This is pure ridiculousness. This will be my last post on the matter and you (collective) can tear me or anyone else for that matter.
First of all, Rob, I wasn't accusing you specifically of bashing Mad Dog. After meeting you at Blade Show, my gut tells me that you are a man of integrity and honor.
My problem is that people jump on the bandwagon to publicly bash a maker who hasn't even made a public statement regarding this testing.
Spark says:
As far as this not being a current production Mad Dog knife, this knife was purchase 8 months ago by one of the forum members, at an authorized dealer. No if and's or buts.
Because it was purchased from a dealer does not mean it is new. We get trade-ins for credit or purchase knives from people other than Mad Dog periodically. However, we don't sell them as new. Unfortunately, this dealer allegedly represented this knife as new production. A simple examination of the facts (if you are willing) will show this.
If you look at any ATAK manufactured within the last two years, you will see that the choil is not the machine plunge, vertical choil that is on older ATAKs. It is a diagonal choil. Secondly, the hard chrome in the picture is easily identifiable as being three generations old. MD used a new hardchromer that resulted in MD knives having a shiny finish instead of the dull grey-like finish almost three years ago. He again transitioned to another hard chromer (satin chrome finish) after the previous one passed away earlier this year.
Also, in the past two years (at least) since we became a MD distributor, Kevin has not used stamping for MDK onto any knife. At the behest of Earl, Kevin has transitioned to the etched logo, or hand inscription.
I am not disputing that this customer bought the ATAK from a dealer 8 months ago. However, that does not rule out the dealer selling him an older production knife. The hard chrome type, choil/ricasso configuration, and stamping of the name suggests a much older production knife than any of the other knives tested.
Second, there have been allegations that this knife was partially machine made
Whether or not it has been partially machine made is irrelevant. I don't know the process by which Kevin made older ATAKS. I do know that all grinding is now done by hand on all new ATAKs. The choil/ricasso area on new ATAKS are significantly different in appearance than the older ATAKs, and is a sufficient gauge for which generation ATAK any particular knife might belong to.
Mad Dog has to be aware that someone is stealing and finishing his knives for at least 3 years, yet doesn't take any action to prevent this other than putting the notch *under* the handle?
This knife was made over two years (at least) as it is a much earlier generation ATAK that we have ever received from Kevin in two years. Older MD dealers will know the evolution much better.
Your strawman argument about someone stealing knives continuously for three years is fallacy. You are arguing a claim that Kevin never made. Kevin claims that the knife was stolen about three years ago (IIRC).
Regarding the handle material being a "Modified G10", that's BS.
Kevin buys composite material in huge amounts, not only for handle material, but for composite sticks and knives. An examination of the grain of one of Kevin's composite sticks and a typical G10 composite stick and you will see the difference.
But obviously, you already know everything about everything, so why am I bothering?
Regarding the handle failures and lack of proof thereof, we are in the process of finding that information out right now.
If your source is accurate and truthful, then I would like to see it as well. So far, we have several customers who regularly use their ATAKs and ATAK2s as dive knives without any problem with rust. Maintenance? Rinse with fresh water after diving. Apply Tuff Cloth to edge.
Mad Dog has made no bones about publically calling people liars, thieves, with "pathological" being his current term of choice. Now, when its coming out that he may not have been so truthful, he's nowhere to be found. Kevin also told the other person in the emails that point blank he didn't care if the information was forwarded to Mike.
An internal email that gave permission to forward to a specific person (Mike) does not make it a public reply.
As soon as we had this information it became obvious that this information needed to be released publically because it quite possibly invalidates the tests. So, we went public with it and give our rebuttal and have yet to hear any responses.
That is because it was "testing" that Mad Dog never solicited, or cared to be included in the first place.
Instead, we are more than willing to throw away the tests that were done, and are willing to repeat the tests at any time with another "genuine" ATAK.
Fine. And I believe you already have two volunteers (Walt Welch and Nam Viet Vo) to donate test knives that are representative of the current "production" ATAK.
We're presenting the facts. Pure and simple. If you want to go into spotty histories, we can do that as well.
Personally, I don't care about the details. I haven't talked to Kevin about the falling out between Mike, yourself, Earl, and/or Kevin. The simple matter is that you have a history with each other, and that there was a falling out, and a very possible vested interest in seeing the other party suffer financially or otherwise.
Spark, I am not attacking you, Mike Turber or anyone's integrity. However, we are all human and subject to our biases, no matter how hard we try or how good our intentions are. I know *I* am.
My argument is that everyone is attacking Mad Dog for not supplying a replacement knife for testing he never asked for.
As for the original customer getting a replacement knife (due to receiving a counterfeit,) that is a matter between Mad Dog, the dealer, and the original customer. No one else.
I have no intention of hashing this out further as I have better uses of my time.
Tim
