Ten reasons why the Sebenza is the Rolex of knives

[Tags]

Is any watch simple? Maybe Fred Flintstone's wrist sundial?

Well, it's all relative, right? On the one hand all watches are fairly sophisticated devices -- especially mechanical watches. On the other hand, among watches there is obviously a hierarchy of complexity. The term "complication," in fact, is used to describe features that go beyond simply telling time: day/date windows, chronographs, second hour hands, alarms, tourbillons, etc.

Some Rolex models have a few basic complications, but they're always about function, not demonstrating complexity for its own sake or as an expression of a watchmaker's skill. Perhaps the most classic Rolex of all, the Explorer I, is as simple as a watch gets: clean face, industrial look, no date, smooth bezel, no precious metals or jewels.

And as I mentioned in my original post, in other design aspects -- case, bracelet, dial, movement -- Rolexes tend towards the clean, simple, conservative, and functional. Notwithstanding the tarted-up models it also produces to please customers concerned more with bling and image.

Now, one big difference between CRK and Rolex is that Rolex is light-years ahead in the branding dept. Some people snark that the Sebenza is the "best $200 knife in the world," but I don't think the Reeves markup is that high. On the other hand, a $5,000 Submariner probably is the best $2,000 diving watch in the world. Yeah, the CRK rep is good and worth a few extra bucks, but nowhere near the scale to which Rolex has established its brand as one of the most recognized and coveted in the world.

 

[ras]

Well, it's all relative, right? . . . Perhaps the most classic Rolex of all, the Explorer I, is as simple as a watch gets: clean face, industrial look, no date, smooth bezel, no precious metals or jewels.. . .

Thanks. I thought the Submariner was a classic Rolex but the Explorer is a class act. The Explorer is on my list; "no date" is a selling point. It should look good next to . . .

. . . the large one . . .

BTW, there are jewels in a Rolex, on the inside. By and large with Rolex, form follows function.

 

[lathrop]

I have a Rolex on and a sebenza in my pocket.

 

[marthinus]

I dont know much about a Rolex, but I like to think of CRK as a good divers watch. It is expensive yes, build and designed for a specific purpuse to high standards and it will LAST so the price works out to pennies a day over years.

 

[JNewell]

Yeah, but the post I was responding to wasn't distinguishing between "complications" (as used in the world of watches) and "normal" watches. As far as I can tell, he was simply saying that a Sebenza has very few parts and a watch is complex, not simple. Watches are inherently complex, even simple ones, due to their size, the need for something approaching accurate timekeeping, and the number of parts involved.

what is the essential of sebenza ? I think that is "simple" which perfect "simple " tool; the simple is most difficult thing in the word.watch is complex.what is the essential of rolex is? i think it is not "simple".

Well, it's all relative, right? On the one hand all watches are fairly sophisticated devices -- especially mechanical watches. On the other hand, among watches there is obviously a hierarchy of complexity. The term "complication," in fact, is used to describe features that go beyond simply telling time: day/date windows, chronographs, second hour hands, alarms, tourbillons, etc.

Some Rolex models have a few basic complications, but they're always about function, not demonstrating complexity for its own sake or as an expression of a watchmaker's skill. Perhaps the most classic Rolex of all, the Explorer I, is as simple as a watch gets: clean face, industrial look, no date, smooth bezel, no precious metals or jewels.

And as I mentioned in my original post, in other design aspects -- case, bracelet, dial, movement -- Rolexes tend towards the clean, simple, conservative, and functional. Notwithstanding the tarted-up models it also produces to please customers concerned more with bling and image.

Now, one big difference between CRK and Rolex is that Rolex is light-years ahead in the branding dept. Some people snark that the Sebenza is the "best $200 knife in the world," but I don't think the Reeves markup is that high. On the other hand, a $5,000 Submariner probably is the best $2,000 diving watch in the world. Yeah, the CRK rep is good and worth a few extra bucks, but nowhere near the scale to which Rolex has established its brand as one of the most recognized and coveted in the world.

 

[Mal2]

Excellent comparison. Both expensive yet not extravagant pieces of man jewelery. The last measures of utility per last dollars spent can only be justified by pride of ownership, brand recognition, or a certain obsessive urge to have the best regardless of cost.

I have one more Rolex counterfeit that on the right occasion, with the right lubrication, I'll tap on it a few times and exclaim, "damned Rolex!" and with the appropriate level of pomp; throw it overboard. It was a gift I would never wear otherwise.

As to the Sebenza; large 21 with mammoth inserts, and gold dual thumb studs, please; I really want one and can afford it. I'm so tight I squeak when I walk, however, and have a penchant for loosing any knife I carry regularly so I doubt it will ever happen. I'll just have to get my fix viewing the porn posted on this site; keep it coming.

Nice watches, nice knives and a great job of comparing the two.

 

[HistoricalMan]

I tend to agree with all of the points you made. However, I would definitely stress the relativeness of their apparent high-volume production. I believe CRK only produce somewhere in the region of 1200 Sebbies a year.

 

[Tags]

Yeah, but the post I was responding to wasn't distinguishing between "complications" (as used in the world of watches) and "normal" watches. As far as I can tell, he was simply saying that a Sebenza has very few parts and a watch is complex, not simple. Watches are inherently complex, even simple ones, due to their size, the need for something approaching accurate timekeeping, and the number of parts involved.

I thought his point was that simplicity was the Sebenza's "essence" -- that is, relative to other knives. So I was saying that you have to evaluate the simplicity of a Rolex relative to other mechanical watches. Looked at it that way, it is simple.

Of course a watch -- any watch -- is inherently more complex than a knife -- any knife. Next to a stick or a rock, a knife may be the most simple tool in human history.

 

[Tags]

I tend to agree with all of the points you made. However, I would definitely stress the relativeness of their apparent high-volume production. I believe CRK only produce somewhere in the region of 1200 Sebbies a year.

Good point. Even looked at "relatively," Rolex out-produces CRK. It's actually quite amazing that Rolex has retained its aura of exclusivity despite its production volumes.

Still, just as Rolex produces more watches than, say, Lange, and fewer than Citizen, so too does CRK produce more knives than custom makers and fewer than Gerber or somebody.

 

[kawr]

Great, thoughtful post. Pretty much spot on for the most part. One thing that I would like to add is that when it comes to craftsmanship and precision, crks are actually better than the majority of customs in that regard.

 

[guoxin]

good post ,in fact it always let me think: what soul of sebenza .many folder knives is more complex than sebenza, but sebenza is better .

 

[CUTiger3]

Well, I know they go great together

 

[kaosu04]

I certainly understand the comparison, but dont agree with it 100% I'm a watch guy myself and love my omega speedmaster. But, I can see someone actually needing a sebenza, every last piece of it. A simple all metal durable cutting/stabbing tool. A sebenza is a luxury to most of us, but to some people it is a well justified tool. Expensive mechanical watches are simply a luxury. There are very few, very weak benefits to mechanical over quartz. They require expensive servicing, they are less accurate, they are more expensive (even though japan and china both make a movement that is sold for $20-$50), and they are less durable, though modern day escapement shock protection is very impressive. My $40 g-shock is an indestructible accurate watch with much more water resistance than my $2700 speedmaster. But there's no fun in a g-shock. A watch is a tool as much as any knife, but there are very, very few people that truly need a high dollar mechanical watch in today's world. The speedmaster is probably the closest thing to a good argument for it, as there is a need for a back up timing device that does not have to depend on electricity, as space travel is all about being as prepared as possible.

In my own opinion, a rolex is more like a damascus ddr balisong, while a sebenza is more like a solar/atomic mudman g-shock.

 

[Slider817]

Excellent post, could not agree more, I love my Rolex's and My Reeve's are my favorite Knives.
Sorry for the bad Pics, but I wanted to share

 

[Tags]

I certainly understand the comparison, but dont agree with it 100% I'm a watch guy myself and love my omega speedmaster. But, I can see someone actually needing a sebenza, every last piece of it. A simple all metal durable cutting/stabbing tool. A sebenza is a luxury to most of us, but to some people it is a well justified tool. Expensive mechanical watches are simply a luxury. There are very few, very weak benefits to mechanical over quartz. They require expensive servicing, they are less accurate, they are more expensive (even though japan and china both make a movement that is sold for $20-$50), and they are less durable, though modern day escapement shock protection is very impressive. My $40 g-shock is an indestructible accurate watch with much more water resistance than my $2700 speedmaster. But there's no fun in a g-shock. A watch is a tool as much as any knife, but there are very, very few people that truly need a high dollar mechanical watch in today's world. The speedmaster is probably the closest thing to a good argument for it, as there is a need for a back up timing device that does not have to depend on electricity, as space travel is all about being as prepared as possible.

In my own opinion, a rolex is more like a damascus ddr balisong, while a sebenza is more like a solar/atomic mudman g-shock.

It's an imperfect comparison, you're right. And I agree that it's hard to compare a knife to ANY mechanical watch.

That said, I'd make a few points in reply:

-95% of Sebenza owners will not use "every piece of it." Part of the appeal is having the extreme capabilities in reserve. It's the same for any over-engineered piece of equipment. And it's similar for the Rolex -- the depth ratings, the shock resistance, the overall longevity built into the design. Few Rolex wearers are going to dive with Cousteau or climb Kilimanjaro, just like few Range Rover owners are going to blast down the Serengeti dodging rhinos, and few Sebenza owners are going to need to kill a wild boar or split driftwood on a desert island, but the potential for such capabilities is part of each tool's DNA. Let's face it, for 95% of use a $50 CRKT will perform just as well as a $400 Seb. It won't be as pleasing to hold and use, and it ultimately won't last as long -- but then these are the two main advantages of a Rolex over a Timex too.

-Having said that, lots of knife people would argue that any folding knife (analogous to any mechanical watch) is ultimately ill-suited to extreme use. For extreme cutting and survival you need fixed-blade, just as for extreme accuracy you need quartz (preferably thermal-compensated or radio-controlled).

-I think comparing a Rolex to a custom Damascus balisong is to under-rate its practicality. Such a knife would be more comparable to a limited-production dress JLC or Piaget or something, with a sophisticated but fragile design and minimal water resistance. You would never EDC such a knife or whittle with it, but people really do wear their Rolexes every day and dive/ski/shoot with them.

-The Sebenza is just too expensive, too exclusive, and too rich in material and construction quality to be comparable to a G-Shock. Maybe a RAT fixed-blade or some other knife that's cheap(ish), unlovely, and indestructible.

 

[Big_Red]

I say KUDOS to you sir... I enjoyed the comparison. I'm also a Rolex and Sebenza owner.

but I guess some people just like to debate the issue

 

[Rat Finkenstein]

How can you make a statement like this?

"Use" is in the hands of the user.

I guess you could put one in a sock and pummel someone with it.

Paying a few hundred dollars for a well made pocket knife is not the same as paying thousands for a piece of jewelry that occasionally keeps time.

Some people are into CRK as jewelry or some kind of status symbol I am sure, but at least there is utility there. People can check the time on a watch that will keep better time for a fraction of the price.

Bottom line is, some people are keen to draw parallels between disparate objects of their affection. Maybe to justify their expendatures, maybe in an attempt to lay praise upon one or the other, but completely pointless. Just like the standard knife/car analogies that fly around the forums.

 

[Socom Elite]

I guess you could put one in a sock and pummel someone with it.

Paying a few hundred dollars for a well made pocket knife is not the same as paying thousands for a piece of jewelry that occasionally keeps time.

Some people are into CRK as jewelry or some kind of status symbol I am sure, but at least there is utility there. People can check the time on a watch that will keep better time for a fraction of the price.

Bottom line is, some people are keen to draw parallels between disparate objects of their affection. Maybe to justify their expendatures, maybe in an attempt to lay praise upon one or the other, but completely pointless. Just like the standard knife/car analogies that fly around the forums.

Both high end knives and watches are luxury items and are more then nessasary to get the job done. they both Serve a purpose.

Actually a Rolex keeps very good time for having a mechanical movement. Yes, any cheap $5 quartz watch will keep more accurate time, but to have a accurate mechanical watch is something different.


If you think that's useless then sell all your knives and just carry a box cutter as that's all that is needed to do the job.

 

[dangreco]

I guess you could put one in a sock and pummel someone with it.

Some people are into CRK as jewelry or some kind of status symbol I am sure, but at least there is utility there. People can check the time on a watch that will keep better time for a fraction of the price.

And, people can cut things with a knife that will cut better than a Sebenza, for a fraction of the price.

 

[bulgron]

Every day I put on a Rolex Submariner and then slip a small micarta Sebenza into my pocket. I might sometimes leave the Sebenza behind (if, for example, I'm going swimming or on an airplane) but I always have the Submariner on no matter where I go. Which is why the Submariner is worth more than the Sebenza.

I used to wear lesser watches, but they kept flooding on me. I even had a Tag Heuer flood on me once. And then there was the time I was on a camping trip and my G-Shock died because the battery crapped out. The Submariner is worth every penny, IMO.