Narrow minded vs. Narrow focus

[Lorien]

I've read that, to be a successful Collector, one must focus their attention on knives which complement one another, as opposed to having a collection which is all over the map.

Certainly there is credence to this- I'm sure there is someone out there who collects only knives by one maker, and possibly even restricted to one genre, who is lucky enough to have a box full of Morans or Lovelesses or Scagels, or somesuch.

But, by isolating one's choices to a particular maker, or a particular style, does one lose out on the wide world of knives? I realize this is a subjective question which is more rhetorical than anything, but the topic's been touched on here and there, particularly in the 'Snobbery' thread which we all enjoyed from a little while ago.

So, in the spirit of discussion, how do you feel about the difference between narrow mindedness vs. a narrow focus in your pursuit of building a collection? Are there times when you pass on a knife that you love, simply because it doesn't fit into your collection? Or do you simply acquire whatever tickles your fancy, within a loose definition? What if you build a collection based on cultural input, only to find that it loses value once the culture changes? How do you protect yourself from buying into a trend which has a lifespan?

Sunday morning ramblings, hope you don't mind!

 

[ddd]

Ramble on, Lorien, this is going to be interesting, believe me....

All the best,
David Darom (ddd)

 

[watchcollector1968]

I think there are those who define "collecting" based on their preference. Personally I dont limit to one style or maker/brand.

I get what I like from large fixed blades to small little slipjoints. I dont even know if I am a collector or just an accumulator.

Kind of like guns, I dont really collect them, but I like semi-auto pistols and old style looking single actions and have a few.

 

[Will Leavitt]

There is a difference, not much but it's there. Firstly you have to address the negative semantics of being labelled "narrow minded." As soon as that phrase is uttered the sentence has a negative conotation. Assign "narrow minded" a neutral factor for this conversation.

Narrow minded means that you focus on a subject/object to the exclusion of other subjects/objects and are unable/unwilling to acknowledge other subjects/objects. Usually ignores threads not piquing their interest or posts some flippant comment.

Narrow focus means that you focus on a subject/object and exclude other other subjects/objects and is willing/able to acknowledge other subjects/objects. Phrase often uttered here is "not my cup of tea but great workmanship... blah blah blah"

 

[RogerP]

Perhaps a preliminary question should be how one defines a "successful" collector. Having a narrow focus to your collection is a perfectly valid approach and works well for many. But to suggest that this is the only path to a successful collection is narrow minded.

One of the most spectacular collections I have ever seen is that of Murray White. If one wanted to be condescending and disparaging, I suppose one could describe it as "all over the map". In my view, it captures well the rich diversity of the field of custom knives.

Roger

 

[peterinct]

I think there are those who define "collecting" based on their preference. Personally I dont limit to one style or maker/brand.

I get what I like from large fixed blades to small little slipjoints. I dont even know if I am a collector or just an accumulator.

Kind of like guns, I dont really collect them, but I like semi-auto pistols and old style looking single actions and have a few.

I think Watchcollector's philosophy is close to mine. I think I also would have a tendancy towards being an "accumulator".

I have always liked knives and have quit a few that i've had for decades. I like manufactured knives as well as customs/hand made knives. I never focused on being a "collector" or investor, I simply acquired things I like.

That has resulted in "collections" of knives, a few guns, mechanical scales, scientific microscopes, carvings from wood and stone, tools....

Peter

 

[Kevin Jones]

I've read that, to be a successful Collector, one must focus their attention on knives which complement one another, as opposed to having a collection which is all over the map.

Well it all depends on the definition of successful collector. "Oh No" not another definition. My definition of a "successful collector" is one that has acquired a collection that they are satisfied with at the lowest cost which will also enable then to "sell-up/trade-up as they see fit or will not lose money but perhaps make money if they are ever forced to liquidate.

Certainly there is credence to this- I'm sure there is someone out there who collects only knives by one maker, and possibly even restricted to one genre, who is lucky enough to have a box full of Morans or Lovelesses or Scagels, or somesuch.

But, by isolating one's choices to a particular maker, or a particular style, does one lose out on the wide world of knives? I realize this is a subjective question which is more rhetorical than anything, but the topic's been touched on here and there, particularly in the 'Snobbery' thread which we all enjoyed from a little while ago.
I don't think so. In my seminars I advise new collectors to focus, because IMO one has to (initially anyway) in order to gain enough knowledge to buy the makers/knives that will interest them long term. We lose far too many new collectors by them coming into the customs community and buying anything and everything on impulse only to find themselves frustrated when after a year or so their having knives they can't get their money out of to buy the knives they now realize are their passion.

The customs industry is much too vast IMO, for even a seasoned collector to be really knowledgeable on all types and styles of custom knives. However there are some who are, but they have built up this knowledge over many years. I started focusing on forged fix-blade knives and I feel I'm fairly knowledgeable on them. I have only been studying folders and stockremoval knives for a couple years now and hope I'm learning everyday. But then knowledge is subject to interpretation as well. Some custom knife enthusiast feel one can obtain all the knowledge necessary to be successful only by seeing photos of knives on the INTERNET, others believe one has to get out and see, handle and examine knifes. At the end of the day, it's up to the individual collector as to what they consider successful and if they focus or not. My concern is more in getting the new collector off on the right foot in sake of their long term enjoyment and longevity in the community.



So, in the spirit of discussion, how do you feel about the difference between narrow mindedness vs. a narrow focus in your pursuit of building a collection? Are there times when you pass on a knife that you love, simply because it doesn't fit into your collection? Or do you simply acquire whatever tickles your fancy, within a loose definition? What if you build a collection based on cultural input, only to find that it loses value once the culture changes? How do you protect yourself from buying into a trend which has a lifespan?

I enjoy many different types/styles of custom knives, but yes I have passed on quite a few that fell outside of my collection philosophy. So I have missed out on some nice knives however I'm very satisfied with my collection. I have added folders to my collection and have been looking very closely at stockremoval knives. I assume I will be adding some to my collection as I learn more.

Sunday morning ramblings, hope you don't mind!

I have run on as well, but this is an interesting and important subject. Thanks Lorien for bringing it up.

 

[So-Lo]

Well it all depends on the definition of successful collector.

IMHO we would need to define "successfull collector." For me it would mean, "One being content with his/her knives." Even if its Johnny down the street, happy with his Case stockman, BM Grip, and Busse BM. To him he is very content and considers himself a "successfull collector." Who is anyone to tell him he is not? If you would tell Johnny he is not a "successfull collector," how would you define "successfull?"

 

[Kevin Jones]

IMHO we would need to define "successfull collector." For me it would mean, "One being content with his/her knives." Even if its Johnny down the street, happy with his Case stockman, BM Grip, and Busse BM. To him he is very content and considers himself a "successfull collector." Who is anyone to tell him is not? If you would tell Johnny he is not a "successfull collector," how would you define "successfull?"

Perhaps the best we can define a "successful collector" as a group would be "one that is satisfied or content" with their collection".
And it's up to every collector's discretion as to if they are successful or not.

But is it possible for a collector to be considered successful or un-successful from a community's prospective?

Just for example and discussion sake, suppose a collector had a reputation of buying custom knives on impulse only to sell then a few months latter at a substantial loss, thus negatively effecting the maker's price structure and other collector's knife values. Would the or should the custom knife community then view this collector as "un-successful"?

Sorry Lorien if I'm getting too far off your initial subject.

 

[RogerP]

Perhaps the best we can define a "successful collector" as a group would be "one that is satisfied or content" with their collection".
And it's up to every collector's discretion as to if they are successful or not.

But is it possible for a collector to be considered successful or un-successful from a community's prospective?

I'm not sure there is a singular "community view".

I'm not sure there should be.

I'm not sure that any one person is positioned to declare what the community view is, or should be.

Roger

 

[Michael Lovett]

Lorien, I Got'ta tell ya. I'm starting to get a little impressed with some of your threads my friend.

Mike

 

[So-Lo]

Perhaps the best we can define a "successful collector" as a group would be "one that is satisfied or content" with their collection".
And it's up to every collector's discretion as to if they are successful or not.

That is where I was going, it would depend solely on each "collector."

But is it possible for a collector to be considered successful or un-successful from a community's prospective?

Absolutely, the community could view them as successful or not. That would also lead into what community? The forums? The "Knife Show" community? The "user" community? The dealer/purveyor community? The maker community? They all overlap to a certain degree, but are all very different. (Not trying to be a hard ass just expressing this Noobies viewpoint)

Just for example and discussion sake, suppose a collector had a reputation of buying custom knives on impulse only to sell then a few months latter at a substantial loss, thus negatively effecting the maker's price structure and other collector's knife values. Would the or should the custom knife community then view this collector as "un-successful"?

That would be un-successful IMHO. I do believe one could argue that a "fire sale" is often seen by people as a "fire sale," and not a fair market price. Now if EVERYBODY did the same across the whole board, and flooded the market with "fire sales" of that makers knives I could see that as a problem.

Sorry Lorien if I'm getting too far off your initial subject.

I am also sorry if it's too far off the OP topic

Another great thread :thumbup:

 

[Kevin Jones]

I'm not sure there is a singular "community view".

I'm not sure there should be.

I'm not sure that any one person is positioned to declare what the community view is, or should be.

Roger

I should have been clearer. In "community prospective" I was referring to individuals within the community, not a "singular" community view.

As several have said, it's easy enough for each individual to determine if they are a successful collector, but in defining a "successful collector" can one look at other individuals and determine if they are successful or no? My example was addressing what if any behaviors would mark a collector as successful or not other than he/she is content with their collection?

 

[Kohai999]

I should have been clearer. In "community prospective" I was referring to individuals within the community, not a "singular" community view.

As several have said, it's easy enough for each individual to determine if they are a successful collector, but in defining a "successful collector" can one look at other individuals and determine if they are successful or no? My example was addressing what if any behaviors would mark a collector as successful or not other than he/she is content with their collection?

There CAN be a community perspective, and a somewhat unified one, just by the numbers....for instance, it is highly possible that the knife community is more conservative than the "average" American....simply by the nature of what we collect, but that is neither here, nor there.

A simple definition of a "successful" collector is one who takes enjoyment from knife collecting and stays with it for an extended period of time...always enjoying it.

From my perspective, you can say that you are successful when makers that you don't personally know seek you out at shows for an opinion, or to solicit a sale...that, for me, was when I felt that I had been "recognized".

Collecting is such a personal thing, that I have no doubt that some of the "biggest" collectors out there are unknown to most of us....I have met one collector like this...he collects engraved folding knives, preferring nude females as a subject matter, and the sampling of work(maybe 20 knives) he showed me was probably worth $250,000. He purchases his knives from one source, almost exclusively, save for one show he attends.

IF he REALLY enjoys it, I'd say he is very successful, if it is just "another" thing to him, I say he is just another asshole with too much money. The makers probably don't care either way.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[RogerP]

I should have been clearer. In "community prospective" I was referring to individuals within the community, not a "singular" community view.

Got it - I did misunderstand your original post. Thanks.

As several have said, it's easy enough for each individual to determine if they are a successful collector, but in defining a "successful collector" can one look at other individuals and determine if they are successful or no? My example was addressing what if any behaviors would mark a collector as successful or not?

I'm not sure that successful / unsuccessful really applies to the example you have given. Consider:

1) Selling a single piece below a maker's price in most cases doesn't have a negative impact on the maker or other owners of his knives. Doing so repeatedly and in large quantity obviously would.

2) I'm not sure where the collector's "reputation" enters into it or how one knows he or she is buying on impulse unless one is a mindreader. There are collectors who will not order a knife, but will only purchase a completed piece that meets their desires either at a show or otherwise. I wouldn't characterize those as impulse buys.

3) Buying high and selling low is certainly not going to be regarded as a winning strategy by many. Although those snapping up the knives he is selling below value probably aren't exactly complaining. And this of course assumes one knows how much the knife was purchased for in the first place. Lots of people think they know. But the only ones who really know are the original buyer and seller. In any event, those that frequently buy knives only to soon flip them at a substantial loss tend to not remain in the game for long (for obvious reasons) which is a self-correcting limitation on the negative impact of such activity.

4) Yes, one can "look at other individuals and determine if they are successful or no[t]" but depending on who is doing the looking, the answer may be very different. To return to the example of Murray, one who says that focus on a single or a small group of collectors is the only path to a succesful collection may look to Murray and dismiss his collection as "all over the map". Someone else, like me, for example, will look see a brilliant and diverse collection of beautiful examples of custom knife craft.

Roger

 

[betzner]

Perhaps a preliminary question should be how one defines a "successful" collector. Having a narrow focus to your collection is a perfectly valid approach and works well for many. But to suggest that this is the only path to a successful collection is narrow minded.

One of the most spectacular collections I have ever seen is that of Murray White. If one wanted to be condescending and disparaging, I suppose one could describe it as "all over the map". In my view, it captures well the rich diversity of the field of custom knives.

Roger

I quite agree with Roger, not just about Murray's collection (which is a really diverse, wonderful collection), but about his general comments. I know a guy in Italy who collects one knife from every maker he encounters. WOW! I call that diversity, and with a very specific focus. So one can have both.

IMHO, what's important is that which makes the colllecting fun to the person, whether it's just the knives, the knives as both art and investment, whatever. But it's got to be what's pleasurably important to the collector.

 

[Kevin Jones]

Got it - I did misunderstand your original post. Thanks.



I'm not sure that successful / unsuccessful really applies to the example you have given. Consider:

1) Selling a single piece below a maker's price in most cases doesn't have a negative impact on the maker or other owners of his knives. Doing so repeatedly and in large quantity obviously would.

2) I'm not sure where the collector's "reputation" enters into it or how one knows he or she is buying on impulse unless one is a mindreader. There are collectors who will not order a knife, but will only purchase a completed piece that meets their desires either at a show or otherwise. I wouldn't characterize those as impulse buys.

3) Buying high and selling low is certainly not going to be regarded as a winning strategy by many. Although those snapping up the knives he is selling below value probably aren't exactly complaining. And this of course assumes one knows how much the knife was purchased for in the first place. Lots of people think they know. But the only ones who really know are the original buyer and seller. In any event, those that frequently buy knives only to soon flip them at a substantial loss tend to not remain in the game for long (for obvious reasons) which is a self-correcting limitation on the negative impact of such activity.

4) Yes, one can "look at other individuals and determine if they are successful or no[t]" but depending on who is doing the looking, the answer may be very different. To return to the example of Murray, one who says that focus on a single or a small group of collectors is the only path to a succesful collection may look to Murray and dismiss his collection as "all over the map". Someone else, like me, for example, will look see a brilliant and diverse collection of beautiful examples of custom knife craft.

Roger

I was fishing for examples to start discussion, since most think "successful collector" needs to be defined before diving into Lorien's broader question.

So Roger, since I seem to be wrong most of the time in your eyes , in interest of defining a "successful collector", do you have any behaviors examples that would support such other than is content with their collection?

 

[Blues]

I think one can make this as simple or as complex as one wants but as far as I'm concerned the successful collector is any that is happy with the group of knives he or she owns, be they from one genre or several, or the collection large or small.


(Which is the more successful collection: New York's Museum of Modern Art (narrow focus) or The Metropolitan Museum of Art (diverse/eclectic)?)

 

[T.K.C.]

I like a wide variety of knives, I do not limit myself to any one maker. I just buy what I like. I am happy with my knives.

 

[Lycosa]

I will Parrot my friend, Suz.