The Sebenza, to me, is still a question mark. It's quality cannot be denied, but its performance superiority is still something I wonder about. When quality is applied to firearms, one can assume that accuracy and perhaps longevity, durability and comfort all will be part of the performance boost. The thing I wonder about is, what does the exceptional quality of the Sebenza translate into in performance? Does it cut better, longer, more accurately? Is its beauty (which, agreed, is in the eye of the beholder) superior?
Those are all debatable points.
What's not debatable is that the knife is quality made and can often be sold for very close to what was paid for it. That, alone, makes it an investment. But as far as performance is concerned, it remains only a pocket knife. Good steel blade, dependable, but so, too, are many other knives far more inexpensive.
The three greatest components of a good knife are: blade, lock and frame. Tolerances, while important, do have a level of diminishing return. Is a Sebenza's blade better, worse or the same as a quality Spyderco's? Is its lock better, worse or the same? And are the grips fundamentally better, worse or the same than many other knives? Finally, does it cut better, worse or the same as a quality Spyderco, Kershaw or a Boker? Or does it last longer or open quicker?
Sebenzas clearly have an appeal, a market and a sizable following. But while a Colt Python may perform much better than a Taurus .357, can one expect a similar performance boost from a Sebenza? I don't see how. But since it has a high resale value, one can buy one, try it out and sell it if one isn't delighted with it.
