"sole authorship" - from a collectors point of view

jdm61 said:
...how do you stock removal guys ever get through the first year of destroying blades without quitting or commiting ritual suicide with the first knife you get a good edge on?:D
Click to expand...

I have a lot of KSO's, paint stirrers, shop knives, can openers... each one just taunts me into doing better next time.. :D I was thinking someday down the road I could hammer them all into a billet and make a real knife out of them.
 
Many is the small knife that started as a large one. You know you've developed confidence when you drill the holes in the tang before you grind the blade;^)

Gene
 
Gene Martin said:
Many is the small knife that started as a large one. You know you've developed confidence when you drill the holes in the tang before you grind the blade;^)

Gene
Click to expand...

Beforeyou grind? hell.....I still don't know if a tang is even going to have holes until after I heat treat the thing...lol.
 
fitzo said:
YW.

Yes, very important. I think everyone would agree that it needs to be a "raw material" without any hint of being a blade yet.
Click to expand...

Well, Mike, I was wondering when someone would ask this question, so I'll propose it -
Very, very few makers make their own steel. Some, a VERY few, smelt down their own iron and make forgable ingots/steel to make wootz, etc.
Probably 99% of the makers buy steel, in whatever form or shape, MADE BY SOMEONE ELSE! Buy it from Admiral Steel and it's MADE BY SOMEONE ELSE.
It is "Raw material without any hint of being a blade yet." Right?
Right. But, it was made by someone else.
Now I'm sure you know I'm headed to the Damascus "thing".
I get a bar of Jerry's Damascus and forge a blade from it.
Is it NOT "sole authorship"?
I forged the blade from a bar of "Raw material" that had NO HINT of being a blade yet.
As a matter of fact, until I was to etch it, you coudn't even tell it was Damascus!
That bar was made by SOMEONE ELSE - no less than a bar of steel bought from Admiral or a 52100 ball bearing made by Timken.
Jerry had NOTHING to do with the forging, grinding, heat treating, etching, hot-bluing, Assembly, sharpening, etc. with the knife. I did it all.
Is that knife NOT Sole authorship?
 
I only made it to the bottom of the stairs and had another thought!
I was going to say that both bars of steel - one from, say, my 1" square 5160 and Jerry's Damascus, would require the SAME amount of effort from me. But, that's not true!!
The Damascus would require MORE participation on my part!
When I do a mono-steel blade, I usually take it up to about 600 hand-rubbed.
But, when I do a Damascus blade, I need to take it up to 1500, buff to polish, etch, and then when I'm doine it takes me about 3 hours to do the hot-bluing.
So, in fact, it takes MORE participation on my part to finish out a Damascus blade.
I'm even more involved in the Damascus.
So?
 
I interpreted "raw material without any hint of being a blade yet" to have an emphasis on "not being a blade yet". Meaning you're not starting with a stamped out blank you got from a catalogue.

The raw material could be a round bearing if you're a forger or flat stock if you grind.

That's the way I've interpereted the information proposed by posters.
 
GibsonFan said:
Joe, you must go through a lot of drill bits?
Click to expand...
nah.......even on the smaller blades that don't get edge quenched or clay coated, I still coat the tang. It on;ly took me one time trying to drill a hardened W2 tang to figure that one out. Even the torch tempering trick didn't get it soft enough for high speed steel end mils to make much of a dent in it.:eek: But i do thread the tang before I HT it.
 
Karl, the quote you referenced was indeed, as j22knife pointed out, in reference to not starting a "sole authorship" knife with a blank someone else had made. Commercial waterjet, laser, or stamping service would render the knife "not sole-authorship", IMO.

As for the "damascus thing", I have grown uncertain most recently. Many of my opinions were first formed in the 80's when I started. That doesn't mean I am unwilling to update them. Back then, a knife that used someone else's damascus wasn't typically considered sole authorship. This was mostly due to the fact that damascus was indeed a precious commodity, and few knifemakers were making it for sale. Nowadays, there are numerous sources of people making damascus for sale who don't even make knives.

Where it gets a little grey is considering whether you would consider something made by an individual craftsman, such as damascus or mokume, still in the same class as round or flatstock made by a steel manufacturer.

I just don't know. You'll notice I dropped out of that "definitions" thread on KNET. It was entirely because I became uncertain of my feelings about the damascus and mokume, not to mention that I feel the sheath and knife are separate entities. You'll notice I put in a "Disclaimer" when I first posted the definition. :)

In order for the defintion to work at all, however, there will have to be a starting point where we can all say, "These are commonly acceptable starting points". Otherwise, there can always be questions that go from "Did you smelt your own steel?" to "Did you mine your own ore?" to "Did you make the shovel to mine the ore?". It can certainly become ridiculous.

Whether it really matters to me whether there's a "defintion" or not I'm not so sure about now. I think I may be content to say, "It's a knife. Here's how I did it. You decide for yourself." :)
 
If you use some Damascus that you got from someone else, you can make a great knife, a true beauty, and there is nothing at all wrong with doing such.

But you should NEVER claim sole authorship of the knife...
To do so would be just asking for trouble down the line when someone learns the truth and starts to make a big deal over it.
To get caught making such a false claim of a knife could be something that hangs around a guy's neck forever.

The Damascus steel is best and most show-off part of the whole knife, but it is the result of another's work not your own.
Therefore you should make it very clear that the steel is the work of another.
the term "sole authorship" gives the clear idea that each and every part of the knife is the result of the same one person.
Thus we would be caught in a lie to claim that the knife of sole authorship.
 
Thanks, Mike. I think I already HAVE made my decision.
You're right, we could get into who made the dye for the sheath or the snaps, or the epoxy for the laminated scales, or the solder for the guard, or when someone else stabilizes the handle material, etc., etc.
As far as I'm concerned, I have NEVER made a knife that was not Sole Authorship.
 
jdm61 said:
nah.......even on the smaller blades that don't get edge quenched or clay coated, I still coat the tang... Even the torch tempering trick didn't get it soft enough for high speed steel end mils to make much of a dent in it.:eek: But i do thread the tang before I HT it.
Click to expand...

OK now I understand. :)

fitzo said:
Where it gets a little grey is considering whether you would consider something made by an individual craftsman, such as damascus or mokume, still in the same class as round or flatstock made by a steel manufacturer.
Click to expand...

I don't, not by a long shot.

I understand the grey area and I mean no offense to folks who forge or grind nice blades from someone else's damascus bar. But I would definitely want to know if the maker actually made the bar itself, when paying $1000+ for a custom knife. It seems to me, that making that bar with it's patterns and properties is a science and skill unto itself; to not credit the guy who made the actual damascus would be unethical. I tend to feel the same way about heat-treating.

I don't feel as strongly about sheaths, because at least in my eyes, the sheath is not integral to the quality and performance of the knife itself. Still, it's only right to give credit where it's due.

fitzo said:
Whether it really matters to me whether there's a "defintion" or not I'm not so sure about now. I think I may be content to say, "It's a knife. Here's how I did it. You decide for yourself." :)
Click to expand...

:thumbup: That makes sense to me. I wouldn't necessarily turn my nose up at a knife made from an old leaf-spring, if I was confident the maker knew what he was doing with it.
 
GibsonFan said:
I don't, not by a long shot.

I understand the grey area and I mean no offense to folks who forge or grind nice blades from someone else's damascus bar. But I would definitely want to know if the maker actually made the bar itself, when paying $1000+ for a custom knife. It seems to me, that making that bar with it's patterns and properties is a science and skill unto itself; to not credit the guy who made the actual damascus would be unethical. I tend to feel the same way about heat-treating.
Click to expand...

Gibson Fan, I in no way implied that a maker shouldn't acknowledge the maker of the damascus, any more than if they'd refuse to divulge the source of mono-steel.

I don't think that's the point Karl and I were addressing. I believe we were discussing whether the knife would be considered sole authorship whether one started with CPM-S30V, John Deere load shaft, or Jerry Rados damascus. If a selling point on a knife is "CPM S30V", then is saying "Rados damascus" equivalent as a "Starting material" or not, if the maker does every subsequent step the same? That's a question I think there is a large range of opinion about.

I agree with you about disclosure. Indeed, I personally feel a knifemaker should feel obligated to explain exactly what materials and operations went into any knife if he is taking money for it. But, that's just my opinion, again. Whether they do so, however, is their own business and an agreement between maker and customer.

Much like Karl said, I have my own opinions. I am not going to try and argue with people over it anymore, for it doesn't make much difference in my world. :)

"Here's my knife. It's not for sale. I'm happy to tell you how I made it. Define it however you want." :)
 
You're a good man, Mike.
I ALWAYS give Jerry credit when I use his steel - to not do so doesn't make sense to me. Having his name attached to MY knife gives my blade credibility.
Just like when I give WSSI credit when I use material they have stabilized. I even give Tracy Mickley credit when I buy the stuff from him!
But every knife that comes out of my shop only has MY name on it!
 
Gentlemen, perhaps I spoke too strongly. I sure did not mean to imply that any of you would use "Mr. X's" damascus and not tell your customers.

My main point is that I don't consider damascus to be "the same" as stock bought from a mill. I don't think most collectors would either; otherwise why would they pay more for it?

I think fitzo is right that there may never be "one" definition for these terms... I'm ok with that.
 
kbaknife said:
You're a good man, Mike.
I ALWAYS give Jerry credit when I use his steel - to not do so doesn't make sense to me. Having his name attached to MY knife gives my blade credibility.
Just like when I give WSSI credit when I use material they have stabilized. I even give Tracy Mickley credit when I buy the stuff from him!
But every knife that comes out of my shop only has MY name on it!
Click to expand...

Of course you give credit wherever due, Karl. And I understand completely why your knives have your name on 'em. It's because you made 'em from scratch, same as always, whether it's a bar of damascus or a bar of 5160.

And that's exactly why I bowed out of the sole authorship discussion. My old opinion needed a re-think.
 
One thought on the whole damascus thing when it is made by someone else. We often see a knife proudly advertised as CPM-S30V or 154 CM or O-1 or whatever, which cleary identifies the steel and in certain cases the maker of that steel. It is often a sign of whether the knife is going to be good for it's designed/intended purpose. Therefore doesn't identifying the damascus maker also do the same in a similar fashion.

The question as to whether using a damascus billet made by someone else still makes the knife a "sole-authorship" knife is a difficult question. I almost lean to it not since with a damascus blade, the damascus pattern is often quite important to the design and construction of the knife, much more so than a knife made with O-1 versus 1084 or whatever. This is especially true when using the trademarked mosaic patterns. Like I said I'm almost leaning to that decision. As a new maker doing stock removal, which some feel negates sole-authorship anyway, I am a bit defensive of sole-authorship and the whole perceived greater value to pounded knives versus ground knives.

Just my thoughts on it.

Thanks for listening (reading).

Charles
 
I do stock removal. I do not do sole authorship knives, Paul Bos heat treats all my stainless blades and springs. If anyone believes they can heat reat the same steel any better than Paul, let me know, I'd be happy to talk with you about doing my steel...
Sole Authorship is almost a personal opinion. What if a a real artist of a knifemaker were to say it is sole authorship except I buy the solid gold screws from xxxx?Is that acceptable?
Actually if you don't forge your own Damascus, and use the Damascus of a well known respected Damascus maker (such as Devin Thomas, Jerry Rados, Robert Eggerling, Gary House) That well might enhance the knife in a Collector's opinion as they are so respected as Damascus makers.

Allan, I wasn't gonna ask, but I'd like to see your work. Do you have a website, dealer(s) who might carry your knives, are you going to any shows soon with knives for sale?
Are you an ABS Mastersmith, or Journeyman Smith? Have you looked into becoming a member of the Knifemakers' Guild? You speak with such an air of authority, I am curious about your experience, you output, your position from which you speak....
I am a Collector as well as a maker of handmade knives.....Would honestly like to see your work......
 
Material suppliers should be told to the customer. If I use a material that was made or processed by a specific individual - it is only good business and good practice to give them credit. The real sticking point for me is this - Nothing leaves my hands until I'm happy with it. If I am not happy with the flow, fit and finish, or balance of a blade, no customer will ever see it. If I use a material or heat-treat service, I simply say that the blade is made, inspected, and approved by me with scales by WSSI or heat-treat by so-and-so. When I produce a blade with someone else's materials, it can either make the other guy look good or bad, depending on my work. Someone else may have made the damascus, or stabilized the scales, or tanned and dyed the leather, but I control the end result and presentation.
 
but then you have companies like SS damascus...I'm not sure where that fits in in the whole scheme...I mean they're basically a specialty steel manufacturer...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top