Possible Irrational Rant Alert (GONE POLL)

Which of the below are acceptable to outsource when it comes to a Maker's Challenge?

  • Smelting

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Shaping

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Heat Treating

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Finishing

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Mounting

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Sharpening

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Sheathing

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
I actually misread the poll and the topic at first and had to go back and reread it to make sure I understood. I almost checked the things that I would expect a maker to do for a challenge and that may be what some have done. Depending on the type of challenge, different things can be sourced out, however if it is a challenge on the best knife YOU can make, then the only thing that could be sourced out would be the smelting (IMO) since most people just dont have the capability to do that. Whether you forge, stock remove by grinding or milling, it should be all you from the piece of steel, to the finish sharpening. sheath making is an iffy part. I personally would do a sheath myself but I would accept someone else having to outsource it (unless it was being judged as part of the contest). Understanding that professional makers often outsource HT due to cost, availability, time constraints, in a one off contest, the maker really should attempt to do the HT themselves. This would just help them understand how their knives would hold up to an actual user later on. Once they have the understanding (not just reading stickies), they have my permission to outsource to their hearts content :-D Just not for a contest that calls for it. It may have to be stated though.

JBS, there are often contests on BF in W&SS, general knife makers and a couple other forums where people make and pass around or give out, knives for testing or gifts (KITH).
 
Dave Behrens said:
HT is the only aspect of knifemaking I outsource (except smelting of course). I am just not set up for it...even though I have a 24" Paragon...sitting in the corner of my shop...collecting dust...STOP LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT!!!:mad

Any way. Rick by your logic, if I am participating in a "Maker" challenge and I; draw the design, cut it out, grind it, drill it, balance it, contour the handle, attach the handle, finish the product, sharpen the blade, and make the sheath (I disagree with many on the importance of making your own sheaths). But in the midst of that process I send the blade out for HT, by your logic I should withdraw my entry for that challenge.

While I don't necessarily like sending my knives out for HT, if I don't then I don't make any knives, but I am kind of a hypocrite on this issue because I feel the same way you do if someone outsources the cutting and grinding for a challenge knife.
Click to expand...

Dave, you have summed up my dilema with this issue and why I posted this thread. It is not cut and dry. I would like it to be... but it isn't.
 
I think, Rick, if YOU set the challenge, then YOU set the rules.
If a person can not perform all the various requirements of the challenge, then they're not ready.
It's a challenge - it's a contest. It should be between persons of comparable abilities.
Rules are rules.
Once you start allowing variances to the established parameters, then where do you stop?
I repeat - YOU set the challenge - YOU set the rules.
 
That's basically it, Karl. As it stands, most of the parameters set in these challenges/contests have been focused on what is expected of the knives rather than the makers. It is understandable considering the sub-forum they're in. Had the challenges been conceived in one of the Maker's sub-forums, I would imagine there would be more criterion placed upon the making of the knife.

I was trying to qualify the W&SS challenges by standards that weren't fully outlined from the beginning... rather than creating a challenge to meet the standards I'm looking for.
 
The foundation of a blade is the steel. I only know of two present day makers that have the ability to make their own steel and develop a high performance blade.

To believe that a maker can make his own steel with the quality control that a major steel outfit can provide is asking to much. As individuals we cannot afford to duplicate their work.

The selection of the steel a maker chooses to use is one of his most challenging and rewarding opportunities. All that follows when it comes to performance is based on the materials he chooses to use.
 
Last edited:
GTH11 said:
James,
Unfair and misleading statement??????
Click to expand...

Greg, just the fact that your reply has a dozen question marks and exclamation points clarifies how easy it can be to misinterpret faceless internet statements. I was pretty sure I knew what you meant the first time (and I was right, we completely agree... except you might want to actually ask Brad about clay coating)... but not everyone would.

Karl B. Andersen said:
I think, Rick, if YOU set the challenge, then YOU set the rules.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! For instance, I think it would be fascinating to take a challenge a few steps further and require all the blades to be the same steel and dimensions, including edge thickness and sharpening angle - removing as many variables as possible except heat-treat - and then compare 'em.
 
Yes, I think we(me) got of course there for a minute..I think that a Makers Challenge should be just that..Completely and totaly made by the maker..Id like to add that a smelt is high on my list of things to do..I have the equipment(most of it anyway) but havent had the time..
 
When I asked the question over in the WSS Challenge thread about whether or not steel type was going to be limited, I had this very issue in mind. To me, a Makers Challenge means pretty much that. It should evaluate the makers ability to make a knife, not his/her ability to outsource super steels and HT'ing for them.

I mean, in my way of thinking, even the best 1084, 1095 or 01 blade is probably not going to win an edge retention contest with a Peters HT'd CPM M4 or 3V blade. In my opinion, it would be a little unfair to judge one of the super steel blades with outsourced HT'ing against a in house HT'd 10xx blade. But I still plan on entering the challenge. It will be my first one and I look forward to seeing how my knife can stack up against the likes of Rick's and others.
 
Considering only the initial question I would suggest that the more of the maker that is in the knife should add points to his final score.

ie:
Smelts his own steel-----------------------------+50
Forges his blades--------------------------------+2
Grinds his own blades----------------------------+50
Heat treats his own blades-----------------------+3
Harvests and processes his own handle material---+1
Openly shares all his methods with others---------+10
Just a suggestion, you can put any numbers you want in the column.
 
I had thought about that, too, Ed. Thanks for adding that.

Mudbug... what the super steels offer can sometimes be directly proportional to what they lack, IMO. I have no problem with the trade-offs and wouldn't consider professionally heat treated super steels and unfair advantage.
 
I have been tossing the steel around in my head for this challenge. I use a lot of O1 in my making, but I also use a lot of S90V, 3V, 10V, M4, and other super steels. I plan to do the heat treat myself with what I feel is the best recipe I can put together from my web searches. I have been worried that other makers would feel I have an advantage just because of the supersteel I planned to use. I posed the steel limitation question in the original thread and was told by other makers, Rick was one, that steel type was not an issue. I started very early in my making using the higher end steels looking for the next best, and I feel now that is part of who I am as a maker. I will say again though that I do plan to do my own heat treating.
 
a 'knifemaker' challenge in an of itself should be enough explanation.... but without perimeters explained its really open game for anyone, I guess 'one' could farm out the whole thing and just be the 'primary' or general sub to the job :)


with that said I think the only acceptable thing to have farmed out in a 'knifemaker' challenge would be the SHEATH !! which is secondary to the knife....
 
You could even add points for function with the maker explaining what for - as to each physical aspect of the knife. If he has an understandable and practical reason for a feature on his blade, he can earn extra points or loose them if he cannot defend his design.

Take it a little further, performance testing up to and if they chose destructive testing.

Points added or taken away as the consensus dictates.
 
I guess I'm one of the few that think the sheath should be as much part of the knife as the handle. Especially fixed blades. After all, most will have something to carry the knife around unless it's a folder. IMHO, a fixed blade knife without a sheath is pretty worthless and dangerous. Sheath making should be considered a part the overall knife making experience and a skill the maker should learn imho.
 
Mudbug: I agree, sheaths could be judged for beauty and function and how well they fit the total package of knife, sheath and what for.
 
IMO, sheaths are as important as the knife they keep secure. At times, I have created a knife to fit a sheath design that was in my head. That said, unless part of the judging is based on sheath function and design, having a sheath made by someone else isn't a biggie.

I like this idea of setting parameters for a Maker's Challange. We could take it in some fun directions, too! Imagine a challange, where the maker was allowed a specifically dimensioned piece of bar stock, limited tools, materials... even time. We could go from ancient technology to modern CNC, backyard tamahagane to stainless super steels, rustic finish to mirror to hamon.... I am loving the potential.
 
Rick Marchand said:
I like this idea of setting parameters for a Maker's Challange. We could take it in some fun directions, too! Imagine a challange, where the maker was allowed a specifically dimensioned piece of bar stock, limited tools, materials... even time. We could go from ancient technology to modern CNC, backyard tamahagane to stainless super steels, rustic finish to mirror to hamon.... I am loving the potential.
Click to expand...

I very much agree.
 
The problem with getting every variable into a different category is that the final challenge may have 1000 categories and only 100 entrants. It can end up like kids sports, where everyone gets a trophy.

The best way to do any challenge is to set basic parameters, and let the entrants do whatever they can within those ranges. KISS is the way to go.
Just an example of how simple it could be:

Blade type - camp/survival - blade length not over 10", OAL not over 16"
Steel - any steel with no single alloy ingredient over 3%
Construction method - forged or stock removal - all work done by the maker.
HT - done by the maker.
Handle - natural or synthetic materials - all work done by maker.
Sheath - any material. Not judged as part of the challenge, but all entries must be in a sheath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top