Real Loveless? Food for Thought!

[Michael Lovett]

An early 80's Lovett that won a design award.

 

[Michael Lovett]

Here you go Oilman! A more modern version.

 

[Keith Montgomery]

Mike, it's obvious that you have the skill and talent to make knives any way that you want to. I like both your Loveless style knives and your own designs.

 

[Michael Lovett]

Thank you Keith! I just Love knives. Wish I could make one of every thing I like, and one of every thing I have in my head. There would be no end. And no rest! Here is one of my favorite Hunters. Lots of stright edge for campo chores. Nice curve for skinning, and a good sharp point for getting those Texas Mesquite thorns out of your hide. It is from the early 80's. Its the Lampasas, and was very popular.

We even won a few awards for its design. Mike and Manuela

 

[Michael Lovett]

And just for those that like them Elegant, and a bit Artsie, a Lovett integral Dagger, or letter opener if you will in 154-cm, 18K gold and 1/2 Ct. Diamonds. Bob would never go to this one!! Haa!

 

[2knife]

Mike,
I just saw the knives you've made, featured in Knives 2007. I'll have to say, looking at these and the recently posted pictures, leaves no room for anyone to question your skills. Clearly, you have command over the medium, whichever style it is. :thumbup:
Awesome array of knives.
David

 

[Kevin Jones]

Though it's about 2-1/2 years old, it's pretty relevant to what we've been discussing regarding Loveless knives.

Mike Lovett, Dave Ellis, Steven, Win, AG and others make some very good points here if you're inclined to do a little reading on the subject.

 

[Bobby Branton]

Why doesn't someone simply pick up the phone and call Bob Loveless and ask him what part does he perform in making a Loveless knife?
That should pretty much end all speculation.
BB

 

[ptgdvc]

Why doesn't someone simply pick up the phone and call Bob Loveless and ask him what part does he perform in making a Loveless knife?
That should pretty much end all speculation.
BB

Bobby,

Too obvious, too logical, too easy.

Now hush up!

P

 

[silenthunterstudios]

I love my Dozier Wilderness, but it's sold as a Dozier "shop" Wilderness, and is made by Bob Doziers son in law. I love using it, and really appreciate it.

It is not one of Bob Doziers custom knives, but his son in laws. I really enjoy Bob Loveless' work, but those are not his knives that are currently being produced, unless he produced the majority of the knife.

 

[SharpByCoop]

Although this topic has seen a lot of traction on this forum, I consulted one of the experts of collectible Loveless knives for his opinion on Bob's having a partner. I talked to Paul Shindler of Knife Legends.

Loveless knives are being made now the same way they have been for the last 39 years, and most likely the only knives made completely made by Bob for certain were made before the arrival of Steve Johnson in 1970.

I think you can say that most Loveless collectors have been aware of how things work at the Loveless Shop for decades!

Paul opined that any knives made pre-1970 aren't near the quality of work that he has produced since then--with his coworkers. There has been someone in his shop with him for 30 years. He did not feel pre-1970 (sole authorship) knives would out-value post 1970.

Loveless sales, as always, are brisk for him.

Coop

 

[Kohai999]

From another recent thread:

How many would consider the following a true statement ?

Some, perhaps most , but certainly not all ) collectors have no issue with Merritt doing some ( or most ) of the work on a Loveless Knife and it still being marked a Loveless , but few if any other makers who did the same thing would be met with the same acceptance.

Masters, and I do mean masters, have frequently had apprentices, assistants and partners in producing product for a very long time.....like back to the Renaissance period of Europe(1500's) and before that...." The city fell in 1530 and the Medici were restored to power. Completely out of sympathy with the repressive reign of the ducal Medici, Michelangelo left Florence for good in the mid-1530s, leaving assistants to complete the Medici chapel."....to be sure the work is ascribed to Michelangelo and not " Michelangelo and assistants."

My position on this topic has not changed from when I first became aware of Loveless's shop production in 1992. The Loveless knives produced today are Loveless knives in the same way as they were in the '70's but BETTER. Better ground, better made, better finished.

People say that knives as art will not be accepted because of practices like this. Well, Loveless has never made a secret of his use of partners to produce a better knife, and he was an acknowledged master of knifemaking well before he started having partners work on his knives with him. I collect glasswork from time to time, and as stated in another thread, Dale Chihuly has not blown his own glass since he lost an eye to a car accident. Look up his work for pricing some time. Hasn't stopped going up in value....just like a Loveless knife.

For me, my position on ethics, and who made what comes down to mastery and longevity.....If nothing else, Loveless and Loveless knives have both in spades.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[betzner]

From another recent thread:



Masters, and I do mean masters, have frequently had apprentices, assistants and partners in producing product for a very long time.....like back to the Renaissance period of Europe(1500's) and before that...." The city fell in 1530 and the Medici were restored to power. Completely out of sympathy with the repressive reign of the ducal Medici, Michelangelo left Florence for good in the mid-1530s, leaving assistants to complete the Medici chapel."....to be sure the work is ascribed to Michelangelo and not " Michelangelo and assistants."

My position on this topic has not changed from when I first became aware of Loveless's shop production in 1992. The Loveless knives produced today are Loveless knives in the same way as they were in the '70's but BETTER. Better ground, better made, better finished.

People say that knives as art will not be accepted because of practices like this. Well, Loveless has never made a secret of his use of partners to produce a better knife, and he was an acknowledged master of knifemaking well before he started having partners work on his knives with him. I collect glasswork from time to time, and as stated in another thread, Dale Chihuly has not blown his own glass since he lost an eye to a car accident. Look up his work for pricing some time. Hasn't stopped going up in value....just like a Loveless knife.

For me, my position on ethics, and who made what comes down to mastery and longevity.....If nothing else, Loveless and Loveless knives have both in spades.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

I have been waiting for the right time to put in my feelings about this issue, but it's almost impossible to do it in a short and succinct way. But I found the way - STeven, DITTO IN SPADES.

I frankly think that the Loveless situation stands on it's own as a singular exception to how most of us look at the issue. And it is because of the man's original, unique and vastly important designs that have survived almost completely unaltered to this day.

 

[flatgrinder]

I think a REAL "Loveless" knife is either one made entirely by him, partially by him or under direct supervision by him.

If Bob wasn't involved in each step for that specific knife, it's Loveless-inspired.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[John T Wylie Jr]

The Loveless knives produced today are Loveless knives in the same way as they were in the '70's but BETTER. Better ground, better made, better finished.

After almost 40 years , wouldn't one expect the quality to be better ? They are not the same if the one's in the 70's were sole authorship.

For me, my position on ethics, and who made what comes down to mastery and longevity....

So a master can have assistant(s) make a product that he may not have much of a hand in making , since he is a master , and it can still bear his name , but one who is not a master can not do the same ?

 

[severedthumbs]

Paul opined that any knives made pre-1970 aren't near the quality of work that he has produced since then--with his coworkers. There has been someone in his shop with him for 30 years. He did not feel pre-1970 (sole authorship) knives would out-value post 1970.


Coop

From another recent thread:



Masters, and I do mean masters, have frequently had apprentices, assistants and partners in producing product for a very long time.....like back to the Renaissance period of Europe(1500's) and before that....



STeven Garsson

Coops quote makes one rethink who the true master is aye Senpai.....?

 

[Kohai999]

After almost 40 years , wouldn't one expect the quality to be better ? They are not the same if the one's in the 70's were sole authorship.

Yeah, no, John....at some point all humans lose it....and what was once at the zenith goes downhill....Jim has really hit his stride in the last few years, and there has been evolution and improvement on each piece. They are the same in that if nothing else, Loveless reviews EVERY knife that leaves the shop.

So a master can have assistant(s) make a product that he may not have much of a hand in making , since he is a master , and it can still bear his name , but one who is not a master can not do the same ?

You pretty much have it right there in a nutshell, John. You seem to struggle with the unfairness of it, compared against your absolute of ethics....that way can only lead to madness. The best you can hope for is your own continued integrity and maybe an influence on those that are close around you...I would not try to change your thoughts on the issue, and be assured, you will not change mine.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[A. G. Russell]

I have a problem understanding collectors who are more interested in sole authorship than they are in the quality of the work

 

[John T Wylie Jr]

I would not try to change your thoughts on the issue, and be assured, you will not change mine.

point well taken sir , and agreed 100% , does make for good discussion though , and I thank you for your thoughts.

I have a problem understanding collectors who are more interested in sole authorship than they are in the quality of the work

I have a hard time understanding those who are more interested in a name than in the quality of the work ( which does not apply in the context of Loveless Knives - they have both name and quality ).

 

[A. G. Russell]

I find that the early Loveless (Lawndale) knives bring about 20-25% more than the Riverside knives. But the 37 knives marked Loveless-Johnson bring about 4-4.5 times the amount paid for knives being made today.

Loveless is a standard that connot be denied. In my view, only Scagle knives have increasced in value at a higher rate.