Loveless confusion.

[irbailey]

As a fan of Loveless (and Loveless style) knives for a good few years, I've started to wonder what exactly makes a Loveless knife?

Several times I've read on here that knives done in the Loveless style don't look or feel like a 'true' Loveless.

What is a 'true' Loveless? I've learnt from the many pictures I've looked at of Loveless knives, they have evolved over the years. An early 1970's Lawndale dropped hunter for example doesn't look like the latest Riverside dropped hunter. Taking it to extremes, The earliest Delaware Maids look more like Randalls.

I'll bet if I made a knife with stacked leather handle and brass fittings and said here's my latest Loveless style knife, the comments would be far from favourable, even if it were a spitting image of a genuine Delaware Maid era Loveless.

I appreciate that a lot of makers are doing modern Loveless style knives, but what exactly are the finer points of them?

Steven Garsson recently mentioned a couple of makers who compared their work to a genuine Loveless and were surprised at the differences. I'm well aware that the handle shape plays a major part, but if a Loveless style knife is made with a 70's style handle for example, is it any less technically correct than one made with a modern style handle?

I've never been fortunate enough to handle one myself, and I very much doubt I'll ever be able to afford one, but I'd be very grateful if anyone could enlighten me (preferably with some pictures) to the differences.

It all seems a bit confusing to me.

Cheers,

Ian

 

[Kevin Jones]

I developed a fascination for the Loveless phenomenon about fours years ago and decided to invest some time to try to clear up some of this confusion, in my mind anyway, and actually purchase a Loveless knife in the process. I've actually done some pretty intense even if brief (compared to some) research.
I'm BY NO MEANS saying I've become an expert or anythng close to it, just that I've learned enough that I now feel confortable partisipating in conversations and dabbling in this upper end market.

I've looked at A LOT of photos trying to familiarizing myself with the considerable Loveless designs/patterns, talked with quite a few experts (dealers, collectors, makers of the Loveless designs), studied and kept up with the market to get a feel for values/pricing and have been fortunate enough to inspect and handle quite a few Loveless knives both old and new.

Well after about 4+ years, I guess I have been about 1/2 successful in my quest in that I did finally purchase a very nice and very rare Loveless knife at what I have found to be a good price, however I'm not sure I'm any less confused and definitly have not lost any of my fascinated.

My confusion and fascination is mainly centered around:

The variation of degree of fit/finish I found from knife to knife.

The differing of opinions and views from expert to expert surrounding both Loveless knives and the market in general.

How you can't truly know/appriciate Loveless knives until you have handled them. I found this to be very true.

The marketing aspect of Loveless knives.

And then there's the whole "who have made Loveless knives in the Loveless shop" over the years issue that's pretty confusing and fasinating in itself.

So Ian, you are not alone and this should be an interesting thread.

 

[sheathmaker]

Kevin, couldn't your point about variation in fit and finish be tied very neatly to your last comment about who made what when and it's still Loveless!!!???

The Loveless brand was/is made and maintained by several men to went on to become top name makers in their own right. The brand is either market phenomena, or marketing genius and I don't know which, because I sure don't see the hard value in the pricing.

Paul

 

[betzner]

I developed a fascination for the Loveless phenomenon about fours years ago and decided to invest some time to try to clear up some of this confusion, in my mind anyway, and actually purchase a Loveless knife in the process. I've actually done some pretty intense even if brief (compared to some) research.
I'm BY NO MEANS saying I've become an expert or anythng close to it, just that I've learned enough that I now feel confortable partisipating in conversations and dabbling in this upper end market.

I've looked at A LOT of photos trying to familiarizing myself with the considerable Loveless designs/patterns, talked with quite a few experts (dealers, collectors, makers of the Loveless designs), studied and kept up with the market to get a feel for values/pricing and have been fortunate enough to inspect and handle quite a few Loveless knives both old and new.

Well after about 4+ years, I guess I have been about 1/2 successful in my quest in that I did finally purchase a very nice and very rare Loveless knife at what I have found to be a good price, however I'm not sure I'm any less confused and definitly have not lost any of my fascinated.

My confusion and fascination is mainly centered around:

The variation of degree of fit/finish I found from knife to knife.

The differing of opinions and views from expert to expert surrounding both Loveless knives and the market in general.

How you can't truly know/appriciate Loveless knives until you have handled them. I found this to be very true.

The marketing aspect of Loveless knives.

And then there's the whole "who have made Loveless knives in the Loveless shop" over the years issue that's pretty confusing and fasinating in itself.

So Ian, you are not alone and this should be an interesting thread.

Kevin, you said a mouthful but it's exactly right where I am at myself. Everything I learn results in more questions. Almost seems like retrograde in learning. Sometimes I think the mystique of it all has a life of it's own (probably just good marketing).

Bob

 

[Kohai999]

I've started to wonder what exactly makes a Loveless knife?

In the 25+ years that I have been looking at and learning about them, it comes down to a very thin grind, "cutability(which most people that own them never get to experience) and great feel in the hand.

Several times I've read on here that knives done in the Loveless style don't look or feel like a 'true' Loveless.

Because they are not deeply hollow ground(which you can see from the pics) or they, in the hand, do not feel "right".

What is a 'true' Loveless? I've learnt from the many pictures I've looked at of Loveless knives, they have evolved over the years. An early 1970's Lawndale dropped hunter for example doesn't look like the latest Riverside dropped hunter. Taking it to extremes, The earliest Delaware Maids look more like Randalls.

When we 10 or so that went on the Loveless Tour this year at Blade and vistied with Dave Ellis, John Denton, Rhett Stidham and Lou DeSantis, in that order, I had ideas about what we would find. ALL of the knives felt good in the hand...the evolution towards modern work with Jim Merritt "looked" better...those were the biggest changes. The oldest Loveless knives "looked" like Randall knives, because that was an inspiration, but they didn't feel like Randall knives, they felt light and lively, and had very sharp and thin edges.

I'll bet if I made a knife with stacked leather handle and brass fittings and said here's my latest Loveless style knife, the comments would be far from favourable, even if it were a spitting image of a genuine Delaware Maid era Loveless.

You would have to work very hard for that connection to take place. It was done more for accessibility to materials and homage to a recognizable form than it was as an ideal.

I appreciate that a lot of makers are doing modern Loveless style knives, but what exactly are the finer points of them?

Ask S. R. Johnson, Mike Lovett, Thad Buchanan, Charles Vestal.....each one is focused on different aspects of re-creation and reinterpretation without going too far outside of the lines. Only these makers know what they are trying to accomplish and why.

Steven Garsson recently mentioned a couple of makers who compared their work to a genuine Loveless and were surprised at the differences. I'm well aware that the handle shape plays a major part, but if a Loveless style knife is made with a 70's style handle for example, is it any less technically correct than one made with a modern style handle?

Not technically incorrect at all, but the Loveless shop has evolved, hopefully to make better knives, so there might be something there worth emulation for makers of the new.

I've never been fortunate enough to handle one myself, and I very much doubt I'll ever be able to afford one, but I'd be very grateful if anyone could enlighten me (preferably with some pictures) to the differences.

It all seems a bit confusing to me.

Cheers,

Ian

Until you handle Loveless knives, and many of them at that, I am afraid, it will remain a mystery, especially as a maker. That isn't mystique or hocus pocus BS....many times, they are big knives like Big Bears, and they might weigh less than 14 oz, which for 1/4" stock and 7" plus blades with a subhilt is amazing for stock removal.

I'm NOT an expert....the names mentioned above are.....just trying to learn like everyone else....BUT there are two things to know about Loveless....1) he is arguably the most famous knifemaker alive and 2)his work almost never goes down in value, regardless of "who" made it.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[TennKnifeman]

It is much as Louis Armstrong said about jazz, "If I have to explain it, you'd never understand it!"

The explaining is in the feel, the balance. For those whose total attachment to the knife world is via the internet--and foregoing knife shows (you know who you are)--this is a pleasure you will likely never know. This education is something a knife show uniquely provides.

If you're really interested in the answer to this question, I'd suggest you pick up a phone and call Bob and report back to this forum what he says. After that conversation I guarantee you will understand a lot more about the Loveless legend.

By the way, in the list of people who have studied in the Loveless shop, Wayne Clay was left out. There was once a time when someone wanted to buy a Loveless knife for use, and discovered there was in insurmountable waiting list, Bob would tell them, "Call Wayne Clay, he makes basically the same knife." Wayne copied his templates directly from those in the Loveless shop.

 

[Win Heger]

You really do need to hold a Loveless to understand the Loveless legend. I started attending shows in around 1989 and got to hold my first Loveless knives by visiting with some dealers at a show. In 1991 or there about I got up the gumption to call the shop and talk with Bob. I ended up ordering a boot knife and was pleasantly surprised when it was ready a year later.

That knife really impressed me, I had quite a few customs and this one just felt "right". Since then I've owned a few Loveless knives and they always have a certain feel.

I still don't think I'm sophisticated enough to identify one just from handling it.
I'll have a chance to do an interesting comparison in the near future, I'll post the results here.

Win

 

[irbailey]

Thanks for all your answers.:thumbup:
I appreciate that never having handled a Loveless makes it hard to understand. I do need to get myself to a knife show and 'cop a feel'.
I figure looking and comparing knives by Loveless and Loveless makers would also help.

The whole concept of 'in the hand feel' changed for me this year when I bought a dropped hunter from Marcus Lin. I thought I'd made a few that felt good in the hand, but the first time I picked up Marcus' I was blown away. This has made me even more confused when I see posts stating that his knives are 'getting close' to Loveless'. To me it is hard to imagine a better 'in the hand' feel.

The word mystique sums up the world of the Loveless (and Loveless style)knife very well. The more I learn, the more confused I seem to become! It reminds me a bit of when I used to collect militaria. Some folk collect for example the Iron Cross 2nd class. Each one looks the same, but not quite to the trained eye.

I'm probably asking a bit much here, but it would be very beneficial for me and I'm sure many others, if anyone could post some pictures of Loveless, Johnson, Lovett, Lin, Young, Buchanan, Vestal, etc, etc, to show and explain the subtle differences.

Many thanks for your replies.

Ian

 

[Win Heger]

Careful what you wish for. Rob Brown has not been mentioned in this thread but I've got to say that he does an excellent job!

Win

Rob Brown:

John Young:

Bill Ankrom, flat ground and works very well:

Earlier Loveless, NS, single nude, perspective sucks but its a regular 4 1/2" Blade:

Contemporary Loveless, 2007:

 

[David Sharp]

...for my daily chute fix. I to am enamoured with the Loveless style especially the chute, I currently have 4 chutes on order form different makers. I will most likely never be able to afford a Loveless chute, so I must be content with other makers interpretation. Mr. Loveless is a member of our knife makers club here in socal, I hope to meet him some day. :thumbup:

By the way how would I get in contact with Mr. Ankrom?

 

[Kevin Jones]

By the way how would I get in contact with Mr. Ankrom?

I just sent you a PM.

 

[jdm61]

I knew that STeven would have some good input on this topic. "Feel" is a strange thing as are grinds. Dave Ellis said recently that one bad thing about the internet knife sales is that many people will never get he opportunity to pick up a Moran knife and actually feel its balance. They will just see pictures of some interesting and oft times funky looking knives that are, in the opinion of many collectors, not up to the fit and finish standards of todays Master Smiths. I would go a step further and say that if you never have the opportunity to pick up a later Moran knife, you will never see his convex grind which he did free hand on rather archaic equipment and yet IMO, none of the people that I have seen trying to emulate have ever gotten it quite he way he did and I include some of his most talented disciples in that group and I have owned and still own knives made by several of those guys. If I could do that fullconvex grind that Bill did, you would never see any other type of grind on any of my knives, but I can't and not for lack of trying. That sounds like the same thing that you guys are saying about Loveless knives. They have always had that "something" that no other knives had and that is the main reason why they cost so freakin' much today.

 

[SharpByCoop]

I just shot (13) Loveless' today for a prominent dealer/collector in SoCal. (Half of them engraved.)

If I was to characterize the Loveless style, it would be:

Near perfection fitments
Crisp grinds and lines
Soft corners in the handles and guards
Always a tapered tang
Scales thinned
Sculpting of handles to fit into the hand.
Liners between most tangs and scales

Here's one to emphasize my point.

Coop

 

[irbailey]

Thanks for posting those pictures. Most definitely worth a thousand words.:thumbup:

Looking at the chute knives side by side, I can notice distinct differences in all of them. The Rob Brown handle looks closest to the Loveless in my eyes, but the blade is very slightly different. (Still an absolutely amazing piece of work though, as they all are.)

Before the UK Knives 2010 show, someone kindly offered to bring along their Loveless' for me to look at. Unfortunately I was unable to attend this year. It would be even better to visit one of the knife shows in the US and get to know more about the Loveless phenomenon. Unfortunately financial constraints make this impossible.

I think in the mean time, as well as studying pictures of Loveless knives, I need to study them alongside pictures of other makers versions as well.

As for the 'If you need to ask, you'll never understand' theory, well that's just nonsense in my opinion. No one is born with an inbuilt knowledge of anything. I've been drawn to the design and I guess the whole 'mystique' of Loveless knives since I first saw them in Knives '87. I'm also drawn to all the other makers who build Loveless style knives. All I'm trying to do is learn the small differences between what looks to be a virtual carbon copy and the real thing.

Once again, thanks for your help.

Ian

 

[KYJ]

Soft corners in the handles and guards

I also heard that Mr. Loveless always says that there must not be any sharp edge line except for the cutting edge. I see many knives of other makers and often found the clearly squarish part in handle(especially near handle end). It gives sharp impression, but Mr. Loveless never admit it.

 

[jdm61]

I just shot (13) Loveless' today for a prominent dealer/collector in SoCal. (Half of them engraved.)

If I was to characterize the Loveless style, it would be:

Near perfection fitments
Crisp grinds and lines
Soft corners in the handles and guards
Always a tapered tang
Scales thinned
Sculpting of handles to fit into the hand.
Liners between most tangs and scales

Here's one to emphasize my point.

Coop

Yeah, looking at the way that handle has been ground in the top view tells you that there is something special about that piece.:thumbup: I just noticed that the liner on that knife makes a 90 degree turn so to speak where the scales meet the bolster and you can't even see where the two pieces join.

 

[irbailey]

Got to agree with you there Joe, that's a superb looking knife.
Interestingly, the post before mentions square edges... this one looks pretty square to me. I've often thought that the Loveless handle looks kind of square, but to me this goes against the whole 'good in the hand' thing.
My Marcus Lin is very nicely rounded compared to a lot of the knives I've made and the benefits of being rounded are obvious straight away.
I guess this is the difference between photo study and real thing study.

Cheers,

Ian

 

[Kevin Jones]

Yeah, looking at the way that handle has been ground in the top view tells you that there is something special about that piece.:thumbup: I just noticed that the liner on that knife makes a 90 degree turn so to speak where the scales meet the bolster and you can't even see where the two pieces join.

Loveless knives often don't have the liner at the bolster, just tang to scales.

 

[TennKnifeman]

As for the 'If you need to ask, you'll never understand' theory, well that's just nonsense in my opinion.

If you can't stand the answers, don't ask the question.

One cannot describe balance, it can only be experienced. It is closely akin to a soft kiss from a beautiful woman, the solid thunk that mili-second after you've lined up the cross-hair and squeezed the trigger, the soft brush of a grandaughter's cheek when she hugs you goodnight, the vibration in your chest when the announcer says, "Gentlemen start you engines", the rush of seeing an F-15 turn vertical and go out of sight in full afterburner in seconds. You are right, Ian. It is all nonsense. But it is a nonsense that makes life worth living.

Perhaps I can best describe the indescribable in the words of a fellow Brit, Ian. The late Eward Oakshoot, the curator of the arms at the Tower of London, in a conversation with Hank Reinhardt, when Eward handed Hank a finely balanced sword from a time that often all that stood between a man and eternity was the balance of that piece of pointed steel. Hank was delighted with the exceptional balance, and Eward smiled at Hank. "It woos you to strike, doesn't it."

Your question was correctly and aptly answered--and you're still asking it. Forget the copies, handle a real Loveless and Moran and experience the education. Better yet, forgo the wannabes, save up, and buy a genuine example. Sometimes a single knife as your entire collection is far superior to a couple of dozen of the almosts.

Yes, nonsense, a subtle nuance that is easily missed, and by some never understood.

 

[Starkman1]

There was a nice collection of Loveless knives at the A.G. Russell show, but unfortunately they were on display only and could not be handled...definitely my loss.

Kevin did you get a chance to see them?

Bob