Sebenza 31 thoughts

I don't care if the Sebenza 31 is better than the 21 or not :D
I'm sad to see the 21 go either way and I think I'm going to have to buy at least one more small or large 21 before they really are gone
With that said, I bet cash money :p that I will buy a 31 at some point as well.
I've been impressed with all the CRKs I've held or bought.
 
BMCGear said:
The 31 is an evolution in design. Whether you view that as an improvement or not depends on which you prefer - titanium or the ceramic ball, straight clip vs. canted, etc.

I personally strongly prefer the 31's design evolution as I enjoy them currently on the Inkosi I have. I just got a small 21 and really like it. It's good to have a 21, I think but the changes to the 31 are welcomed by me. I plan to get one.
Click to expand...

Evolution doesn't equate improvement, just change in response to environment. The 31 is Chris Reeve's knife changed to meet market demands. Before the 31, the Sebenza was one, very opinionated man's vision of what a upscale EDC knife should be. That's history.
 
brownshoe said:
Evolution doesn't equate improvement, just change in response to environment. The 31 is Chris Reeve's knife changed to meet market demands. Before the 31, the Sebenza was one, very opinionated man's vision of what a upscale EDC knife should be. That's history.
Click to expand...

Unless the market demands downgrading or inferior quality, your statement does not invalidate that 31 has some improvements over 21.
 
sharp_edge said:
Unless the market demands downgrading or inferior quality, your statement does not invalidate that 31 has some improvements over 21.
Click to expand...

The Sebenza was one man's vision, now it's not. It's been changed for marketing reasons. That's not an improvement when you are talking about functional art.
 
The Sebenza 21 wasn't created in some sort of altruistic vacuum. It was made to sell. It sold because of its innovated design and impeccable fit. It's a production knife that went together like a piece of functional art. It is and will be considered an important milestone in cutlery history.

That said, Mr. Reeve is retired now. He is not enjoying his golden years living off back-pats. Hes out of the knife scene living his life because he created an innovated knife that sold well for decades as the formula was tweaked.

CRK only has one mission at it's most basic of basic cores. Turn a profit. It doesnt matter if the 21 was "better" or the 31 improved lock up at the expense of painstaking hand-fit. A business responds to market demand. The line is fine between "classic" and "dated". If Chris Reeve were in his shop making a Sebenza 21 at a time, I'm sure he would have a waiting list 5 years long that would keep him flush with bingo money for the next 20 years...but CRK is a production company. A really, really, really good one, but if the market deems ceramic ball lock up and less holes in the slabs more desirable, well then they better respond.

Once again, I adore my Inkosi. It felt better in my hands with a more pleasing action than the 21. Personal preference. I still want a 21 because it IS a classic. I also want a 1968 Camaro but not because it will drive better, be more reliable, or outperform a 2020 Challenger in any way.

I think the 31 is a good step forward.
 
insta9ves said:
31 is an improvement over 21. End of story.
Click to expand...

That's an opinion, and I'd even sort of agree with it for a plain ti comparison on the somewhat objective "a few things that totally don't matter have been slightly improved in ways that you will never notice" basis.

For inlays, though, IMO 21 > 31 by a huge margin. The old double strips just look much nicer to me. Subjective, to be sure, but it's not even close when I look at photos of both.
 
I have 3 large 21 (got the third recently)
On the paper I think the 31 is an improvement, but only time and comparison will tell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top