Please define Sole Authorship

james terrio said:
What Rick and Stacy said. It most certainly applies to damascus. How would someone feel if I bought a billet of damascus, ground and built a knife out of it and claimed sole authorship? That would be fraud in my opinion... because the making of damascus is a very unique and important skillset unto itself.

I believe this also extends to embellishments like engraving and scrimshaw... when you get into multi-thousand-dollar art knives, people want to know exactly who did what, and they're not going to be pleased if a maker passes off another artist's work as his own.
Click to expand...

Good point, I forgot to mention embellishment as a major reason to claim sole authorship.


A knife made by me that is engraved by Ken Hurst and scrimshawn by Rick Bowles will be very valuable. A knife made by me with scrim and engraving by me is sole authorship ( and probably less valuable :) ).
 
Sole Authorship to means that everything besides the raw materials was made by one person.

Steel, handle materials, pin stock, tubing etc... fair game.

You have to make the Damascus I feel... things like folder hardware I am not to sure about so I personally won't call it sole authorship.

CNC'd in house from raw materials... sole authorship to me.

Heat treat and profiling has to be done in house along with design and execution.
 
so how would you call a knife made by a person that did smelt his own steel (harvested his handle material etc)?
 
I love the concept of SA.. Some day when I can lay down the cash for a top notch Bladesmith's Fighter made with Damascus and beautiful sheath I want it to be Sole authorship. But I certainly would not be mad that he didn't tan his own leather but I would be mad if he didn't make his own Damascus .

But I can see how a guy would be upset if he did tan his own hides and made the thread and screws and brass or nickel hardware would be a little peeved about it. But the good news about that ? You really wouldn't have many if any guys truly made at you because so few do this.
 
Hengelo_77 said:
so how would you call a knife made by a person that did smelt his own steel (harvested his handle material etc)?
Click to expand...

That question was the game changer for me. It's a personal choice. A maker who does everything from the ground(smelt) up is more deserving of that title than I am. If I didn't intend to one day smelt my own steel(or in the least, make my own pattern welded billets), I would probably be fine playing the "sole authorship" card ... until that day, I'll hold off.

Just to be clear... If someone using mill steel and stabilized wood claimed "sole authorship", I would completely understand and defend their position.
 
Rick Marchand said:
That question was the game changer for me. It's a personal choice. A maker who does everything from the ground(smelt) up is more deserving of that title than I am. If I didn't intend to one day smelt my own steel(or in the least, make my own pattern welded billets), I would probably be fine playing the "sole authorship" card ... until that day, I'll hold off.

Just to be clear... If someone using mill steel and stabilized wood claimed "sole authorship", I would completely understand and defend their position.
Click to expand...

Again, I agree with all of that. I guess in my mind SA has certain implications that could be interpreted in different ways. Going by some trains of thought, the knife I'm making now would be SA since all of the blade grinding is done by me as well as ht and the scales are also made by me. However, I still wouldn't use the moniker.

Sole Authorship, to me, involves a number of *traditional* methods in the making of the knife. It should be something like the Japanese knife that was recently posted here by Island Blacksmith. That knife, while not constructed of materials made solely by the maker, demonstrates traditional methods and construction. I would consider that knife SA. My little ground out edc hardened in a two brick forge, and wearing home made micarta isn't in the same league by any stretch of the imagination.

One can break down the two words and apply a definition to them, but I think it's important to remember that the phrase was first uttered (or written) with the intention of describing something with some exclusivity. At least that's how I understand it.

Edit- that isn't to say that it can't be a modern blade. Only that it features a great deal of craftsmanship. I'd love to hear Bruce Bumps take.

Bruce?
 
Last edited:
If it's made completely by the maker then it's SA. Rather or not the materials are made by the maker (and I count Damascus as a high end material) is irrelevant.
 
Lone Fortress said:
If it's made completely by the maker then it's SA. Rather or not the materials are made by the maker (and I count Damascus as a high end material) is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

IF YOU ARE USING DAMASCUS MADE BY SOMEONE ELSE IT IS *NOT* SOLE AUTHORSHIP!

I don't care how good you are with a grinder, the Damascus in a Damascus knife is almost always the most visible artistic component, unless you are someone like Buster Warenski, and as such defines a certain portion of the character and value of the knife. IF YOU ARE USING SOMEONE ELSE"S DAMASCUS YOU HAD BETTER CREDIT THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO WHAT THE KNIFE IS. I would consider a knife made from bar stock and raw boards to be sole authorship, although I have gone as far as smelting my own steel with charcoal I made myself and cutting/seasoning my own handle material, I don't think that is necessary for "sole Authorship" however if you use mosaic pins, fancy folder pivot mechanisms, auto or assisted opener mechanisms you should make those yourself if you are claiming sole authorship, not to is fraud, pure and simple, because those things all are defining characteristics of the knife, and you are claiming that you did it all. (Heat treating of course falls into this as well of course) If you aren't going to do all of this, skip the BS and just say "yea, I made the knife" and leave it at that (although as I said if you used someone else's artistry whether it be the Damascus, or embellishment, or a heat treating service like Bos you should assign credit where it is due)

Just my opinion

-Page
 
I have ideas on "sole authorship" and they line up exactly with Tracys. If I make a knife and put my engraving on it the value goes from say $3000+ for an expertly engraved bowie to about $250 if I engrave it. Nobody would want it if I engraved it. I've only engraved one knife and it looked like crap, I was lucky to sell it.

I can't call it "sole authorship" if the engraving was done by somebody else.
I believe that to make a knife as valuable as possible it must be done by experts. If I can't perform one or more of the procedures myself I hire somebody that can. There are few makers that can do it all themselves, those who can and do it well are in high demand and able to demand a high price. I get high prices too by my profit is lower because I have to pay somebody to do their artwork.

My suggestion to you youngsters is to start engraving now before you get too old. In about 5-10 years you should be good enough to engrave your own masterpieces and get paid for it.
Grandpa Bump
 
Last edited:
Hi Bruce, nice to see you :)

sunshadow said:
IF YOU ARE USING DAMASCUS MADE BY SOMEONE ELSE IT IS *NOT* SOLE AUTHORSHIP!
Click to expand...

Again, I completely agree. Damascus-making is a skill unto itself.

If I were to buy a billet from Nichols or Ealy, not only would I be wrong to pass it off as my own, I'd be stupid... those guys are paid well for their work because they have earned a good reputation for quality... and that's reflected in the price of the final knife (assuming of course that I did my job right with it).

Even as a guy who does not make multi-thousand-dollar collector pieces, I absolutely give credit to the folks who do my HT... again, not only is that the right thing to do, it actually adds value to my knives because people know and trust them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top