Nessie chat. I'm thinking about taking the plunge on a nessie. Sell me on them!!

Nessies are great general purpose knives. They slice well, and their wide blades give them strength if you must use them for a heavier purpose as well.

I have two of Dan Koster's, and two of Fiddleback's. If you want a more modern version of the knife, go with Dan. If you want a traditional shape and design, go with Fiddleback. You just can't go wrong!

Andy
 
And now for a slightly different opinion. ;)

I have no problem with Nessmuks - if you like a design, go for it, and if it works better for you than others, all the better.

But personally, I don't fancy them. I'd rather have a traditional scandi design. Why? Many reasons:

- Size. Nessmuks are larger and heavier. If I want a heavier knife, I'll just carry something real heavy like an axe or a large hard use knife, with power enough to chop and beat through things.

- Looks. I don't like the way Nessmuks look. This isn't a performance related reason, obviously.

- Pointless (pun intended). Nessmuks don't have much of a point compared to traditional scandis. That sucks when you're trying to carve holes in wood or something similar.

- Lack of precision. The shape of the Nessmuk, the width of the blade makes it less accurate in precise work, especially in wood working, than the typical scandi, which has blade much less wide.

But, as they say, matters of taste. Which would I rather have me? A scandi, no doubt of that. Would I be in trouble if I had a Nessmuk instead. No, of course not. :)
 
I have one that is at least 100 years old. It belonged to my wife's Grandfather. It has no sign of a brand name or any other stamps or symbols. We think her great grandfather probably made it. The handle is a bit straighter than those pictured but the nine inch blade is a dead ringer. I use it a lot but IMO its more at home in the kitched than in the forest.
 
Elen said:
- Size. Nessmuks are larger and heavier. If I want a heavier knife, I'll just carry something real heavy like an axe or a large hard use knife, with power enough to chop and beat through things.
Click to expand...

This is my biggest problem with modern “Nessmuk” knives. The original had a handle length of 3.5” a blade of around 4.5” and was around 3/32” thick if I remember correctly. Hardly something one would call big. Just because a knife has a hump on it’s back doesn’t make it a Nessmuk replica, I would like to think that knife makers would realize this before branding every knife that has such a feature a “Nessmuk”. Dale Chudzinski’s Nessmuk is probably the best replica available with a handle that is better suited to average/larger hands than the original.


Cheers,
~ Wabajack
 
Elen said:
And now for a slightly different opinion. ;)

I have no problem with Nessmuks - if you like a design, go for it, and if it works better for you than others, all the better.

But personally, I don't fancy them. I'd rather have a traditional scandi design. Why? Many reasons:

- Size. Nessmuks are larger and heavier. If I want a heavier knife, I'll just carry something real heavy like an axe or a large hard use knife, with power enough to chop and beat through things.

- Looks. I don't like the way Nessmuks look. This isn't a performance related reason, obviously.

- Pointless (pun intended). Nessmuks don't have much of a point compared to traditional scandis. That sucks when you're trying to carve holes in wood or something similar.

- Lack of precision. The shape of the Nessmuk, the width of the blade makes it less accurate in precise work, especially in wood working, than the typical scandi, which has blade much less wide.

But, as they say, matters of taste. Which would I rather have me? A scandi, no doubt of that. Would I be in trouble if I had a Nessmuk instead. No, of course not. :)
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you said except the size and weight. My Chudzinski Nessmuk is only 3/32 and very light.

hollowdweller_outd.jpg
 
Wabajack said:
This is my biggest problem with modern “Nessmuk” knives. The original had a handle length of 3.5” a blade of around 4.5” and was around 3/32” thick if I remember correctly. Hardly something one would call big. Just because a knife has a hump on it’s back doesn’t make it a Nessmuk replica, I would like to think that knife makers would realize this before branding every knife that has such a feature a “Nessmuk”. Dale Chudzinski’s Nessmuk is probably the best replica available with a handle that is better suited to average/larger hands than the original.


Cheers,
~ Wabajack
Click to expand...

Mine uses a 4" blade, 4" handle, and 3/32 01 tool steel. Its a pretty accurate rendition.

AD37-vi.jpg
 
Fiddleback said:
Mine uses a 4" blade, 4" handle, and 3/32 01 tool steel. Its a pretty accurate rendition.
Click to expand...

One of the best. :thumbup:

The point I was trying to make is that Nessmuk replicas should really be kept these types of size ranges and blade thicknesses.
 
For authenticity, I agree. But I own a Koster Nessmuk, and lemme tell you. WOW. What a knife.
 
Wabajack said:
One of the best. :thumbup:

The point I was trying to make is that Nessmuk replicas should really be kept these types of size ranges and blade thicknesses.
Click to expand...


I agree. Otherwise you lose all the good points IMO.

I don't think that it's just the blade shape that makes it a nessmuk. The thinness also really I think that the edge of the blade being in line with the handle also is part of it.
 
Wabajack said:
This is my biggest problem with modern “Nessmuk” knives. The original had a handle length of 3.5” a blade of around 4.5” and was around 3/32” thick if I remember correctly. Hardly something one would call big.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wouldn't call that big, either. But I would call it larger than the typical, average scandi type knife - because it is. ;)

For a traditional scandi a blade of 3.75" (95 mm) is normal length. Shorter blades are very common, and larger blades only slightly less so, but 95 mm is about the 'average'. An inch is a lot in precise work.
 
Another of mine I like. Fully forged, thin and has the nice S shape with the upward curve of the blade and downward curve of the handle. Also the tapered tang give it a nice feel and lightens it up.


2007_1007Image0112.jpg
 
hollowdweller said:
I agree. Otherwise you lose all the good points IMO.

I don't think that it's just the blade shape that makes it a nessmuk. The thinness also really I think that the edge of the blade being in line with the handle also is part of it.
Click to expand...

HD's guidance was a crucial component in my design.

This is the one I made for him:
 

Attachments

  • hd264.JPG
    hd264.JPG
    26.8 KB · Views: 104
hollowdweller said:
I don't think that it's just the blade shape that makes it a nessmuk. The thinness also really I think that the edge of the blade being in line with the handle also is part of it.
Click to expand...

How did I miss that? Yes, I agree, it's very important that the handle be in line with the cutting edge. Otherwise, the precision of the blade in small work suffers enormously, due to the cutting edge being far away from the hand that controls it.
 
In my opinion I don't see a problem with using the Nessmuk name to describe this style of knives. As a group we do it all the time with other styles that share common elements but differ in the specifics. A couple of examples would be when you refer to a Loveless style knife or a Chute Knife you know what to expect by the name but rarely is it an exact and authentic reproduction of the namesake. Just my 2 cents.

Back to the OP's topic I think another reason to try the Nessmuk is the cost. I think most of the one's I've seen for sale here are very reasonably priced for a true custom knife. Get one, give it a workout and let us know what you think!!

Stephen
 
Stephen Tolar said:
In my opinion I don't see a problem with using the Nessmuk name to describe this style of knives. As a group we do it all the time with other styles that share common elements but differ in the specifics. A couple of examples would be when you refer to a Loveless style knife or a Chute Knife you know what to expect by the name but rarely is it an exact and authentic reproduction of the namesake. Just my 2 cents.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Good point!
 
I miss typed the description of mine, it is nine inches overall with a four inch handle.
 
Could someone do me a favor? I really like the look of the Koster Nessmuks, but there's something about them that make them look HUGE to me for some reason. I read the dimensions, but they still look like a gigantic meat cleaver when I see a picture. Can someone give me frame of reference on a one? Like, maybe post a picture of it next to a mora or something I'm more familiar with the size of?

Thanks!
 
Noshtero said:
Could someone do me a favor? I really like the look of the Koster Nessmuks, but there's something about them that make them look HUGE to me for some reason. I read the dimensions, but they still look like a gigantic meat cleaver when I see a picture. Can someone give me frame of reference on a one? Like, maybe post a picture of it next to a mora or something I'm more familiar with the size of?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Does this help? It IS a bit bigger in Blade.
hollowdweller_outd.jpg

ness2-1.jpg

attachment.php

attachment.php


More pics here but you'll have to wad thru over 3 pages of pics of the various nessmuk interpretations:
http://ramanon.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38454
 
I didn't have any of my mora's with me but here are a couple of pictures with the nessie next to a cell phone and dollar bill. Hope that helps!

Stephen



and a spine shot, not too thick!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top