He's made years of contributions to discussion. He's shared his knowledge with aspiring knife makers and made a huge impact on custom knife making. The best have learned from him and made their own way, not just pump out replicas of Tony's work. Tony has led the way for traditional knife makers to collaborate with manufacturers as has been also done with modern knives. In that respect, his work with Case has been good for everyone --manufacturers, custom knife makers, and collectors. Dan Burke and Bill Ruple have had productive collaborations with Queen. All of this is only possible because of mutual trust and respect. If opportunists want to take advantage of this system, it may not last. I hope that his son Reese will pick up the collaboration with Case when his father retires so that it will continue for many more years. I hope that GEC will seek out collaborations with knife makers rather than just copy their work directly or through SFOs.

The name "Lanny's Clip" has no meaning without Tony Bose. Tony's friend saw Tony's new pattern and bought the first ten knives. It's a curved jack. Curved jacks have been around a long time. I've seen a two blade that is a dead ringer but smaller. I don't recall seeing a single blade.

Rebirthing old patterns is fine. Using the name "Tony Bose" in marketing and stealing patterns from custom knife makers is just lazy and disrespectful. Not cool. Innovate. Open a book. Look at old catalogs. There are literally thousands of old patterns waiting to be reborn.

I see this from a totally different perspective. He didn't use the name Lanny's Clip in anything but a video to describe the new SFO. And I thought that the big selling point of the Case collabs was the level of fit and finish, and some work being done directly by Tony. I do not believe that Tony has claim to every pattern that has been on the Case collab list. Maybe I'm wrong though. I don't really follow the collabs, as they're out of my price range.

I get the distinct feeling that if this new SFO had never been mentioned in the same sentence with the name Tony Bose Lanny's Clip, people would then start yelling that Tony was never given any credit for the pattern. It's a lose lose situation.
 
I feel like GEC has a great arsenal of shields that they only dip into occasionally. I guess that's what makes the special ones special, though.
 
I don't recall the exact words Rob used, but it was something to the effect that he wanted to bring a Lanny's Clip style knife to his followers in the $110.00 range. So he kind of was directly comparing it to a Lanny's Clip. And the Lanny's Clip is a Tony Bose pattern that goes beyond his relationship with Case.
 
This is an interesting discussion to me . I feel it would of been in good form to ask permission.The viedo was clearly comparing the two. I've also read where Tony implied that he has copied/ reborned patterns . So my question is at what point does a pattern become public domain ? The Scagel reproductions come to mind .Are there similar ethical issues there as well?
 
Tony does rebirth old patterns. He also changes them. For example, he popularized the Wharncliffe secondary in trappers as well as other patterns. That idea is now widely used by Queen and GEC. The Zulu and Lanny's clip are two very Bose patterns.... probably the most Bose influenced old patterns of the Case/Bose collaboration knives. And I think it's pretty clear they were both copied. And for the most part, the name "Tony Bose" has been used each time to market the reproductions so I don't think there's any doubt that they are copying Tony, not rebirthing old patterns.

My first answer to the question regarding public domain is that it shouldn't be a question. It's only a question because it's easier to copy Tony than to read books and learn about knives. My second answer is that unless they use the name "Tony Bose", I doubt there's a legal case to be made unless Case is trademarking or patenting stuff. I'm not aware of it. But using the name "Tony Bose" might be a legal problem. Tony Bose (and everyone) has a right to control the commercial use of his identity. It's called the "right to publicity". I would hope that the good folks on the porch would be more interested in the community than the legal limits (this isn't directed at you. it's directed at those who would want to reproduce his work). And it's easy to pick up a phone and call Tony.

Scagel is no longer with us. I think the name might be trademarked... but it's just a guess.
 
Last edited:
So do ALL of the custom knifemakers out there making/selling Lanny's Clips & zulus (and described as such) get Tony's permission, or are they immune to the outrage of some because of their similar price points?

If so, at what price point is one allowed to copy or adapt and sell a pattern with it being acceptable by the pattern police?

Or, are the custom makers just too small to raise the ire of the pattern police, yet a run of 100 knives isn't?

If this is all price point-driven, then I wonder how many people are selfishly motivated by not wanting their high-priced collectibles to drop in price due to the natural flow of a popular product to a down-market price point.

It's really difficult to distinguish what is constituted as "OK" here.
 
I can't comment on ALL since I only know SOME. Tony has given his patterns to aspiring knife makers and helped them with the careers. It's a bit different than a manufacturer pumping out the knives without permission. In the case of the Zulus the number ordered from GEC was actually pretty close to the number produced by Case. Case has a contract with Tony. Case does rerun some of these patterns. Case has rerun some with blade changes and steel changes and I hope that continues. Tony gets commission for those knives.

I don't care at all about value but that is one of the many things that could have a negative impact on the collaboration. When it comes to "greed", I think it's coming from those who want to make a quick profit without doing any real work of their own. But that is not a topic allowed on this forum.
 
I think you'll find that most respectable custom makers seek permission from Tony to replicate his patterns.
I don't think it has anything at all to do with price point.
 
So do ALL of the custom knifemakers out there making/selling Lanny's Clips & zulus (and described as such) get Tony's permission, or are they immune to the outrage of some because of their similar price points?

If so, at what price point is one allowed to copy or adapt and sell a pattern with it being acceptable by the pattern police?

Or, are the custom makers just too small to raise the ire of the pattern police, yet a run of 100 knives isn't?

If this is all price point-driven, then I wonder how many people are selfishly motivated by not wanting their high-priced collectibles to drop in price due to the natural flow of a popular product to a down-market price point.

It's really difficult to distinguish what is constituted as "OK" here.

I'm not sure if it's ALL but generally custom makers have the decency to ask Tony to use his patterns beforehand. Your wording suggests that because some people might fall through the cracks it's ok for anyone to do so.
 
I can't comment on ALL since I only know SOME. Tony has given his patterns to aspiring knife makers and helped them with the careers. It's a bit different than a manufacturer pumping out the knives without permission. In the case of the Zulus the number ordered from GEC was actually pretty close to the number produced by Case. Case has a contract with Tony. Case does rerun some of these patterns. Case has rerun some with blade changes and steel changes and I hope that continues. Tony gets commission for those knives.

I don't care at all about value but that is one of the many things that could have a negative impact on the collaboration. When it comes to "greed", I think it's coming from those who want to make a quick profit without doing any real work of their own. But that is not a topic allowed on this forum.

Agreed Jake, wholesomely agreed.
 
I am sort of new to all of this,but essentially what they are doing is putting a clip point blade in a pattern they have run many times ? Which is actually quite different in the handle than the "Lanny's Clip"

I think it's just all conjecture at this point. Do you know for sure permission wasn't asked and granted ?
 
I'm not sure if it's ALL Your wording suggests that because some people might fall through the cracks it's ok for anyone to do so.

I can see how it came across that way but that wasn't my intent. I was wondering if there's a bias toward policing below a certain price point driven by the desire to keep prices inflated.
 
Back
Top