Prototyping...

SammyB

SammyB

Joined
Jan 17, 1999
Messages
539
Recently I have seen an increase of makers marketing their prototypes. I am seeing upsides and down sides to the proto

Some makers don't even heat treat or put the effort into a prototype to make it usable for a purchaser.

Upside...More protos from maker as they save time by not finishing the steel/whatever out.

Downside...Secondary market buyers that get screwed over by having purchased a knife shaped object...(unless clearly labeled)

Another facet I have seen recently is the use of CAD and Photorealistic graphics to find a ready made group of buyers for an upcoming project. This appears to let the maker know if a market exist for a given knife. It allows for general pro/con discussions and lots of thought from a large group to influence the design. I love this development. It allows for a fast exchange of ideas and immediate feedback with minimal time invested.

Upside... no wasted steel and a ready made market signed up for the maker if correctly promoted!

Downside... Easily downloaded ready to make picture for any unscroupulous maker/mfg. Size it up in your own cad system, modify it enough so they don't dink the copyright and beat the maker to market... It would be easy to do given the ease of setting up small CNC runs overseas, locally, or in a single makers shop.

Lastly I can't understand the premium placed upon a prototype knife. It is the later one that has been refined and smoothed out. The first ones are usually an experiment at best.

Any thoughts?

-Sam.
 
Sam,

First, let me address the topic of "collectibility." Consider, sor example, a die-hard collector of quality production knives, liek, say, Randalls. Collectors simply don't see a scarcity value in such knives because they are established models of which numerous samples exist. Many custom makers will never make two identical knives, so everything they create is scarce. Other custom makers, however, design and refine a particular style or model and, once they come up with a design that works exactly as intended, they stick with it.

This is one of the primary differences between makers such as Buster Warenski and Bob Loveless. One could consider every one of Mr. Warenski's knives a prototype. He doesn't take orders or reproduce established models. He simply makes unique knives - incredible works of art that have no substitute - and offers them to discriminating buyers. Mr. Loveless, on the other hand, makes several of the same model, which he has spent years perfecting. An owner of a New York Special, for example, wil have a knife that others have as well. But it will be a knife that he knows is so well executed - in balance, form, and function, through years of refinement - that he can rest assured his knife is among the best ever made.

Now, imagine the very first New York Special. A knife rich in history - the one that started it all. A knife that's been admired and copied by countless makers and collectors through the years. That knife, a prototype, varies with it so much more than steel and micarta. That knife is a historical relic.

Some makers will make prototypes for various reasons. I own a protoype hunter made by Ricardo Velarde (picture. Mr. Velarde is known for his integrals, but integrals consume lots of time and material to make. The prototype I own is not an integral, but a prototype for one. Mr. Velarde came up with a design and made the knife to see how it would feel in the hand. It's a fully functional piece - otherwise I doubt he would have ever sold it - but it was never meant to be the end result of the design process. It's a one-of-a-kind knife, and surely not as valuable as a correct version of that design, but if, for example, that particular knife went on to become a popular model, I suppose the prototype would take on an entirely new value to the collector.

But should a maker sell a prototype that isn't a functional knife? Well, that depends. Suppose Mr. Velarde had simply carved his design out of wood. No one would ever expect it to be a using knife, and if he were to sell it to a collector, it would most likely sit in a display case next to an actual sample of the real thing. There's nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, that model would add a very unique specimen to a collector's collection.

Had he made a knife that looked like the real thing but wasn't up to par, and then sold it as a using knife, well, then there'd be a problem. Some buyers don't care if a knife has the word "prototype" stamped on the blade. If they like it, they'll buy it. But if the blade hasn't been heat-treated, or the knife is otherwise inferior to the level of quality one would expect from that maker, than it should either stay in the maker's shop, or only be sold with the explicit caveat that it is indeed a non-working prototype.

If a maker took advantage of the value some collectors place on the "prototype" stamp, and sell several so-stamped knives to his customers, he had damn well better make it known that they aren't meant for use if indeed they're not.

I saw a thread here recently that talked about the very same topic (link to thread. I posted to that one as well. The premise of my argument, both here and in that thread, is that makers should never intentionally mislead their customers about their work. In fact, they should be very explicit in their descriptions of the product.

A prototype can indeed be a very special knife to a collector or historian, but only in unique circumstances. I'd wager that Mr. Loveless' first New York Special prototype has seen a lot of use over the years and may never make it to the secondary market. If it did, I'm sure it would command a huge price tag. For this reason, many collectors place a premium on a prototype, but as long as that is the case, there may be a maker out there who will gladly sell his integrity for a few bucks and take advantage of such a collector.

God forbid a customer should buy a knife marked "prototype," thinking it was a perfectly functional knife, only to have it fail in a critical situation!
 
If a maker is going to make 6 prototype knives and then 6 pre-production knives and then say, a run of a couple of hundred of the finalized knife, I would rather have the 200th. I figure by then that knife is going to be as good as it is going to get.

Not being a collector, I would not be interested in a prototype knife at all. I want mine to have all the kinks worked out.
 
If you are going for Collectability the Proto is your best buy.Experience talking here.And the stamp of approval of Les Robertson.
 
A prototype is just what the name implies. It is an idea that is being put into motion.

However, I do agree with some of the posters here that the knife should be fully functional, to include a heat treated blade.

I have had more than 100 prototypes made for me over the years. They do have pro's and con's associated with them.

The pro's are:

They are truly custom knives, in either sense of the word.

For collectors of a particular style or maker they are going to be more desireable.

The con's are:

They may not look exactly like the final product (if it is a prototype for a series such as LDC or Vangaurd).

They may not be finished as nice as the final product.

One last word of caution, beware of a knife that has more than 2-3 protoypes. If you receive a knife that says "prototype #8" you may want to ask some questions.
 
I have made a couple prototypes that didn't have hardened blades, but they aren't for sale and never will be. Sometimes it helps to see just how it will come together. I've begun marking the first off of my blade designs as a prototype because it is. It is the blade on which I learn if the design has merit and is worth making more of. If that has special appeal to someone, great. I don't charge more than I was planning for the unmarked versions.
 
a knife that a guy pays a couple extra bucks to have "proto" etched on the blade ;)

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