Lets talk GEC!

[Jack Black]

I don't really understand this line of thought. If somebody wants a certain blade on a certain knife why would anybody else care? Nobody's forcing you to buy or use or even look at the knife. If they want to call it Bob or Jim or Purple Underpants good for them.

Cory, I’ll try and answer your post as best I can, but to some extent it’s a matter of personal taste. I dare say there’s something knife-related you think looks wrong the same as the rest of us, it’s just clearly something different to me and a few other posters. People can of course call a knife blade ‘Bob or Jim or Purple Underpants’, and we might smile at them, but we wouldn’t really take them seriously would we?

I have yet to see a good reason why a wharncliffe or a caplifter shouldn't be on a barlow other than it not measuring up on the traditional scale, which is completely arbitrary to begin with.

How a knife measures up traditionally has always been a pretty big reason around these parts. Barlow knives traditionally come with Speapoint, Clip, Sheepsfoot, or Spey blades, it’s been like that a very long time. Traditional Barlows do not come with a Wharncliffe blade, anymore than they come with a thumb-hole, and let’s not forget that what is referred to here as a Wharncliffe blade has been around a very long time.

Traditionally, cutleries were built next to rivers because they relied on the running water for power. Do you wince every time you see a knife that was made using electricity? Do micarta handles make you wince? What about acrylic? Do you wince when you see the crown lifter etch because it's supposed to be called a caplifter? I just don't understand why some people find one thing acceptable and not another.

Again, this is a matter of taste, and while none of the things you refer to make me wince personally, maybe they do others. I may find a factory-made knife very acceptable, but I do realise there’s a difference between a factory-made knife and a custom-made knife, and between say, a forged blade and a stock-removal blade. While the quality of each of these knives will vary, there is no reason why one cannot be as good as another, but they ARE different. Now, ask me my opinion on knives being sold as ‘handmade’ when they are in fact machine-ground, and I feel a bit the same as I do about a Wharncliffe blade being put on a Barlow

I'm not attempting to come off snarky or confrontational.

Neither do I, and you are not the only one of my friends who clearly feels differently about this than I do. I have not said anything previously for fear of raining on the parades of those delighted by their new purchases, and I know that others have kept silent for the same reason. Please understand that this is not an attack upon the freedom of individual knife buyers, but rather a defence of a traditional pattern, which I personally care about. With the sort of laissez-faire attitude we are currently seeing to some extent, we would not have any traditional patterns at all, we would simply have a load of knives with jumbled-up blades, and arbitrary names like ‘Bob’ or ‘Purple Underpants’.

I'm pretty new to the traditional world and I'm honestly trying to understand why people take the viewpoints that they do.

Good. We are currently seeing a big interest in traditional patterns, and a big influx of new posters here. I don’t necessarily refer to you here Cory, but when people come here from General or elsewhere, they need to understand that Traditionals follow certain rules, which don’t apply to most other knives. That’s what makes them TRADITIONAL, those patterns, for the most part, have been around a long time.

Why is one aspect of a knife (such as blade selection) sacred but others (such as manufacturing methods and handle and blade materials) are fair game? I understand that there have to be guidelines for the forums, that's not the type of thing I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that a custom maker can put the latest and greatest "super steel" on a knife and everybody oohs and aahs over it, but if somebody makes a knife in a completely traditional fashion using completely traditional materials people nit-pick the blade selection.

Come on Cory, do you really think the several posters who have so far expressed their distaste for the non-traditional Wharncliffe blade on a Barlow are simply nit-picking? Personally, I don’t see why you’d want to spoil a very nice Trapper or a very nice Barlow by getting them mixed up.

Do you honestly think that the cutlers of the 19th century forbade the creation of a barlow with a wharncliffe?

Well since no records appear to exist showing either that anyone asked for a Barlow knife with a Wharncliffe blade, or that anyone made a Barlow knife with a Wharncliffe blade, I would respectfully surmise that they either had more good sense or more good taste.

Or do you think it's more likely that they were just throwing on the most popular blades of the time because they were trying to sell as many knives as possible to support their families?

I don’t think there was any ‘throwing on’ about it. I think they considered very carefully what they did, just as the Greeks considered their architecture. I think that the care they took in their knives is evident in the fact we are still talking about and admiring them many decades later. Some blades and patterns don’t go together, and there is a reason knives are made in certain ways, the old cutlers understood that, they didn’t just throw patterns together willy-nilly. Barlows were once far more popular than they are today, Wharncliffes too, but did anyone think of mixing them up? All the evidence says that they did not.

A Barlow knife can look very simple, but that doesn’t mean that a great deal of thought hasn’t gone into everything about it. There’s a reason why Charlie’s Barlows look so good, and it isn’t just that they’re made from good steel by a good cutler, he spent a lot of time thinking about them, and had the benefit of seeing lots of old Barlows, and of loving them as a pattern. Do you think there might be a reason why a TC Barlow hasn’t been produced with a Wharncliffe blade?

I'd guess the second

Then why are there no old Barlows with Wharncliffe blades?

and seeing as how wharncliffes are pretty trendy right now, I think that Mike and Bill are taking a very traditional approach to the design of the Marlow.

I don’t think for a moment that either Mike or Bill would be motivated by that kind of grubby opportunism. We all make mistakes.

Again, that's just the viewpoint of an outsider that's new to the hobby and I'm interested in hearing what the more experienced members think. No offense intended towards anybody.

We’re all still learning my friend :thumbup:

We all like a nice shiny bolster, but when it has a Wharncliffe blade underneath it, it is not a traditional Barlow. I didn’t just make that up

Respectfully

Jack

 

[pmew]

I don't really understand this line of thought. If somebody wants a certain blade on a certain knife why would anybody else care?

Nothing but personal whimsy, my friend. Personal taste and individual preference. We're not expected to like absolutely everything are we?

 

[Jack Black]

Well that's just fantastic right there, Jack!!

Thank you my friend, I figured a little levity might not go amiss :thumbup:

(I found it on an old factory toilet wall! )

I guess any combination of 1 or 2 blades on a single long-bolster jack pattern can be called a Barlow.

No! No! No! Definitely not John!

It takes more than a long bolster to make a Barlow. Trevor Ablett makes a long bolster available for all his knives, some are Barlows, some are just knives with long bolsters. This for example (below) is an Ettrick (and called by him an Ettrick), not a Wharncliffe Barlow

I believe it was Brian (MrBadInfluence) who started calling them Marlows

I always wondered how Brian got his username!

As an aside, as I posted in the Traditional Barlow thread, I came across a Sheffield-made Clip-point last weekend, which said 'Barlow' on the side, even though it didn't even have a Barlow bolster! Now you could argue that the factory which turned it out (and their name wasn't included) can call it whatever they like, but I was quite happy to point out to the vendor that it wasn't a Barlow at all! And he agreed with me

 

[JB in SC]

Well stated Jack, original Barlow knives were meant for hard general use. Perhaps those old cutlers knew what they were doing

 

[JustinR]

I don't really understand this line of thought. If somebody wants a certain blade on a certain knife why would anybody else care? Nobody's forcing you to buy or use or even look at the knife. If they want to call it Bob or Jim or Purple Underpants good for them. I have yet to see a good reason why a wharncliffe or a caplifter shouldn't be on a barlow other than it not measuring up on the traditional scale, which is completely arbitrary to begin with. Traditionally, cutleries were built next to rivers because they relied on the running water for power. Do you wince every time you see a knife that was made using electricity? Do micarta handles make you wince? What about acrylic? Do you wince when you see the crown lifter etch because it's supposed to be called a caplifter? I just don't understand why some people find one thing acceptable and not another.

I'm not attempting to come off snarky or confrontational. I'm pretty new to the traditional world and I'm honestly trying to understand why people take the viewpoints that they do. Why is one aspect of a knife (such as blade selection) sacred but others (such as manufacturing methods and handle and blade materials) are fair game? I understand that there have to be guidelines for the forums, that's not the type of thing I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that a custom maker can put the latest and greatest "super steel" on a knife and everybody oohs and aahs over it, but if somebody makes a knife in a completely traditional fashion using completely traditional materials people nit-pick the blade selection. It makes no sense to me. Do you honestly think that the cutlers of the 19th century forbade the creation of a barlow with a wharncliffe? Or do you think it's more likely that they were just throwing on the most popular blades of the time because they were trying to sell as many knives as possible to support their families? I'd guess the second, and seeing as how wharncliffes are pretty trendy right now, I think that Mike and Bill are taking a very traditional approach to the design of the Marlow. Again, that's just the viewpoint of an outsider that's new to the hobby and I'm interested in hearing what the more experienced members think. No offense intended towards anybody.

You have your purists and curmudgeons in every hobby. I'm pretty sure I've seen old men shed tears upon finding an LS motor in an old Ford truck at the F100 supernationals in Gatlinbug, TN.

Personally, I think we should petition Mike to give us a 77 Barlow with a wharncliffe primary and caplifter secondary....maybe some of that dead skunk acrylic to ice the cake.


Buy what you like. I know there are probably some folks that think I committed a sin against mankind by having a caplifter put on my 15 barlow, but it is my absolute favorite knife ever. There is room for everybody's opinion in this hobby, there is no right or wrong blade combination.

 

[Lemmy Caution]

^^^ Very respectful and through counterpoint Jack. I agree we do have traditional histories and those histories certainly establish certain aspects for purposeful reasons. And it is clear that Spear, clip, razor, sheepsfoot, and spey are mains for most of that history. Some may ask where is the cut-off point for that history? (Puns intended?) Which is to say if the Barlow is still a living breathing evolving pattern then 200 years for now the traditional history of the Barlow pattern may include the Wharncliffe. This is maybe more of a thought experiment than a strongly held sentiment by me, but I'm sure you see what I'm getting at. For instance lets say that the first 200 years of a pattern saw only the Spear being used. And then a cutler put a One Arm Razor as the main. That maker would have been bucking tradition at that point in history (they weren't afraid of losing tradition perhaps?) then 100 years later the one-arm razor is considered a part of the tradition.

I only like traditional knives myself, but what I like about them still being produced is that they are not just replicas or throwbacks. Meaning they are not being made as props for reenactors or period piece movies. They are being made because these guys care about carrying on a tradition and keeping it alive. So it seems like they are very thoughtful in considering what "Traditional" means. Maybe its a more complicated term than first appears. Certainly "time-honored" should be a big part of its definition and for me at least what is most time honored are those aspects or details that get at the basic foundational usefulness over time. IMO. A pocket clip or thumb stud are mere conveniences that are not at all necessary to the basic foundational function but they change the aesthetics and mechanism a great deal and for me at least take it away from the traditional spirit.

 

[Puinsai]

My first traditional!

 

[Jack Black]

Well stated Jack, original Barlow knives were meant for hard general use. Perhaps those old cutlers knew what they were doing

Thanks Jerry. Yes indeed, that in itself is a good reason to avoid a Wharncliffe blade I think :thumbup:

 

[jc57]

No! No! No! Definitely not John!

It takes more than a long bolster to make a Barlow...

That was my opinion as well. I had a long post all typed up trying to explain it, including loony examples of putting a long bolster on a stockman and whether eating steak and pizza on Thanksgiving would still be considered a traditional Thanksgiving dinner. But it came out all snarky and condescending (not my intent) so I deleted it and posted up what I did.

The knife that CK.net had commissioned is a lovely thing and anyone who has one should be happy with it, but I personally didn't see it being called a Barlow. To me it looked like a saddle trapper with a long bolster.

 

[Jack Black]

^^^ Very respectful and through counterpoint Jack.

Thank you my friend, it was meant to be :thumbup:

Which is to say if the Barlow is still a living breathing evolving pattern then 200 years for now the traditional history of the Barlow pattern may include the Wharncliffe.

I don't accept the premise that the Barlow is an evolving pattern. The other patterns (and I apologise for neglecting the Razor) have stood the test of time. The addition of a Wharncliffe blade is about two months old isn't it?!

I only like traditional knives myself, but what I like about them still being produced is that they are not just replicas or throwbacks. Meaning they are not being made as props for reenactors or period piece movies. They are being made because these guys care about carrying on a tradition and keeping it alive. So it seems like they are very thoughtful in considering what "Traditional" means.

Well GEC's catalogue patterns are all very traditional American patterns I think, and I believe they consider each pattern carefully. The knife under discussion is an SFO. In my opinion, it was ill-considered, and I don't regard it as carrying on a tradition at all, I regard it as quite contrary to that, as I think it clearly is. Nice blades for sure, but I maintain that one of them doesn't belong on a Barlow frame.

Thanks Lemmy

Jack

 

[Jack Black]

My first traditional!

Very nice :thumbup:

 

[Jack Black]

That was my opinion as well. I had a long post all typed up trying to explain it, including loony examples of putting a long bolster on a stockman and whether eating steak and pizza on Thanksgiving would still be considered a traditional Thanksgiving dinner. But it came out all snarky and condescending (not my intent) so I deleted it and posted up what I did.

I know what you mean John, it's great when we can have a good adult debate between friends and fellow knife-lovers :thumbup:

 

[Cory Hess]

Thanks for sharing your opinions. I personally don't care for wharncliffe blades on any knife. It's interesting to hear what aspects of the term traditional knife people hold dear. I completely respect those opinions, I just have to question them in order to gain a better understanding of why they are held in such high regard. I hope you all can understand that. I really do appreciate you taking the time to spell it out for those of us that have a hard time keeping up with the herd.

 

[JustinR]

The addition of a Wharncliffe blade is about two months old isn't it?!

4 years and counting. Queen did it in 2010 with the 2009 Forum barlow and Dan Burke small barlow.

 

[jc57]

I believe Justin may have us over a barrel on this one.

 

[JustinR]

Hey now, can't have any misinformation floating around the forum.

I think you all need to respect the deep rooted half a decade history of the wharncliffe barlow.

 

[Lemmy Caution]

Thank you my friend, it was meant to be :thumbup:

I don't accept the premise that the Barlow is an evolving pattern. The other patterns (and I apologise for neglecting the Razor) have stood the test of time. The addition of a Wharncliffe blade is about two months old isn't it?!

Jack

Doesn't the Queen Dan Burke Barlow sport a Wharncliffe? Human history is but a blip in geologic time LOL And as my signature line states "Time Flies Like an Arrow but Fruit Flies like a Banana" Only time will tell what stands the test of time.

In all good fun, I'm just playing devil's advocate and querying what history means to us all. One thing that stands out is the question of how a tradition is established? When do we cease to acknowledge new innovations into that history? Does there need to be a sort of slowdown in production or a break in the historical timeline for the development of a traditionalist collector hobby to form in the first place. I think about your history of the Sheffield Mills closing down and it seems one might tie our hobby to the sort of collapse of the manufacturing base in the developed economies of the west... but who knows LOL

 

[Jack Black]

4 years and counting. Queen did it in 2010 with the 2009 Forum barlow and Dan Burke small barlow.

I believe Justin may have us over a barrel on this one.

Hey now, can't have any misinformation floating around the forum.

I think you all need to respect the deep rooted half a decade history of the wharncliffe barlow.

:thumbup:

In all good fun, I'm just playing devil's advocate and querying what history means to us all. One thing that stands out is the question of how a tradition is established?

In these matters, my friend, I am led by the learned texts of Ye Olde Traditional Forum Guidelines, and the venerable Elliott The Wise:

The "Traditional Folders and Fixed Blades" sub-forum is defined as follows:

Discussion of classic Hunters, Trappers, Lockbacks, Slipjoints, Skinners and other classic "traditional" designs...

...In other words, this is a non-commercial knife discussion forum with the focus centered squarely on traditional knives and patterns such as you'll find in this reference:

And Levine spaketh thus:

Both standard and daddy barlows can have clip or spear master blades. Both can be either single-bladed, or else have a pen second blade.

Standard barlows can also have a sheepsfoot, a spey, or a "razor" master blade.

Now get thee to the bookstore!

 

[Jack Black]

I got this in a job-lot of knives a while back. Came out of the Richards factory in Sheffield, 40 years ago or more.



Is it a Barlow? Is it a Fish-Knife? Is it a 'Farlow' or a 'Fishlow'?! My guess is it was cobbled together from old parts and sold as a fish-knife by a firm with scant regard for tradition

 

[liamstrain]

With the cap and bail, and relatively short (for a long) bolster - I don't think I'd call this a barlow, regardless of blade configuration.