Question for Cliff Stamp re: Ed Fowler's knives...

[Jose Reyes]

Gator97,

I agree with your comments, but honestly, do you not read any "tone" to his posts?

brownshoe,

Thanks for the advice, I never was any good at wrestling anyway...

Ed & Angie,

You summed up my feelings!

rdangerer,

Would it have been more honorable to turn the other cheek, or maybe he should have bent over and greased himself up?

David,

Thanks, those are images of three different blades. Had the chance to download my photo editing program again and was playing with it for a little while.

-Jose

 

[Gator97]

Originally posted by Jose Reyes

Gator97,
I agree with your comments, but honestly, do you not read any "tone" to his posts?
Jose, tone or writing style or whatever, no way that can serve as a justification for personal insults and name calling. When any maker or factory promotes his knives as #1, that can be considered as a tone as well, or no?

One of the reasons I do respect Cliff is that he never resorts to insults, no matter how bad it goes.

I don't exactly see Cliff liking to "argue". Look at this thread, he was asked a question, he answered what his opinion was, first he gets attacked for that, then it grows to the point that apparently no one can test knife(ves) without being an ABS mastersmith and at least couple dozen years of knifemaking. He answers to the questions and not all too valid accusations, and now it's because he likes to argue? I don't think so.

I am not saying he can't make a mistake, but so is everyone else, nobody is always right, neither Cliff, nor me, nor you, and not mr. Fowler.

 

[brownshoe]

Cliff loves to argue. He'll come back at someone answering every single sentence in their post. If someone disagrees, he'll almost always get the last word. He's a master at wearing down someone with the details. He's also never wrong. As a "scientist" it appears he believes there is only truth, never points of reference that are or could be equivalent measures of the same truth. However, as any phyusical scientist knows, through the Heisenburg uncertainty principle and theories of relativity, there is no truth without a point of reference.

 

[2knife]

....Yappy dog.

 

[rdangerer]

Originally posted by Jose Reyes
Would it have been more honorable to turn the other cheek,

Turn the other cheek from what? Ed has not been insulted in this thread.

Originally posted by Jose Reyes
or maybe he should have bent over and greased himself up?

Riiiight... this comment implies that Ed is absorbing personal insults and/or denigration of his dedicated and passionate work as a bladesmith. And I sure don't read this thread that way, what so ever. In fact, just the opposite, Cliff is the one absorbing the insults and denigration, and with some level of composure I might add.

Ed waded into this thread, and then so did Angie for some reason(?).

Once he wades in, it's his choice then as to what he types in ascii text, as to which road to take ... the range of choices is broad: from personal insults, to the other end of the spectrum which might include providing something useful, like information about his opinions, design choices, an actual answer to the question about what "potentially doubling performance" means, or more simply and time efficient, links to threads where he's outlined his design choices or methods already, etc...

Hurling the first personal insult is a cop out and takes the thread trajectory in the wrong direction... "wrong" depending on what you want (Jerry Springer-esque caliber entertainment vs. learning and/or understanding).

And I've broken my own rule about wading into a morass, so I'm done here... I'm just going to wait for some (hard to find elsewhere) test results and form my own opinions.

 

[stich]

WOW!:barf: I certainly hope that wasn't the real Fowlers hurling those disgusting insults.

 

[Jose Reyes]

Gator97,

While I can agree with your sentiments, I do disagree with you somewhat. It might just be my interpretation of his posts, but he doesn't come off as the noble gentleman you describe, at least not to me. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

rdangerer,

You're entitled to your opinion and can put as much faith in Cliff as you desire. Maybe it's just because I've actually used Ed's knives that we're in disagreement. As well written as Cliff's posts are, and as many facts as they may contain, he can also state, shall we say, assumptions, in such an assured manner that if you didn't know any better you'd accept them as facts. The insults may not have been direct but they have been implied. In just his last post he explained to Ed, that even though he never "said" it, what his opinion is of all the other makers out there using 52100.

What is your purpose in wanting tests results, are you considering purchasing a Pronghorn? If that's the case, but you're wondering if the performance claims are all hype, I will personally buy your used (not abused) pronghorn at your cost. You can get on the list or buy one at a show. You can then make your own determination.

Ed's a writer and a storyteller. Personally, I think he did a good job conveying his feelings, and IMO was pretty accurate, through the story of the two bulls and the yappy dog. I would have used quite a few more expletives.

-Jose

 

[Buzzbait]

Originally posted by 2knife
Buzzbait,
I've really liked reading your posts on some the knives you've used. I'd like to hear about what you think about all this...

I’m very hesitant about even mentioning my opinion on this thread, but what the heck. I’m in a particularly good mood today.

No, I do not expect any good to come from this thread. I’ve only skimmed through the posts thus far, but I haven’t seen Ed give a clear and concise description of his knife’s intended use. No knife will do everything that everybody needs in a knife, so intended use is very critical. I’m sure that Cliff will run some various tests on the blade, and report some conclusions, but those tests and conclusions mean nothing if they are not designed to fully test the knife within the scope of its intended use.

Say that Ed designed his Pronghorn as a hunting knife. Would I run Bussesque (is that word in a Bladeforums Unabridged Dictionary?) tests on it, chopping through steel sinks and concrete blocks? Nope. I’d be running tests like cutting through rough leather of differing thicknesses and hardness. I’d also be doing some soft glancing blows along the side of some fresh rib bones. Not direct blows, but some soft glances, like a hunter would normally encounter. If the knife were meant to encompass even more generalized outdoor work, I’d take that blade to some different kinds of wood. Depending on the size of the knife, the test would include either chopping or some baton work to test deep cuts. Whittling style cuts would also be very important. I’d make some fuzz sticks and see how thin and curly the fuzz can be made. Some rope work might also be in order.

Then there would be the non-blade related tests. How easy is the knife to sharpen under field conditions. Will wet dry paper do the job? Will a piece of cardboard serve as a makeshift strop? How coarse a stone would be needed to easily remove a nick in the edge? Lets talk about hand fatigue during extensive use periods. Was the grip appropriate for each intended use? Last, but not least, was the sheath any good? These last tests could be argued as unnecessary, but I’m a firm believer that a knife is more than just a blade with a handle. A knife without a sheath is useless. A knife without a handle is barely useable. A knife is the sum of its parts, those parts adding or subtracting from one another. To test only one aspect of a knife is utterly useless.

Last, there is the matter of aesthetics. You’ll find people who think that aesthetics are meaningless, and that may be true for them. But anybody spending this amount of money on a knife deserves superb fit and finish, whether they demand it or not.

So…. I may have missed the post, but I haven’t seen where Cliff asked the proper questions to Ed, regarding the knife’s intended use. If I’m right, that makes this whole thread a sham from the start. I firmly believe that Cliff is capable of testing a knife to its limits, but if his tests will be tailored to what he happens to expect from Ed’s knife, the testing is moot. The tests should be based on what Ed says that his knife will do. It’s up to Cliff to simulate what the knife would be expected to perform, and report on the knife’s suitability to the tasks at hand.

Do I think that Cliff is impartial and unbiased. Nope. Cliff is just like everybody else. He’s not a robot. He has preconceived notions of how the knife will perform, and will probably bend the tests in his direction. This action may be entirely subconscious, but that’s the way that humans are. I won’t hold Cliff to a higher standard that I would myself. I know that I’d be biased if I were doing the reviewing. I have the deepest admiration for Ed Fowler, and would probably lean my tests toward favoring the Pronghorn, even though it may be unintentional. The fact that the Pronghorn happens to be made of one of my favorite steels and my favorite style of grind would only worsen the situation for me. To fairly test an outdoor knife made by such an esteemed maker as Ed, the knife would need to be tested by a skilled outdoorsman who has never heard of Ed, and has experience with a good number of other knives. I’m not that man, and neither is Cliff.

At best, Cliff will make some glowing endorsement for the Pronghorn. People will see it as yet another happy Pronghorn story, to go along with the billion other happy Pronghorn stories. The review will have little weight considering the already godlike following of Ed’s work. At worst, Cliff will review the Pronghorn as being needlessly expensive in comparison to its performance, and a feud will ensue. Nothing is to be gained by either outcome, except by Cliff. Cliff does enjoy a rather heated argument, whether he’s on the right or wrong side. Going up against Ed could be considered one of the ultimate challenges to Cliff’s style of play, as Ed is both literate and knowledgeable. Not that I’d never do that sort of thing though. I admit to being the same way from time to time. It’s easy for ego to get in the way on Bladeforums.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Jose :

unless you can name a steel that will out perform it in *every* respect then what merit do your comments have

Note that this works in reverse obviously, 52100 doesn't outperform the steels I listed in all respects either. Therefore by your logic comments on its performance have no merits either. In fact comments on no steel have any merit (or knife for that matter as no knife outpeforms every other knife in all respects).

Is it stiff enough to satisfy your needs when being used to pry?

With this geometry I would assume so unless the edge quench depth is very shallow. As I noted, I generally need a 7"+ blade to require this stock thickness for prying. The tip might bend on heavy wood work depending on way in which the hardening runs in that area.

Ed might have made the statement that his "pronghorn" knives were not designed for cutting hard materials, that does not mean that they are not suitable for such tasks.

There is no might. He clearly stated in the video that the knives are not made to cut bone. He again repeated this here and further degraded any individual who would attempt this with any knife.

You then continue to arguing support for using a knife outside the makers clearly stated scope of work. In the same thread I get attacked as an abuser - the irony here is mind boggling.

If he wants to change his opinion on the scope of work I would gladly do any such work with this knife, all he has to do it say the word.

Fully hardening the blade would make it stiffer ... how much stiffer does the blade need to be to satisfy your performance needs?

I would not need a pipe to bend a 1/8" blade with a dual tapers, one inch wide with a soft spine, vice locked at one inch from the tip on a 4" blade. If you actually want proof of this I could easily readily bend one on camera.

[before anyone gets the idea that I am claiming a massive feat of strength here - try it out]

If you would dispute the fact that I really did this I could provide you with the name of an Engineer you could send such a knife to who would witness the bend and sign a statement to this fact. Of course pick your own witness if you would believe I could get an Engineer to publically lie about such a fact.

Futher I would also realize that there are people far stronger than I am who could bend knives easily that I would find difficult. This there needs would be met with different steels, heat treatments and stock thickness.

... you consider Ed to either be lying or making claims based on ignorance.

No I believe that his knives can do what he says he has done, I have never said otherwise. What I said quite simply was that I would want a knife with the performance maximized in another areas.

As for the benefits of triple quenching, what I questioned was the comparison to stock removal blades by other makers who have optomized their heat treating for those methods.

You made a comment that choosing a suitable knife for your intended task would assume either the maker or client knew what what features would make it so. Do you find it hard to believe that there are plenty of makers and collectors out there who are as experienced and knowledgeable as you are, if not more so?

Obviously not. The point you missed in the above, which was made clearly in a recent review (the Parrell custom) was that I didn't know enough to get the knife made for optimal performance I wanted. Again if you read what I have posted on Bladeforums you will realize that this is constantly changing as I learn more about geometry.

For awhile I was very into puukko style knives, convex grinds, full falt grinds, you name it and at one point I was *certain* this was the best way to do it. And it was based on what I had seen up until that time. If you ask me in a year from now I would hope my opinon has changed again as if it hasn't then I have learned nothing.

About makers, no maker can in fact make a 100% user optimal knife unless they have god like knowledge as characteristics are influenced by user skill, method and physical ability. Most makers are clear to point this out, and that refinement can always be made after use and feedback and getting 100% with a NIB blade is pretty much a fluke.

Of course working with a familiar customer is a lot easier as you know how they responded to your design. However people change, get stronger, or more skilled, etc. . The same designs which were optimal for me two years ago are not now.

Steels may be classified under the same name but that does not mean that they have the exact composition, and that they'll react the same way to forging/heat treating methods, so direct comparisons may not be always be suitable.

They are never going to be exact, but this argument was never raised. What was actually argued was that if you have used 52100 from a quality maker you can in fact actually expect similar performance from other competent makers, expecially when they use similar methods and end up with similar blade hardness levels.

You can also readily make generalizations like no 52100 is going to exceed the wear resistance of M2 from a competent maker, no matter how much time and effort anyone puts into 52100. Same with other properties like toughness and ductility.

The specific point I raised was that I had used 52100 from other well respected makers and thus felt comfortable to in general infer the performance I could expect from another such maker.

Will there be differences - of course. Would these differences be so large that the performance would not be comparable - I would argue not. If you do this directly states that one of them is vastly superior to the other.

Your "edge geometry" thread for example, while interesting, does not offer any revolutionary ideas.

This isn't much of a deduction considering that I stated quite clearly *in that exact thread* that the tension bar knife was inspired by coverstions with another maker exactly about such knives, and that further all the work I have done concerning geometry and such has drawn heavily on comments made on rec.knives by Mike Swaim, Alvin Johnson and Joe Talmdage. You can find such references in the reviews as well.

2knife :

What are your credentials?

I have used a fair amount of knives in a variety of ways, mainly in an effort to find out where performance comes from, and have kept notes on performance so as to do so. That is about it.

As for this line of reasoning, look around and see if such arguements are used in a consistent manner.

Look at comments that are positive on Fowlers knives and see if the same requirements are met. Look as well as negative comments on unpopular makers and see if they are defended with such rigor.

I have said lots of positive things about Fowlers knives in the past, I still think they are great knives and have never said otherwise, the 52100 MEUK review would seem to me to be fairly positive and it is a very similar knife execept for the handle.

Someone told me that you are a student...?

Yes, and will be for some time. I was going to teach in the fall, but now seems likely I will be doing post-doc work instead for a variety of reasons.

brownshoe :

In a thread on microserrations, Cliff stated that he disbelieved all knifemaker performance claims. He called David Boye a charlatan for claiming that his 440C dendritic outperforms 440C stock removal. Cliff states microserrations are BS, although Boye has the micrographs to prove their existence. So, by nature, Cliff has stated he won't believe anything from a maker.

This is the thread :

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=261784

Check and see how well the above quote represents what was actually said.

In reality, I commented that the high relative cutting ability of Boyes knives comes *mainly* from the edge geometry and rough finish. I also pointed out that there are secondary edge retention characteristics (the self-sharpening effect) which Boyes knives might fare well in. I also did note that yes I would consider all makers are biased about products they are selling or compete with, this isn't limited to knifemakers of course.

I also pointed out that there are knifemakers who I would consider to be unbiased, but I can only make this personal decision because of the very long time I have spent talking to them and the very open way they talk about the faults and limitations of their knives. When I first talked to them of course I didn't have this confidence. I also would not expect someone without this knowledge to make this decision, or even trust my opinion on it.

He's also never wrong.

Again, read the reviews. They are full of comments where past work was corrected for mistakes. About two years ago I started overhauling them in total. They are now full of comments pointing out that many of the methods used to determine performance in the past are far from optimal and can be misleading about various aspects. I guarantee in two years time I will be saying the same thing about the current reviews.

Similar comments can be found in various threads. I argued with Joe talmadge and Jeff Clark for quite some time that there was no difference in "sharpness" among steels, they generally argued for AUS-8A for example taking a sharper edge much easier than AST-34. After looking at this in some detail I found out they were right, made a thread about it.

Brownshoe of course never thinks I am wrong because I don't agree with everyone who disagree with me. Just think about that statement for awhile and see if something doesn't hit you as really funny.

The knife by the way is working fine, two hemp cutting trials done. I thought the grip was really bad at first and made such comments in the rough draft of review (not those words), then taped up the handle so it looked like others I have.

Based on Keiths comments I took the tape off and kept playing with it and it now works well in the left hand in a couple of posisitons, and doesn't feel as bad in the right. Some positions are however not practical, but I have to rewrite the entire grip section of the review now. Thanks for that Keith.

Along those lines, how do you hold the blade with the edge turned up, so that the hump faces the heel of the palm, such as for use as a drawknife, or slitting? Does it work well in the off hand when the hollow faces inward?

-Cliff

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Buzzbait :

I haven t seen where Cliff asked the proper questions to Ed, regarding the knife s intended use.

I asked quite clearly, leaving it open to anyone, what way the knife should be used. Ed has of course in the past described quite clearly the standard tests which in his opinion best represent knife use so his opinion on this is well known. And he goes into this in some detail on his video which I watched, I have also had emails with him in the past about his knives, what he wants from performance and so on.

At any time during the review, Ed can of course suggest work to be done, if he feels a critical aspects of his knife is being ignored. Of course this goes for any maker on any review I have ever done. As long as the knife is still able to do so, additional work could even be done after the review is finished. Of course no review would ever be restricted to just doing what the maker wanted to be done. That would then be a pure promotional commentary. Look elsewhere if you want that.

Some makers are very interactive on review, periodically discussing performance and suggesting tests, others prefer to stay out of it completely and thus not turn the review into just something they would have done as they are looking for another perspective. It depends on the individual.

By the way, while you might bias a review because you like a maker or dislike him, this has no influence on me. Past reviews and posts stand as a record to that where I have described superior performance for makers or manufacturers who I have had strong problems with over others who I would consider to be friends (in a loose sense as I have not actually met them).

As an example, Allan Blade who I once thought a lot of, generally now I would not deal with because of the horrible dealings he has had with forum members. This of course has no influence on his knives, several of which I have used and which work very well, this opinion isn't influenced by my opinion of Blade who unless I am incorrect still has many outstanding knives to several individuals.

-Cliff

 

[Brett Gatlin]

Cliff, you are a patient man.

 

[c.m. arrington]

I'm not familiar with Cliff Stamp. Is he a knifemaker?

 

[Buzzbait]

Cliff. It looks like my last post went right over your head. I didn't see anything in your reply about intended use. You said a whole lot about Ed's personal testing, and your own thoguhts on testing, but you didn't mention whether the testing would be contained to the Pronghorn's intended use. There is nothing to be gained by using a jackhammer on a knife meant only for cutting tomatoes. Let's keep the testing within the Pronghorn's intended use, if Ed wishes to disclose this information.

Originally posted by Cliff Stamp
Of course no review would ever be restricted to just doing what the maker wanted to be done. That would then be a pure promotional commentary. Look elsewhere if you want that.

I strongly disagree with you on this one, assuming that the maker's test requests follow along the line of the knife's intended use. If the knife's intended use is as a bird and trout knife, and the maker would only like to see the knife tested on birds and trout, that seems very fair to me. Anything else would be beyond the scope of that particular knife.

The problems start when the knife's parameters have not been clearly defined by the maker, or the maker requests testing that does not prove the scope of the knife's intended use. One must make an ethical decision at that point, as to whether a review is even worth doing.

By the way, while you might bias a review because you like a maker or dislike him, this has no influence on me.

Wow. That's ego beyond ego. Either that or you actually are a robot. To proclaim that your subconscious is entirely under your control is quite a statement. If this is true, you're a better man than the rest of humankind.

 

[Jose Reyes]

Cliff,

Again, you are correct on several points and I do agree with you. I think Ed described it best with the comment of "functional balance". No steel, or specific blade, can do everything. It might not excel at certain tasks but the fact that it can cope with a wide variety of tasks, at least in my mind, makes it a more useful tool. The 1/8" thick blade I own is not a pronghorn model, it is substantially smaller, so I wouldn't expect it to stand up to as much force.

The tip might bend on heavy wood work depending on way in which the hardening runs in that area.

It's comments like this that I disagree with. Why not test it to see if it's hardened improperly, and then let us know if the heat treat was sub standard.

The composition of the steel will be exact each and every time if it comes from the same melt. You can then more cleary study the results of variances in technique to develop your heat treating method.

Brett,

Patience is a virtue.

Buzzbait,

Yes, I do think he has an abundance of ego.

-Jose

 

[Brett Gatlin]

Ummm, okay.

 

[Joe Talmadge]

Well! Ultimately, this thread has the possibility of being either the best or worst thread in the history of bladeforums; let's hope it goes the right way

In any review, one of the things I worry about is whether or not the reviewer tests the knife in ways that I personally feel are reasonable for that particular knife. So ultimately, unless the reviewer is me personally, I just hope the reviewer will go through a reasonably full series of tests. I believe that the knife maker's intention should be taken into account, but that a knifemaker has no more right to completely dictate the ranges of uses his knife can be put through, than an author has the right to interpret his text -- ultimately, the text/knife/whatever puts bounds on reasonable interpretations and the reviewer finds his way within those bounds (deconstructionists can argue with me on another thread in some other forum, please!).

For this case in particular, Cliff does sometimes take his tests further than would be relevent for me personally; in those cases, Cliff and I are perfectly comfortable with me igoring those parts of his tests and drawing conclusions on the rest. On the other hand, I also don't feel extreme flexibility is some kind of prime overriding objective, so Ed might be emphasizing that more than I would. How it all comes together is the big thing; a steel that isn't the most wear resistant, tough, or strong, can be the best for the job if it's got the right mix.

Joe

 

[Gator97]

Originally posted by brownshoe

Cliff loves to argue. He'll come back at someone answering every single sentence in their post.
Not exactly, if you try to read those msgs even in this thread he's answering to the questions and acusations asked. I suspect if he wouldn't do it there'd be another bunch of messages stating that that evil Cliff couldn't asnwer someone's question, hence he's wrong and liar etc.
Frankly, I don't see too many answers to his legit quesitons though. Mainly it's like "UR no knifemaker, UR a student, UR not qualified etc.". What does his knifemaking has to do with the knife and steel properties that has been already made and sold I don't really understand, but that kind of reply does sound real arrogant to me.

He's a master at wearing down someone with the details.
Well, some like very general statements like #1 knife in the world, some want to dig the details. What's wrong with that?

He's also never wrong.
You said that, he stated the opposite many times, including this very therad, but perhaps you never read what he writes

However, as any phyusical scientist knows, through the Heisenburg uncertainty principle and theories of relativity, there is no truth without a point of reference.
References you say? And who posts so many references and data if not Cliff?
Ironically in other threads he got attacked exactly for that. Some people get pissed off because his reviews contain too many numbers, others do not like the language he uses, some get upset because they don't understand what he says(why is that his problem anyways?) etc.

This thread was about testing Ed Fowler's knife. Instead it turned into "Let's bash Cliff in the name of Ed Fowler" fest, long before he even received that knife, let alone cutting anything with it. How is that better than any review?

 

[db]

Originally posted by Joe Talmadge
Well! Ultimately, this thread has the possibility of being either the best or worst thread in the history of bladeforums; let's hope it goes the right way
How it all comes together is the big thing; a steel that isn't the most wear resistant, tough, or strong, can be the best for the job if it's got the right mix.

Joe

Too few really understand that and think in terms of best, or it's the best, no matter what it's best at. I know that the best grind, best edge holding, best sharpness. and best to resharpen, is different for me than many on these boards. Lets not even get into best thickness
Cliff's test. Ed's knife. Let's not give them to much inportance, because it don't mean you or I will feel the same as another. The net is the net not the best place to determan fact.

 

[brownshoe]

As always in Cliffs threads, core concepts get lost in the details, but than that's his method of discussion. Somewhat like a magician, he often operates with misdirection.

I do read Cliff's posts. Just 'cause he says he's wrong sometimes, doesn't deny his consistent claims of correctness in the face of any dissension. By Cliff's logic, i.e. can't believe any knifemaker 'cause they are biased, we, as readers, should not believe any statement Cliff makes about his lack of bias or his testing methods because by nature he is biased.

Don't forget, Cliff was removed as moderator on Bladeforums for some very good reasons. There are a lot of highly respected knifemakers that take issue with the depth of his knowledge and his methods. They are the experts, not Cliff. He's a self-appointed knife scientist. His scientific technique does not withstand inspection by scientists, and many knifemakers and users who know what they are doing.

 

[Evolute]

brownshoe: "I do read Cliff's posts. Just 'cause he says he's wrong sometimes, doesn't deny his consistent claims of correctness in the face of any dissension."

brownshoe, I have disagreed with Cliff, explained my side, and had him concede that he had been wrong, in several threads. I can track these down and point them out to you, if you don't believe me. Your accusation about Cliff refusing to concede his mistakeness is not an accurate representation of the historical record.

--Mike