Rob Simonich
Big Bear
- Joined
- Oct 3, 1998
- Messages
- 2,294
Hey, I even took one of my knives and chopped a concrete block with it! 
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Model 10 from R. W. Clark in Liquid Metal (LM1)
- Thread starter Cliff Stamp
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 3, 1998
- Messages
- 1,774
Mr. Angerer.. I wasnt really trying to bust your balls on form.. BUT if your going for the whole badass with a handgun AVATAR thing, you should at least look like you can run the thing properly in the pic.. 
Glad you switched it up, you look MUCH more capable now..
Glad you switched it up, you look MUCH more capable now..
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
Buzzbait :
[hard/abusive work would not add a positive element to a review]
So you feel that hard / abusive work would be a positive element to the review of the Pronghorn? It is either one or the other.
This is a nice straw man arguement which would be relevant if that was all the review contained. Find an example. There are ~100 reviews, how many of them don't contain usage in the general scope of work of the knife. By the way of course, your opinion on the use of the term, is hardly universal. I am still getting requests for "reviews" from makers/manufacturers who clearly realize the scope of work with their knives is going to be very large. As noted many times before, many of them in fact ask for such testing outside the scope of work of their knives.
So if a manufacturer won't be open about a knife I (or anyone else I would assume) am not allowed to do a review. That is a nice loophole you have given anyone to make a severe hyped based product Buzzbait.
You might be reading someone elses writing Buzz because that is rarely done. The heavier work is done mainly because such knives are promoted as being able to handle it, on a few cases it is used to address tradeoffs in design, why use 3/16" rather than 1/8" for a hunting knife for example. I don't just review knives which are designed so as to suit my specific perspective on a class of use.
You would only have an argument if your point was that either the reviews are written in a manner so as to intentionally convey a false impression or that it was not reasonable to expect otherwise from a person of normal intelligence.
Do the reviews on occasion contain work that is outside the scope of function of the knife from how the knife was promoted. Yes. There are many reasons for this, as I have said in the past. First and foremost there is the fact that these products do not exist in isolation.
Lets assume I came out with a new photon light which was similar in size but more durable in regards to impacts and more water resistant. By your arguement I could not have this product compared to a photon as it would be outside the scope of work of the photon. Of course it would, this is the point of the comparison.
If I was asked to review a hunting knife, which was very durable and overbuilt for a hunting knife. It would be compared to a slim knife which would then outcut it significantly. By your arguement then that is all I can do because using the slim knife in any other manner can't be done and thus the heavier knife comes off directly as inferior which is not the case at all.
Thus for example when comparing the Spyderco Bill Moran to an F1 the Spyderco was generally superior for light work in various ways. However on heavier work the F1 fared better. This is a balanced perspective. Tayloring the review to the strength of one knife would be hugely biased.
Besides that there are also side issues. When using a fillet knife from Phil Wilson I used it for some light machete use. In One of the review this was put in to show the influence that balance could have even if everything else was right. Is it possible then that someone could read this and decide that Phil was a nob and made horrible fillet knives. Sure. Is this going to bother Phil - it didn't last time I checked.
If a maker or manufacturer after reading a review felt that something was misrepresentative then I of course would be willing to reread what was written and solve the problem. This happens *very* rarely (once that I recall), in spite of what seem to imply is common place. Of course just a reader is free to point out such potential problems as well.
Rob :
This is the way I feel such things should be done :
http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/bill_moran.html
It isn't made specifically clear in the review what is or isn't inside the scope of work. Neither knife is judged as being good or bad. The scope of work includes usage which shows the strengths of both knives and at the end a brief overview statement is made. What are your thoughts on that?
I often don't do such summaries as I would *MUCH* rather the reader do it because that would be a much more relevant and useful perspective to them. Of course in email and in various threads I would be happy to discuss my perspective on the success of filling out the scope of work of a knife and overall value.
Now I can see the arguement, especially for very restricted knives - for example a fillet blade. However even for such knives I would prefer the reader draw such conclusions from the work as even with such knives there is not universal agreement about issues like handle security, blade flex, tip flexibility/strength, etc. .
There are a few problems with this. First off all who decides on the scope of work, the maker? I don't have a problem with putting in such a quote from the maker, this is why the reviews are always linked to threads. However what do you do when the maker refuses to comment on such issues, or when the maker says something really odd, like this 1/4" spring tempered carbon steel bowie should not be subject to hard impacts or used to pry.
What is normal for a type of knife varies widly from one person to the next, it would be very biased of me to argue for any specific classification in a review and especially if this would result in restricting the work.. Now I could tell my perspective and do other things, but I don't feel my perspective should dominate, though I will readily discuss it elsewhere. If there is interest, just make a post in the relevant thread.
For awhile I was putting the promotional blurbs in the reviews. I then had a problem then as some of them were like "ATS-34 is a extremely tough steel, this knife is an excellent prybar". Do I quote that without comment - that would seem to imply that I support it. I stopped doing this and then just added the relevant links so the reader can find out that information for themselves and see how the maker is promoting it. There is a part of me which would like to comment on this in ther reviews, but in general I feel it is best done elsewhere.
-Cliff
[hard/abusive work would not add a positive element to a review]
So you feel that hard / abusive work would be a positive element to the review of the Pronghorn? It is either one or the other.
This is a nice straw man arguement which would be relevant if that was all the review contained. Find an example. There are ~100 reviews, how many of them don't contain usage in the general scope of work of the knife. By the way of course, your opinion on the use of the term, is hardly universal. I am still getting requests for "reviews" from makers/manufacturers who clearly realize the scope of work with their knives is going to be very large. As noted many times before, many of them in fact ask for such testing outside the scope of work of their knives.
So if a manufacturer won't be open about a knife I (or anyone else I would assume) am not allowed to do a review. That is a nice loophole you have given anyone to make a severe hyped based product Buzzbait.
You might be reading someone elses writing Buzz because that is rarely done. The heavier work is done mainly because such knives are promoted as being able to handle it, on a few cases it is used to address tradeoffs in design, why use 3/16" rather than 1/8" for a hunting knife for example. I don't just review knives which are designed so as to suit my specific perspective on a class of use.
You would only have an argument if your point was that either the reviews are written in a manner so as to intentionally convey a false impression or that it was not reasonable to expect otherwise from a person of normal intelligence.
Do the reviews on occasion contain work that is outside the scope of function of the knife from how the knife was promoted. Yes. There are many reasons for this, as I have said in the past. First and foremost there is the fact that these products do not exist in isolation.
Lets assume I came out with a new photon light which was similar in size but more durable in regards to impacts and more water resistant. By your arguement I could not have this product compared to a photon as it would be outside the scope of work of the photon. Of course it would, this is the point of the comparison.
If I was asked to review a hunting knife, which was very durable and overbuilt for a hunting knife. It would be compared to a slim knife which would then outcut it significantly. By your arguement then that is all I can do because using the slim knife in any other manner can't be done and thus the heavier knife comes off directly as inferior which is not the case at all.
Thus for example when comparing the Spyderco Bill Moran to an F1 the Spyderco was generally superior for light work in various ways. However on heavier work the F1 fared better. This is a balanced perspective. Tayloring the review to the strength of one knife would be hugely biased.
Besides that there are also side issues. When using a fillet knife from Phil Wilson I used it for some light machete use. In One of the review this was put in to show the influence that balance could have even if everything else was right. Is it possible then that someone could read this and decide that Phil was a nob and made horrible fillet knives. Sure. Is this going to bother Phil - it didn't last time I checked.
If a maker or manufacturer after reading a review felt that something was misrepresentative then I of course would be willing to reread what was written and solve the problem. This happens *very* rarely (once that I recall), in spite of what seem to imply is common place. Of course just a reader is free to point out such potential problems as well.
Rob :
This is the way I feel such things should be done :
http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/bill_moran.html
It isn't made specifically clear in the review what is or isn't inside the scope of work. Neither knife is judged as being good or bad. The scope of work includes usage which shows the strengths of both knives and at the end a brief overview statement is made. What are your thoughts on that?
I often don't do such summaries as I would *MUCH* rather the reader do it because that would be a much more relevant and useful perspective to them. Of course in email and in various threads I would be happy to discuss my perspective on the success of filling out the scope of work of a knife and overall value.
Now I can see the arguement, especially for very restricted knives - for example a fillet blade. However even for such knives I would prefer the reader draw such conclusions from the work as even with such knives there is not universal agreement about issues like handle security, blade flex, tip flexibility/strength, etc. .
There are a few problems with this. First off all who decides on the scope of work, the maker? I don't have a problem with putting in such a quote from the maker, this is why the reviews are always linked to threads. However what do you do when the maker refuses to comment on such issues, or when the maker says something really odd, like this 1/4" spring tempered carbon steel bowie should not be subject to hard impacts or used to pry.
What is normal for a type of knife varies widly from one person to the next, it would be very biased of me to argue for any specific classification in a review and especially if this would result in restricting the work.. Now I could tell my perspective and do other things, but I don't feel my perspective should dominate, though I will readily discuss it elsewhere. If there is interest, just make a post in the relevant thread.
For awhile I was putting the promotional blurbs in the reviews. I then had a problem then as some of them were like "ATS-34 is a extremely tough steel, this knife is an excellent prybar". Do I quote that without comment - that would seem to imply that I support it. I stopped doing this and then just added the relevant links so the reader can find out that information for themselves and see how the maker is promoting it. There is a part of me which would like to comment on this in ther reviews, but in general I feel it is best done elsewhere.
-Cliff
Buzzbait
Gold Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2001
- Messages
- 6,713
Come on Cliff. There's no need to play games like this.
I have no idea whether or what hard/abusive work would be appropriate for a Pronghorn. I've never handled one, talked to the maker about the knife, or read his feelings on its intended use. It is not my decision as to what is "one way or the other". You'll have to ask Ed Fowler what duties he designed the knife to perform, not me.
I think you forgot to read, although you happended to quote it, the part about "then make your best guess". And if the maker severely hypes the product by saying that it will cut through a brick wall, I'd put brick wall cutting into its intended use. The maker intended to cut the wall, didn't he? Call him on it. Hype is the easiest thing to test. Design is much tougher, and requires the knowledge of the maker.
I'm sorry Cliff, but I think that you're just plain being bullheaded. People could point out flaws in your reviewing methodology until the cows come home, but I don't think you'd listened to what they have to say. Again, you're just letting your ego get in the way, and dismissing them as the words of people who know less about everything than you. You won't get any better at this stuff until you start actually listening to other people's views with an open mind. All you seem to be doing is reacting to what people are writing, instead of learning from them. And it shows in your work.
I have no idea whether or what hard/abusive work would be appropriate for a Pronghorn. I've never handled one, talked to the maker about the knife, or read his feelings on its intended use. It is not my decision as to what is "one way or the other". You'll have to ask Ed Fowler what duties he designed the knife to perform, not me.
I think you forgot to read, although you happended to quote it, the part about "then make your best guess". And if the maker severely hypes the product by saying that it will cut through a brick wall, I'd put brick wall cutting into its intended use. The maker intended to cut the wall, didn't he? Call him on it. Hype is the easiest thing to test. Design is much tougher, and requires the knowledge of the maker.
I'm sorry Cliff, but I think that you're just plain being bullheaded. People could point out flaws in your reviewing methodology until the cows come home, but I don't think you'd listened to what they have to say. Again, you're just letting your ego get in the way, and dismissing them as the words of people who know less about everything than you. You won't get any better at this stuff until you start actually listening to other people's views with an open mind. All you seem to be doing is reacting to what people are writing, instead of learning from them. And it shows in your work.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2001
- Messages
- 1,152
Cliff,
I don't have a problem with destructive tests or even tests outside the scope of work. Buzz is correct though that it will depend on how you write your review wether the results will be misleading or not.
-Jose
I don't have a problem with destructive tests or even tests outside the scope of work. Buzz is correct though that it will depend on how you write your review wether the results will be misleading or not.
-Jose
Cobalt
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 1998
- Messages
- 17,725
Ok, since we are critisizing Cliff, I might as well throw my 2 cents in. I think that you should have a conclusion/summary discussing the overall performance and your impression of the knife and wether you consider it worth buying. This may get political, but I'm sure your not going to get any more flak than you already do. This is my only critisism, since I think that the testing is better than pretty much any one else has ever done and certainly no one has organized it as well. This was constructice crit only.
As for breaking knives, well someone has to since most users are not likely to. Of course the maker of a knife could prevent this by filming his knife in action and sending that video to the customer that payed an arm ad a leg for it instead. Sounds like Cold Steel doesn't it.
As for breaking knives, well someone has to since most users are not likely to. Of course the maker of a knife could prevent this by filming his knife in action and sending that video to the customer that payed an arm ad a leg for it instead. Sounds like Cold Steel doesn't it.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2002
- Messages
- 2,954
Well, I'm only halfway through the thread, too tired to go on now. I do have something I want to say though.
To all you guys who say you'll never need a knife that can survive chopping concrete or steel, there are some of us who do.
If you don't mind if your knife gets dull, or suffers chipped or rolled edges, that's fine. I care A LOT.
If you're able to be careful with your knives and never broke one accidentally, more power to ya. Some of us got a whole pile of broken knives that let us down when we needed them.
Never had to use a knife as a prybar, 'cause that's all you had? Then at least you're smart enough not to get into such situations, like a lowly possum.
If you seem to think some of these tests go too far, then by all means ignore them. Others among us use our blades under the exact same conditions daily. As they say, "Your mileage may vary."
To all you guys who say you'll never need a knife that can survive chopping concrete or steel, there are some of us who do.
If you don't mind if your knife gets dull, or suffers chipped or rolled edges, that's fine. I care A LOT.
If you're able to be careful with your knives and never broke one accidentally, more power to ya. Some of us got a whole pile of broken knives that let us down when we needed them.
Never had to use a knife as a prybar, 'cause that's all you had? Then at least you're smart enough not to get into such situations, like a lowly possum.
If you seem to think some of these tests go too far, then by all means ignore them. Others among us use our blades under the exact same conditions daily. As they say, "Your mileage may vary."
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2003
- Messages
- 3,049
just want to throw out an appritiation for cliff, as statements have been made regarding him as "the laughing stock of the knife industry".
while the information he gives out, as well as his opinions can be debated, the tone in wich he gives them has always been even and well tempered. i enjoy reading cliff stuff, because it makes me concentrate and think about what he's saying, and it very rarely rears any emotion in me.
i have a lot of respect for cliff in his ability to withstand personal berration while maintaining a logical and even tempered tone.
thank you to cliff, for having a calming tone in an otherwise feverish line of posts. (on several occasions)
edited to add - from jhonen vasquez's johnny the homocidal maniac comic series - "movies, books, t.v., music - they're all just entertainment, not guidebooks for damning yourself!"
edited one more time - to possom, very true and well said. i use the screw driver on my leathermen to pop off the soda nozels on our soda machine when they get stuck, because i have it, if i didnt, id just use my knife. i use the knife on my leatherment to unscrew my photon 2 mini light, because the screwdriver i have thats that small is the trunk of my car, not my room.
while the information he gives out, as well as his opinions can be debated, the tone in wich he gives them has always been even and well tempered. i enjoy reading cliff stuff, because it makes me concentrate and think about what he's saying, and it very rarely rears any emotion in me.
i have a lot of respect for cliff in his ability to withstand personal berration while maintaining a logical and even tempered tone.
thank you to cliff, for having a calming tone in an otherwise feverish line of posts. (on several occasions)
edited to add - from jhonen vasquez's johnny the homocidal maniac comic series - "movies, books, t.v., music - they're all just entertainment, not guidebooks for damning yourself!"
edited one more time - to possom, very true and well said. i use the screw driver on my leathermen to pop off the soda nozels on our soda machine when they get stuck, because i have it, if i didnt, id just use my knife. i use the knife on my leatherment to unscrew my photon 2 mini light, because the screwdriver i have thats that small is the trunk of my car, not my room.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 1999
- Messages
- 1,347
I second this. Hats off to Cliff! Keep up the good work, buddy.
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
Buzzbait, I used you as an example of one of the people who were anti-abuse as you have always been consistently of that tone. But since you feel this isn't a proper reflection, I won't do it again. Abuse by the way, by defination means improper use. And yes I have talked with Fowler extensivly about the use of his knives as I mentioned in the origional thread. And of course the maker viewpoint arguement about review content is highly flawed as I noted in detail in the above because it doesn't allow unbiased comparison to other knives, it does nothing but allow and encourage the spread of hype.
The reason that I ignored the "different guess" statement is that is made even less sense than to not do the review because a maker won't be upfront about useage. Consider that different people have different views on what a knife should be able to do, and thus the "best guess" would be be different from one reviewer to another. Now by your reasoning they should all be free to make their own choices and thus it it readily obvious that anything can be done with any knife, as there are a lot of different opinions available to make a very wide scope of work possible.
Jose, I agree, why not point out the majority of the reviews which have this problem, which should be easy as your statement certainly implies it is a significant problem, as otherwise why mention it. Note the irony of your arguement which applies more to your critism than the reviews of which it is the object. Of course it is possible for something to be misleading, this is why the reviews are linked to threads like these, contain maker contact information, web pages, emails etc. . And will include comments by the maker if desired. This has always been true, and continues to be so.
Buzzbait :
The reviews have evolved considerably since they started about five years ago which is obvious to someone who has been around that long and noted how they evolved which was through user feedback on the forums. No I can't do what everyone wants because some of the comments are in conflict with each other which is readily obvious in this thread. I tent to listen to those people who make coherent and consistent arguements which are based on reading the reviews and who apply such viewpoints in a consistent manner.
If for example, I did do the reviews exactly as you would want them, then the exact same arguement you used about me not listening to anyone could be applied by the people who are in opposition to your viewpoint as then I would not be listening to them. As I have said may times in the past, the reviews don't indicate my viewpoint on knife use, they are meant to encompass the widest scope of work I think can be done (and is practical for me to do) so as to be useful for the widest group of users.
It is trivial for a reader to ignore parts they they are not interested in. It is however impossible for a reader to read something that isn't there. This is why the work isn't restricted to what I think should be done as someone elses viewpoint might be different. The reviews are not, and never were, meant to endorse my opinion of what a particular style of knife should be (or use thereof), or as well any makers opinion on the latter either.
Cobalt :
THe funny thing about this is that I look for this in reviews by other people, Joe Talmadge for example. I don't generally do this in mine as I would prefer them to be more neutral. I think however I might start doing it in the linked-to thread. I think it has some value, but would not like it actually in the body of the review, as its main value comes from a starting point of discussion, as in this is what I make of the results, any other opinions.
the possum, Seth, Louis, thanks.
Back to the knife :
The Model 10 was used to pry in woods, it was unable to break out of 1/4" deep penetration into clear pine, and 3/16" penetration into a harder piece of spruce. In both cases the knife went flat to the wood (2x4) without clearing the chip. Also in both cases the tip readily bent. The degree of flex was slight (1,2 mm respectively), and the full length of the penetration in both cases.
It was then used to split some clear and knotty wood which it did easily. Though having little to no inherent splitting ability, with use of a baton it readily cleaved apart some clear and knotty lumber (2x4 sized) with no visible edge damage, including chiseling straight through several small knots (a few mm thick). The tip bent more from a couple of accidental impacts.
The knife was then impacted on concrete mainly to remove the edge. It fractured readily on just light wrist flicks, in parts the damage was so extensive the majority of the edge bevel was removed by fracture. The tip was then given a few pokes, it readily fractured. The edge was then ground off on the block.
I attempted a hand flex but my common sense kicked in (which is fairly rare) based on the extent of fracture I could not see a sensible way to hold this in hand and not risk serious injury if is cracked violently which was likely seeing how it behaved on the block.
The tip was inserted in a piece of wood and using one hand to steady the knife, the other was used to bend it down. This was done while sitting down, so the pressure used was light. The knife bent readily and the tip snapped. The piece in the wood also broke in multiple pieces (it was cut out with a saw).
The knife was again inserted in the wood (with about an inch of the tip missing), and again bent. Based on the violence of the last crack it was covered in a cloth bag. The knife again bent readily (still sitting down), and when it cracked it basically exploded. There were four major parts, each sub fractured into shards. The edges were sharp enough to cut skin readily.
Most of this was video'ed as per R.W.'s request, I will be sending him a copy of the tape, and will be getting it transferred to digital copy shortly.
-Cliff
The reason that I ignored the "different guess" statement is that is made even less sense than to not do the review because a maker won't be upfront about useage. Consider that different people have different views on what a knife should be able to do, and thus the "best guess" would be be different from one reviewer to another. Now by your reasoning they should all be free to make their own choices and thus it it readily obvious that anything can be done with any knife, as there are a lot of different opinions available to make a very wide scope of work possible.
Jose, I agree, why not point out the majority of the reviews which have this problem, which should be easy as your statement certainly implies it is a significant problem, as otherwise why mention it. Note the irony of your arguement which applies more to your critism than the reviews of which it is the object. Of course it is possible for something to be misleading, this is why the reviews are linked to threads like these, contain maker contact information, web pages, emails etc. . And will include comments by the maker if desired. This has always been true, and continues to be so.
Buzzbait :
The reviews have evolved considerably since they started about five years ago which is obvious to someone who has been around that long and noted how they evolved which was through user feedback on the forums. No I can't do what everyone wants because some of the comments are in conflict with each other which is readily obvious in this thread. I tent to listen to those people who make coherent and consistent arguements which are based on reading the reviews and who apply such viewpoints in a consistent manner.
If for example, I did do the reviews exactly as you would want them, then the exact same arguement you used about me not listening to anyone could be applied by the people who are in opposition to your viewpoint as then I would not be listening to them. As I have said may times in the past, the reviews don't indicate my viewpoint on knife use, they are meant to encompass the widest scope of work I think can be done (and is practical for me to do) so as to be useful for the widest group of users.
It is trivial for a reader to ignore parts they they are not interested in. It is however impossible for a reader to read something that isn't there. This is why the work isn't restricted to what I think should be done as someone elses viewpoint might be different. The reviews are not, and never were, meant to endorse my opinion of what a particular style of knife should be (or use thereof), or as well any makers opinion on the latter either.
Cobalt :
THe funny thing about this is that I look for this in reviews by other people, Joe Talmadge for example. I don't generally do this in mine as I would prefer them to be more neutral. I think however I might start doing it in the linked-to thread. I think it has some value, but would not like it actually in the body of the review, as its main value comes from a starting point of discussion, as in this is what I make of the results, any other opinions.
the possum, Seth, Louis, thanks.
Back to the knife :
The Model 10 was used to pry in woods, it was unable to break out of 1/4" deep penetration into clear pine, and 3/16" penetration into a harder piece of spruce. In both cases the knife went flat to the wood (2x4) without clearing the chip. Also in both cases the tip readily bent. The degree of flex was slight (1,2 mm respectively), and the full length of the penetration in both cases.
It was then used to split some clear and knotty wood which it did easily. Though having little to no inherent splitting ability, with use of a baton it readily cleaved apart some clear and knotty lumber (2x4 sized) with no visible edge damage, including chiseling straight through several small knots (a few mm thick). The tip bent more from a couple of accidental impacts.
The knife was then impacted on concrete mainly to remove the edge. It fractured readily on just light wrist flicks, in parts the damage was so extensive the majority of the edge bevel was removed by fracture. The tip was then given a few pokes, it readily fractured. The edge was then ground off on the block.
I attempted a hand flex but my common sense kicked in (which is fairly rare) based on the extent of fracture I could not see a sensible way to hold this in hand and not risk serious injury if is cracked violently which was likely seeing how it behaved on the block.
The tip was inserted in a piece of wood and using one hand to steady the knife, the other was used to bend it down. This was done while sitting down, so the pressure used was light. The knife bent readily and the tip snapped. The piece in the wood also broke in multiple pieces (it was cut out with a saw).
The knife was again inserted in the wood (with about an inch of the tip missing), and again bent. Based on the violence of the last crack it was covered in a cloth bag. The knife again bent readily (still sitting down), and when it cracked it basically exploded. There were four major parts, each sub fractured into shards. The edges were sharp enough to cut skin readily.
Most of this was video'ed as per R.W.'s request, I will be sending him a copy of the tape, and will be getting it transferred to digital copy shortly.
-Cliff
Cobalt
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 1998
- Messages
- 17,725
A lot of people do not want to go through an entire review, they just want the lowdown. Is it good or not. Can it do what it was intended to do, etc. A summary clears things up and can make the review more understandable as the numbers become clear when you know who won.
- Joined
- May 26, 2000
- Messages
- 1,922
Problems with bias in the summary can be handled reasonably well by using two sections:
SUMMARY:
Data Summary and Interpretation (relatively low bias)
=================================================
* cutting tests and comparisons with other knives
* chopping tests
* flexing tests (if you have some objective data here)
* materials tests, comparisons with similar and dissimilar materials
Subjective Summary and Opinion (opinion, with some bias)
==================================================
* comments on ergonomics w/ comparisons
* scope of work vs. what maker spec'd or what you assumed based on grind, materials, size, shape, handle, etc.
SUMMARY:
Data Summary and Interpretation (relatively low bias)
=================================================
* cutting tests and comparisons with other knives
* chopping tests
* flexing tests (if you have some objective data here)
* materials tests, comparisons with similar and dissimilar materials
Subjective Summary and Opinion (opinion, with some bias)
==================================================
* comments on ergonomics w/ comparisons
* scope of work vs. what maker spec'd or what you assumed based on grind, materials, size, shape, handle, etc.
Cobalt
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 1998
- Messages
- 17,725
Rob,
I like your summary. You are right a summary can have bias, you see it all the time in car tests. In fact I have seen car tests that the car that one every part of the test did not win the overall because of the summary in which the testers bias went into play. A good example is MotorTrend. They are notorious for that.
Back to the point. However, making short to the point statements about the knife in each category would help at the end. For example:
example: The knife is an excellent chopper in hard woods, but tends to bind in the softer woods. Overall performance in chopping is very good (choices would be, poor, fair, good, very good, excellent and you would need some criteria to say where the blade falls in a category.)
The knife has a thin point that penetrates well into soft materials and hard materials. The point is fairly fragile and side loads are not rcommended as tip breakege is likely.
Or, The knife point does not penetrate as well as other knives in this class such as..... However, strength at the tip is high and prying is not likely to have an effect on the tip.
I am not stating that this is the way to finish a test, but it will give the average reader an understanding of the overall performance of the knife, when they go back to read the review. I always read the results first then go back and see what was done.
I like your summary. You are right a summary can have bias, you see it all the time in car tests. In fact I have seen car tests that the car that one every part of the test did not win the overall because of the summary in which the testers bias went into play. A good example is MotorTrend. They are notorious for that.
Back to the point. However, making short to the point statements about the knife in each category would help at the end. For example:
example: The knife is an excellent chopper in hard woods, but tends to bind in the softer woods. Overall performance in chopping is very good (choices would be, poor, fair, good, very good, excellent and you would need some criteria to say where the blade falls in a category.)
The knife has a thin point that penetrates well into soft materials and hard materials. The point is fairly fragile and side loads are not rcommended as tip breakege is likely.
Or, The knife point does not penetrate as well as other knives in this class such as..... However, strength at the tip is high and prying is not likely to have an effect on the tip.
I am not stating that this is the way to finish a test, but it will give the average reader an understanding of the overall performance of the knife, when they go back to read the review. I always read the results first then go back and see what was done.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2003
- Messages
- 3,049
will the video be made available to the forum?
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
Rob, I just filled out the end of the review with some comments along those lines. More work could be done there, however I am hesitant of adding so much information it becomes a mini-review. While I realize the advantage this would offer, I really don't like the idea of stripping out that much context.
I did however not talk about the promoted use. I did that before and it started a huge debate on the forums and the reviews were heavily critized because of it. Now in general I don't pay much attention to that, but in this case I do feel there is a point. A lot of the times the promoted use of a knife is heavily filled with hype, dealing with this then becomes very ugly very fast.
In particular with this knife, this is the promoted use :
"The Model 10 is a no nonsense down to business knife. If your desire is to only carry one knife into the field, this should be your choice. "
I would have a lot of problems with the above statement for this particular Model 10. The LM1 version gives up a massive amount of durability and thus versatility over a similar knife in say L6 (or similar). This overall geometry also is very limiting compared to something like the Camp Tramp (Recon Scout, CU/7, Project, etc.).
As a Camp knife the Model 10 works well. However out side of camp, the lower strength and chopping ability and reach really reduce effectiveness in regards to gathering materials. Now is this hype, well not really. It may just be that my version of "the field" is really different than R.W. . Kind of impossible to know as he has refused to discuss
any such issues of work.
I would say it is best decribed as an upgraded small Chef's knife, with a slightly thicker blade.
A picture of the break was also added. Yes once I get the video transferred I'll add up a link to a few clips. Unless of course Clark of the Liquid Metal people believe that the above described performance isn't to be expected and want to provide another blade to repeat the work.
-Cliff
I did however not talk about the promoted use. I did that before and it started a huge debate on the forums and the reviews were heavily critized because of it. Now in general I don't pay much attention to that, but in this case I do feel there is a point. A lot of the times the promoted use of a knife is heavily filled with hype, dealing with this then becomes very ugly very fast.
In particular with this knife, this is the promoted use :
"The Model 10 is a no nonsense down to business knife. If your desire is to only carry one knife into the field, this should be your choice. "
I would have a lot of problems with the above statement for this particular Model 10. The LM1 version gives up a massive amount of durability and thus versatility over a similar knife in say L6 (or similar). This overall geometry also is very limiting compared to something like the Camp Tramp (Recon Scout, CU/7, Project, etc.).
As a Camp knife the Model 10 works well. However out side of camp, the lower strength and chopping ability and reach really reduce effectiveness in regards to gathering materials. Now is this hype, well not really. It may just be that my version of "the field" is really different than R.W. . Kind of impossible to know as he has refused to discuss
any such issues of work.
I would say it is best decribed as an upgraded small Chef's knife, with a slightly thicker blade.
A picture of the break was also added. Yes once I get the video transferred I'll add up a link to a few clips. Unless of course Clark of the Liquid Metal people believe that the above described performance isn't to be expected and want to provide another blade to repeat the work.
-Cliff