Maker; Piece; Price ?

[Kevin Jones]

I agree.
Individual knives should be judged on their own merit, not loved by everyone just because it came from a particular maker.

STOP THE PRESSES!!!!

Does that sound like "Piece First", Kevin?....Why yes, yes it does.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

NO:NO:NO

The point to my previous statement is that IMO a collector should not LOVE (love fest) and praise EVERY knife by a particular maker solely because they are made by that maker.

For example, even thought by my "maker first" collecting philosophy I favors pieces by Fisk, Dean, Hancock, Hanson, Winkler etc. however, I by no means buy or even like EVERY knife made by these makers.

Funny - that's EXACTLY how I read it as well.

Roger

I know you guys took an opportunity to put my chain a bit here , but seriously my collection supports my makers first collecting philosophy in that it's limited to six makers (Maker First) then from there I'm very selective as to which pieces (Piece Second) I acquire from these makers.

However, I do ADD a maker from time to time. Don Hanson would be an example of this in that I acquired one of his pieces last year and have two more on order.

I feel I can and do support and help other makers even though I don't currently buy their knives.

I know I will never win you "Old Timers" over to my "Maker; Piece; Price" concept, however truly believe new collectors will benefit from this strategy (saving time and money) in building their ultimate collections.

Here are some advantages to "Maker First" concept.

Allows you to be more knowledgeable about what you are buying, therefore making better decisions ?

Allows you to possibly get a discounted price by being a repeat or long time customer.

Allows you to possibly have a shorter wait in getting a special order piece created.

Allows you to possibly have an advantage over other collectors in getting a “one of” or “special” piece.

Allows you to “partner” with the maker to promote his work, thus increasing the likelihood that your knives will go up in value.

Helps you to build strong friendship with makers.

Ironically, can help you stay more abreast of what's going on in the industry.

Any disadvantages ?

You opponents of this philosophy please share disadvantages and/or why you feel Piece; Maker; Price is a better practice for mew collectors.

I feel this is an important enough topic to address in another thread rather taking over Joss's Fogg thread.

 

[Jose Reyes]

Hi Kevin,

Good points, but all in all, the specific piece is probably more important. Not to say that the maker isn't important, as he'd tend to have a style you'd appreciate and enjoy, but he would occasionally turn out a piece you're not too fond of. Would you prefer one of those pieces or one that you felt more appreciative of from a different maker in your collection?

PS I don't think most new collectors can afford the tens of thousnads of dollars it would take to develop a bond with the top makers as some of your points suggest.

 

[Kevin Jones]

Hi Kevin,

Good points, but all in all, the specific piece is probably more important. Not to say that the maker isn't important, as he'd tend to have a style you'd appreciate and enjoy, but he would occasionally turn out a piece you're not too fond of. Would you prefer one of those pieces or one that you felt more appreciative of from a different maker in your collection?

PS I don't think most new collectors can afford the tens of thousnads of dollars it would take to develop a bond with the top makers as some of your points suggest.

Hi Jose.
As I said above, I don't buy/like every piece by the makers I collect. That's where the "Piece Second" comes in. As I believe my collection shows, I'm VERY selective as to what pieces I add to my collection.

I would venture a guess that you don't go completely Crazy over EVERY one of Ed's pieces, however it seems to me you place Ed's pieces at a high priority over other makers.

Price has nothing to do with the Maker/Piece scenario. Where did I say "Top Makers"?
A new collectors can develop a relationship like I describe with makers that sell knives under $500. As a matter of fact, this can enable a new collector to get more knife for the money as he's starting out.

Good points for discussion Jose.

 

[RogerP]

I know you guys took an opportunity to put my chain a bit here , but seriously my collection supports my makers first collecting philosophy in that it's limited to six makers (Maker First) then from there I'm very selective as to which pieces (Piece Second) I acquire from these makers.

Oh no, not again....

I feel I can and do support and help other makers even though I don't currently buy their knives.

True, but there is no endorsement quite so genuine as putting down your own cash for a maker's work. It avoids the somewhat hollow sound of "Yeah, his knives are great, beautiful designs, excellent fit and finish, solid value. Of course, I'd never actually buy one of his knives, 'cause he's not one of 'my makers'."

I know I will never win you "Old Timers" over to my "Maker; Piece; Price" concept, however truly believe new collectors will benefit from this strategy (saving time and money) in building their ultimate collections.

Possibly - I am the first to step up and say there is more than one valid approach - but this is not one I buy into. If a newer collector simply locks into a few blue-chip makers lifted from some experienced collector's "my maker" list, they may be making safe purchases, but arguably, they're not learning much. Kevin - how many "newer collectors" do you think are buying the $3k- $5k knives that you purchase? More to the point, do you think newer collectors should be buying at that price point right out of the gate? You might get over hidsight disappointment in a $300 hunter - but for a newer collector, feeling you made the wrong choice for you on a $5k damscus ivory bowie might just sour you on the whole deal.

Allows you to be more knowledgeable about what you are buying, therefore making better decisions ?

Nope - you learn very little by stepping into a pre-fabricated short-list of restricted purchases. A newer collector who says "Kevin says these 5 guys are locks - I will only buy from these 5 guys" would learn little or nothing over time, IMHO. They would end up looking at the broad spectrum of the custom knife field through a straw. What could be more stifling to the learning than strapping blinders on newer collectors when it comes to purchase decisions?

Allows you to possibly get a discounted price by being a repeat or long time customer.

True, but you can just as easily develop the type of goodwill that comes from repeat purchases without this maker-first approach. I know, because I have.

Allows you to possibly have a shorter wait in getting a special order piece created.

See above. "Piece first" doesn't mean you never buy from the same maker twice. Rather, it acknowledges that what you are buying is the knife. Makers are rarely for sale.

Allows you to possibly have an advantage over other collectors in getting a “one of” or “special” piece. Allows you to “partner” with the maker to promote his work, thus increasing the likelihood that your knives will go up in value.

Not sure how this "allows" you to do that versus any other approach. Nothing preventing you from promoting a maker from whom you have purchased several knives - in partnership or otherwise - by putting the piece first.

Roger

 

[Jose Reyes]

Hi Jose.
As I said above, I don't buy/like every piece by the makers I collect. That's where the "Piece Second" comes in. As I believe my collection shows, I'm VERY selective as to what pieces I add to my collection.

I would venture a guess that you don't go completely Crazy over EVERY one of Ed's pieces, however it seems to me you place Ed's pieces at a high priority over other makers.

Price has nothing to do with the Maker/Piece scenario. Where did I say "Top Makers"?
A new collectors can develop a relationship like I describe with makers that sell knives under $500. As a matter of fact, this can enable a new collector to get more knife for the money as he's starting out.

Good points for discussion Jose.

Hi Kevin,

Yes, among others, Ed is one of the makers whose work I enjoy the most. I still buy based on the particular piece in question though. My last purchase was a particular piece from another vocal maker that I liked and wanted to see what he brought to the table. Over the last couple of years my purchases have been limited to orders with Clark and Schempp who are also top makers on my list. I've swung and missed on a few Foggs that have come on the market but I didn't try for every piece he's had available.

Even by your first paragraph you seem to indicate the piece comes first. Jerry might make an okay piece but would you pass it over and buy a piece that suited you better from one of your other favorite makers?

My views are based on a collector's perspective. A dealer or someone looking to turn over most of their knives would most likely have a different perspective and would likely net more buying from specific makers in high demand.

 

[Les Robertson]

Hi Kevin,

I go Knife, Price, Maker.

If the knife is flawed and/or overpriced I don't care who the maker is.

If you focus on Maker first, you will miss out on a lot of exceptional knives.

If you focus on the Price first, you will only buy knives in your "price range" and may miss out on exceptional values that are only slightly more expensive.

For me it is always the Knife first.

Les Robertson
Custom Knife Judge Blade Show 2008
www.robertsoncustomcutlery.com

 

[Jose Reyes]

Hi Kevin,

I go Knife, Price, Maker.

If the knife is flawed and/or overpriced I don't care who the maker is.

If you focus on Maker first, you will miss out on a lot of exceptional knives.

If you focus on the Price first, you will only buy knives in your "price range" and may miss out on exceptional values that are only slightly more expensive.

For me it is always the Knife first.

Les Robertson
Custom Knife Judge Blade Show 2008
www.robertsoncustomcutlery.com

Good post, Les. :thumbup: I guess collector and dealer's perspectives are more similar than I thought.

PS Do you need to type out your sig line every post? Look here... http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/payments.php

 

[Kevin Jones]

Oh no, not again....



True, but there is no endorsement quite so genuine as putting down your own cash for a maker's work. It avoids the somewhat hollow sound of "Yeah, his knives are great, beautiful designs, excellent fit and finish, solid value. Of course, I'd never actually buy one of his knives, 'cause he's not one of 'my makers'."

I will give an example. Both Lin Rhea and Karl Anderson are both excellent knifemakers and businessmen. I truly applicate their fine work. They just don't currently fall into my (repeat my) collection philosophy. I communicate how I feel about Lin and Karl and their work to any collector that will listen to me. And actually, I have probably helped these guys sell more knives than I could possibly buy from them. The key here is that because I only collect from a handful of makers doesn't mean that I don't know a fair amount about some others.
And Roger, I have never said "My Makers".



Possibly - I am the first to step up and say there is more than one valid approach - but this is not one I buy into. If a newer collector simply locks into a few blue-chip makers lifted from some experienced collector's "my maker" list, they may be making safe purchases, but arguably, they're not learning much. Kevin - how many "newer collectors" do you think are buying the $3k- $5k knives that you purchase? More to the point, do you think newer collectors should be buying at that price point right out of the gate? You might get over hidsight disappointment in a $300 hunter - but for a newer collector, feeling you made the wrong choice for you on a $5k damscus ivory bowie might just sour you on the whole deal.

Roger you are totally missing my point as I never said that new collectors should collect the same maker's knives as I do. Nor did I say they should buy from the "blue chip" makers. You are twisting what I say to suit your purpose. They can and are better off forming relationships with makers that are at the lower end of the price spectrum.

Nope - you learn very little by stepping into a pre-fabricated short-list of restricted purchases. A newer collector who says "Kevin says these 5 guys are locks - I will only buy from these 5 guys" would learn little or nothing over time, IMHO. They would end up looking at the broad spectrum of the custom knife field through a straw. What could be more stifling to the learning than strapping blinders on newer collectors when it comes to purchase decisions?

Again Roger, what I'm communicating is only a collecting philosophy. I'm not saying collectors should have tunnel vision as to what makers and knives are out there. Just give makers more priority over just buying any and every knife that tickles their fancy. Are you suggesting that I only have knowledge on the few knives and makers I collect? I would challenge that as I make it a point to educate myself on many makers and types/styles of knives. But actually, comparing years collecting, I'm a "new collector" compared to many here.


True, but you can just as easily develop the type of goodwill that comes from repeat purchases without this maker-first approach. I know, because I have.
Yes over many years, however new collectors don't have these many years under their belts. Supports my philosophy that a new collector buy from fewer rather than many. A new collector obtains this "goodwill" faster in buying four knives from two makers that one knife each from eight makers.

See above. "Piece first" doesn't mean you never buy from the same maker twice. Rather, it acknowledges that what you are buying is the knife. Makers are rarely for sale.
Again, where did I say makers or relationships are for sale?

Not sure how this "allows" you to do that versus any other approach. Nothing preventing you from promoting a maker from whom you have purchased several knives - in partnership or otherwise - by putting the piece first.
Never said that my approach was the "end all" approach to custom knife collecting, just that it has enabled me to build a decent collection, build many friendships, relationships, contacts in a short period of time. So I recommend this approach to new collectors. They can take my advice or not.

Roger

*****************

 

[Kevin Jones]

Hi Kevin,

Yes, among others, Ed is one of the makers whose work I enjoy the most. I still buy based on the particular piece in question though. My last purchase was a particular piece from another vocal maker that I liked and wanted to see what he brought to the table. Over the last couple of years my purchases have been limited to orders with Clark and Schempp who are also top makers on my list. I've swung and missed on a few Foggs that have come on the market but I didn't try for every piece he's had available.

Even by your first paragraph you seem to indicate the piece comes first. Jerry might make an okay piece but would you pass it over and buy a piece that suited you better from one of your other favorite makers?

My views are based on a collector's perspective. A dealer or someone looking to turn over most of their knives would most likely have a different perspective and would likely net more buying from specific makers in high demand.

Actually Jose, when you think about it my and your collecting philosophies are much more alike than different.

 

[Kevin Jones]

Hi Kevin,

I go Knife, Price, Maker.

If the knife is flawed and/or overpriced I don't care who the maker is.

If you focus on Maker first, you will miss out on a lot of exceptional knives.

If you focus on the Price first, you will only buy knives in your "price range" and may miss out on exceptional values that are only slightly more expensive.

For me it is always the Knife first.

Les Robertson
Custom Knife Judge Blade Show 2008
www.robertsoncustomcutlery.com

I agree that a dealer's prospective is totally different here than a collector's even though I realize you are also a collector (but isn't every dealer to some degree).
I would think a dealer would have to rank all three about the same as all are very important to being a successful dealer.

 

[RogerP]

Hi Kevin,

I go Knife, Price, Maker.

If the knife is flawed and/or overpriced I don't care who the maker is.

If you focus on Maker first, you will miss out on a lot of exceptional knives.

If you focus on the Price first, you will only buy knives in your "price range" and may miss out on exceptional values that are only slightly more expensive.

For me it is always the Knife first.

Les Robertson
Custom Knife Judge Blade Show 2008
www.robertsoncustomcutlery.com

I need to be more succint. What he said.

Roger

 

[Jose Reyes]

Actually Jose, when you think about it my and your collecting philosophies are much more alike than different.

I think you're right about that, and I envy your collection, so can't disagree too strongly with you...

 

[Les Robertson]

Hi Kevin,

By following:

Knife, Price, Maker this is exactly what has made me a very successful dealer.

What I found early on as a collector is buying the name sometimes equated to getting a knife that was not the best value for my money.

Once I started with the knife first I got better knives.

I have learned over the years that then "Name" can be misleading.

Once I started doing the research to determine a makers position in the market, this is when my business really took off.

I found that many collectors are more interested in "quality for the money" than the name.

Example, if I had been more interested in the name. I would have kept buying knives...well waiting for knives from Jim Crowell. And passed on that new guy....Jerry Fisk.

Les Robertson
Custom Knife Entrepreneur
www.robertsoncustomcutlery.com

 

[RogerP]

Roger you are totally missing my point as I never said that new collectors should collect the same maker's knives as I do. Nor did I say they should buy from the "blue chip" makers. You are twisting what I say to suit your purpose. They can and are better off forming relationships with makers that are at the lower end of the price spectrum.

Back to that old line again? How utterly unsurprising. Maybe you should just add it to your sig line, since you are so fond of it. Missing your point? Kind of hard when you bring it up on a weekly basis.

Point is - if you restrict your purchase decisions from the outset to a short list of makers, you're going to learn very little.

Again Roger, what I'm communicating is only a collecting philosophy. I'm not saying collectors should have tunnel vision as to what makers and knives are out there. Just give makers more priority over just buying any and every knife that tickles their fancy. Are you suggesting that I only have knowledge on the few knives and makers I collect? I would challenge that as I make it a point to educate myself on many makers and types/styles of knives. But actually, comparing years collecting, I'm a "new collector" compared to many here.

Wow, now who's twisting words? How exactly does putting "piece first" possibly equate with "buying any and every knife that tickles their fancy"? Hmmm? I haven't seen that suggested by anyone in this thread - and most certainly not by me. How about we just put that straw man to bed.

What I am suggesting that "tunnel vision" is an inescapable consequence of "maker first" within the context of purchase decisions( which is what I thought this thread was about). Follow that okay?

Yes over many years, however new collectors don't have these many years under their belts. Supports my philosophy that a new collector buy from fewer rather than many. A new collector obtains this "goodwill" faster in buying four knives from two makers that one knife each from eight makers.

I didn't perceive this as a contest to obtain the most goodwill at the fastest rate. By that "logic?" newer collectors should buy a whole bunch of knives from one maker only, just as fast as they can. Not a path I would endorse. My point is that you can develop goodwill by making repeat purchases within the "piece first" approach. There is nothing particular in your approach that uniquely "allows" this to happen, though I suppose it could happen more quickly.

Again, where did I say makers or relationships are for sale?

You'll know when I have claimed that you have said something by the fact that I quote you. Try to relax a bit, okay?

Never said that my approach was the "end all" approach to custom knife collecting, just that it has enabled me to build a decent collection, build many friendships, relationships, contacts in a short period of time. So I recommend this approach to new collectors. They can take my advice or not.

It works for you. I am happy for you. Carry on as you were. I have made a different recommendation. As with you, my advice is free, and worth every penny.

Roger

 

[RogerP]

Example, if I had been more interested in the name. I would have kept buying knives...well waiting for knives from Jim Crowell. And passed on that new guy....Jerry Fisk.

Les Robertson
Custom Knife Entrepreneur
www.robertsoncustomcutlery.com

I used Fisk as an example the last time (or one of the last times - it's hard to keep track) this came up. He was once the new kid on the block - he didn't emerge at the top of the tree overnight. He needed collectors to "take a chance" on his work, or he would never have achieved "sure thing" status in the first place. Pats on the back don't move knives off the table.

Roger

 

[Starkman1]

I think following a concrete rule or philosophy on buying/collecting is difficult for a new collector, but perhaps easier and maybe necessary as you gain experience and invest more money on your collection....or maybe that should be the other way around. As a new collector, I put a limit that I'll spend on hunters and bowies with the exception of a few particular makers, so does that make me put price first? There are some makers work I favor over others, and some I won't even consider, so am I a maker first person? However, regardless of price and maker, if I don't like it, I'm not going to buy it, so does that make me put piece first? I guess it all depends on the circumstances and mood I'm in at the time of purchase.

Consider this: when you commission a knife, you pick out a maker (among a group you're familiar with), discuss the piece and he quotes a price....maker, piece, price.

I like to be open minded about most things in life and knives are one of them. But hey, I'm new to all this and probably haven't learned too many hard lessons yet.
Bob

 

[SharpByCoop]

Any disadvantages ?

I understand your viewpoints, and your rationale is like your collecting philosophy: Very calculated.

It's just not as much fun. Sporadic purchases can blossom into long-standing joys. Do a search on the 'Ce Sun folding subhilt' for my extreme leftist view.

In music the most successful artists have made many songs that are duds, on the same album as their most acclaimed hit. Would you rather have a fabulous one-hit-wonder in your collection or an unmemorable melody from a solid performer?

OK, I know it's apples and oranges, but you get the metaphor. I am glad you stick your neck out on this. It's a balanced viewpoint that helps us all learn, whether we agree or not.

Coop

 

[RogerP]

Bob - bottom line is that by "maker first", you ONLY buy knives from makers A, B,C, & D. The maker is the FIRST defining criterion for purchase decisions - the FIRST factor that narrows the field of potential purchases.

If he's not on the list of "your makers" (whomever they may be), then his knives simply are not considered for purchase. Period. You don't buy knives from that maker's table; you don't order knives from that maker and you don't make purchases of his work in the secondary market. Unless, of course, that maker is ultimately elevated (by arcane and mystical rituals ) to the status of one of "your makers". THEN, and only then, does the piece itself and the price asked get factored in.

Roger

 

[Kevin Jones]

I used Fisk as an example the last time (or one of the last times - it's hard to keep track) this came up. He was once the new kid on the block - he didn't emerge at the top of the tree overnight. He needed collectors to "take a chance" on his work, or he would never have achieved "sure thing" status in the first place. Pats on the back don't move knives off the table.
Roger

But favorable magazine articles and favorable post and photos on forums do.

You should know as you often promote makers by given positive interviews and writing positive magazine articles.
And that's a good thing as new collectors value your opinions as they do others here.

No one can buy from every good maker no matter how diversified your collecting philosophy, however an encouraging word or public endorsement can go a long way in pushing a deserving maker's career along.

 

[rprocter]

o.k. here is the opinion of a "new collector", as all the above are established knowledgeable collectors.
i collect knives because i really like knives, especially well made ones. custom knives are obviously top of the pile in the "well made" department.
it is an expensive hobby and i am not in it to deal or try to make a profit; just strictly for the enjoyment i get from each knife.
there are many who consistently make a very fine knife, so i go by: knife/price/maker. a bit of the personality of the maker is in his/her knife and i like being in the presence of this variety. i don't want to limit myself.
i recently bought a trapper from Rusty Preston, not a name well known compared to many others, but i thoroughly enjoy this knife, and for me, that is what it is all about. roland