With pleasure.
I generally view most flippers as more or less a novelty. (Hinderer gets a pass here as they aren't the contemporary type of "flipper" IMHO) Fun, most certainly. But most certainly there is a trade off in making them work well - namely, cost and serviceability.
Why do you consider a flipper a novelty? I live in a place where assisted opening is illegal so a flipper is by far the most appealing method of deployment available. It might be anyway, less things to go wrong.
I had the initial concern that serviceability would be an issue so I went as far as buying a 3B HaTi from the last run Shiro made in washers. To find one I had to buy from a Russian forum that is only in Russian, and have a friend who speaks and writes Russian handle the translation, transaction and shipping for me. I was that worried.
But after doing at least 100 tear downs on a Sebenza, the washer vs bearing thing turned out to be a non-issue for me.
It turns out that I actually prefer the bearing knives.
Remember taking care not to pinch a washer is quite nerve wracking for some, and knives are returned to CRK for this reason regularly.
So while you prefer CRK for serviceability, I count it’s design as a strike against it, and washers in general.
Should I lose a Shiro bearing, the knife will function perfectly fine without it, and a suitable replacement can be dropped in at a later date. So no return to factory. No down time.
I might agree with you on fasteners. But really, I think the non standard fastener is just for exclusivity, the Sebenzas are far more pragmatic. Not a deal breaker to me however. I have lots of specialty tools so one more it’s a big deal. It’s worth it for the areas the Shiro shines.
So essentially, where evaluating essential quality - for
me personally (which is your question) - from a design and intended use point of view alone, Shirogorov does not even
offer a comparable product to a Sebenza (which as I'm sure you know literally means "worker"). Changes come very deliberately and slowly at CRK. Philosophically speaking, for me this is a very good thing. I gather from your posts that most of what I've just typed (in this specific post) has the opposite effect on your perception - which is absolutely cool with me.
My question was about objective criteria, where as your preferences are subjective but that is fine.
Sebenza does mean “work”, but that speaks to what Chris intended it for. Nothing else. It was pretty awesome and revolutionary in the 90s.
That having been said, your correlation of Shiro to CRK being equivalent to CRK to Kershaw (a fine company in their own right), is conditional in that it reflects your interpretation of quality, not the objective universe of knife enthusiasts. Which is great, I may be one to pick up one of your off-cast CRK's.
Using objective criteria, like cutting performance, weight, action, serviceability are more objective criteria.
Things like degree of skill used in it’s creation, ergonomics and the like are more subjective.
In the universe of knife enthusiasts I don’t think you will find any general consensus that S35VN is superior to M390, S90V or Vanax 37, or even Elmax really. I also don’t think you will find people generally say heavier is better.
My point about comparisons is this.
Kershaw, Spyderco, BM etc make a fine knife. While CRK is better in some areas, many will argue that it’s not worth the price increase. That same argument will work for Shiro vs CRK.
The difference is CRK isn’t using anything that out performs a Shiro. Period. Other cheaper mid tech makers use better steel than CRK.
Finally, the pricing also supports the notion that CRK is better than Kershaw. Pricing in the secondary market and the MSRP proves it. Apply that standard to Shiro. The market illustrates a general consensus.
Thanks for your post, I enjoyed it.
