The Ganzo G8012 Fixed Blade Review

Status
Not open for further replies.
So that makes it okay? And some of those companies buy out the thing they are making. Cars are a different story. There is lots of issues with that. Some of it due to China and some due with people who don't want to pay alot for a car. And way more. I don't buy America cars (after having one).

But your argument should not be its okay because others do it. No its not okay. And yes you should not defend them for doing it. If a big name is a company stole a design I'd be mentioning them too. It's wrong how ever you slice it. But you using that as an argument to lagitimize ganzo is lol.
 
Hackenslash said:
I don't think anyone is calling it counterfeit either. You continue to miss the point. You're supporting a company built upon design theft and cloning. Does the fact that Ganzo doesn't actually make "counterfeits" somehow redeem them?

That's like a murderer saying "I was going to kill 7 people today but stopped at 4. I've actually been quite well behaved".

There are a few people making the same lame arguments to support cloners in this thread but at the end of the day those arguments hold no water against the simple truth that stealing is wrong. We all learned that in kindergarten.

Well, apparently not all of us...
Click to expand...

Precisely. It's obvious that Ganzo's intent here (and over and over again, along with a ton of other makers and sellers) was to create a knife that looks like the Gerbers, and make a quick buck off their work.

One can make all the apologies and excuses they want and argue minutiae about IP and patent law until the cows come home.

But everyone knows what their intent was.

I understand that the average person who doesn't know better or isn't into knives doesn't care.

But this place isn't about the "average person who doesn't know better or isn't into knives."

"The Leading Edge of Knife Discussion" Says it right at the top of the page.
 
Zombie411 said:
No sir.
I am not claiming that. Ganzo does make copies but that is not their sole business. That may have been their worst move as a company. 100% agree.

My case is they have their own designs, and produce them as well.
The OP's knife is an example.

.
Click to expand...
So by your situational ethics:
Theft would be OK as long as the stolen goods were given away?
A murderer can erase their crimes by building homes for the poor?
That it's OK to discriminate against some, just so long as you treat some fairly?

Can't you see how whack your argument is? If you apply that same package of ethics to other situations of right and wrong, your standards sound completely crazy. I do appreciate your bolded admission above, however.

Still waiting on those Ganzo patents...
 
The OP claims that this is an original design. It is clear that the knife is actually a hybrid of a Gerber BG and probably another western knife (10-points to whomever locates the model which the blanks are imitating), in keeping with Ganzo's tradition of ripping off the designs of others. No one (including the OP and other Ganzo-defenders, it would seem) is surprised by this, it would be extremely out-of-character for Ganzo to produce an original knife, so I am glad that we have avoided that potentially apocalyptic event *phew*

My speculation is that the handle and sheath and blanks are all left-over from (and probably paid for by) the Gerber BG projects, they may represent a future or a scrapped version of the BG product-line.
The question then becomes, did Gerber give permission for this use? Does Ganzo have a "right" to the various design aspects?

There are other versions of the Gerber BG knife out there, including this one:

1443153434605-P-3131880.jpg


Here they did not use the Gerber sheath-design but apparently employed some kydex/boltaron-bending and integrated the sharpener into the side of the sheath... is that method of sharpener integration a new thing? I don't know. They swapped the molded scales for G10 slabs and again used a different blade-blank, but the overall handle-design is identical, same pommel, the firetseel is identical, it has the same striker-section on the spine of the blade with a similar fire-logo...

201509251955482237.jpg
 
Zombie411 said:
McHenrey/Williams...
Exactly my point sir.
Not Benchmade as a company

This is a common denominator in the business world. Licensing.
Ganzo as a corporation owns most of it's designs because they designed, and patented them in house.
They are not a sweat shop producing counterfeit knives. They are producing knives for brands, as well as their own products.
Click to expand...

Could you point me to an address and hopefully an image of the "Ganzo knife factory"? I found their "about" page https://ganzoknife.com/about-brand/
This claims "Ganzo company received more than a hundred patents developing its own manufacturing methods and functional details." Since i have yet to see a single "original" design, locking-mechanism, etc., I am curious what the "patents" are, who issued them, etc. or why you think it "owns most of its designs because they designed and patented them in house". Evidence?
You seem to imply that GANZO owns the design-patents on the knives they make and it is the US companies (or Fiskars in the case of Gerber) that is licensing these designs? Is that right?
And you are asserting that the axis-lock is also being licensed by Ganzo, is that right?

Claiming that "they" (Ganzo) is "producing" knives for other brands implies that the factory=Ganzo rather than that Ganzo contracts the same factory that other brands ALSO contract.

Zombie411 said:
On topic... The rounded nose of the Ganzo survival knife may well be an innovation. Depending on how you look at it....
Click to expand...

"Innovation" entails that the idea be "new". I see no evidence of anything "new" in any of the products coming from Ganzo so far, including this one.

Zombie411 said:
I'm only stating that the makers of knives are making knives. no one here KNOWS what steel is used or not used, and no one here KNOWS what brands/styles Ganzo is licensed to make.

For all we know every knife they have produced may be legit. If not PROVE IT! Please.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? You... you can't be serious, can you?

Zombie411 said:
My case is they have their own designs, and produce them as well.
The OP's knife is an example.
Click to expand...

Except that it isn't "their own design" unless you call taking the blade blank from one knife and the handle of another knife and putting them together = "my own design". I put pocket-clips on alox swiss army knives - Does that make the SAKs "my own design"?? Ever seen a "bonesidio"? What about a knife with custom-scales? What about a customized "kit knife"?
I really need to see ONE ganzo knife that is not a direct copy/revision of an already popular knife.
 
Last edited:
This bickering gets old. I am against reviews of knives from Ganzo and so are many others. However, a few have expressed that they want them allowed. I am under the impression that this forum is against reviews of clones and imposters and companies who hurt the industry in general. Is Ganzo one of those companies?

Can we get a ruling from a mod or spark himself? Are reviews of Ganzo allowed or not? Or is this a case of silence is acceptance?

I hope this request is reasonable. I am just trying to be a diplomat.
 
Last edited:
A search at WIPO using "Yangjiang" (the home city of Ganzo) and "knife" comes up with 13 possible Chinese patents. All but two of them are awarded to YANGJIANG TUOBITUO TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. These patents are fairly rudimentary and appear to basically describe generic folding knives and kitchen knives. Here are some examples of titles: "Splash-proof kitchen knife", "Locking folding knife", "Folding knife with whistle" and "Improved folding knife".

If we assume the Tuobituo is the parent company of Ganzo, they "may" have 11 Chinese patents pertaining to knives. None of the patents are older than 3Q 2016. It appears that the applicant has tried to "corner" the market in patents defining a folding knife in a very short period of time.

So much for hundreds of patents and a history of innovation. Can we just please stop posting stupid stuff now?

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/result.jsf?currentNavigationRow=1&prevCurrentNavigationRow=2&query=FP:(Yangjiang) and knife&office=&sortOption=Pub Date Desc&prevFilter=&maxRec=13&viewOption=All&listLengthOption=10
 
Last edited:
Hackenslash said:
A search at WIPO using "Yangjiang" (the home city of Ganzo) and "knife" comes up with 13 possible Chinese patents. All but two of them are awarded to YANGJIANG TUOBITUO TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. These patents are very rudimentary and appear to basically describe generic folding knives and kitchen knives. Here are some examples of titles: "Splash-proof kitchen knife", "Locking folding knife", "Folding knife with whistle" and "Improved folding knife". They would never be awarded in Europe or the USA.

If we assume the Tuobituo is the parent company of Ganzo, they "may" have 11 Chinese patents pertaining to knives. None of the patents are older than 3Q 2016. It appears that the applicant has tried to "corner" the market in patents defining a folding knife in a very short period of time.

So much for hundreds of patents and a history of innovation. Can we just please stop posting stupid stuff now?

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/result.jsf?currentNavigationRow=1&prevCurrentNavigationRow=2&query=FP:(Yangjiang) and knife&office=&sortOption=Pub Date Desc&prevFilter=&maxRec=13&viewOption=All&listLengthOption=10
Click to expand...
Nevermind, those aren't Ganzo patents. Those are Kizer patents. The patent inventor is listed as ZHOU HONGFENG and a google search of that name led me to the award of a Kizer trademark, lol. Now that the cloners are going after Kizer designs, it's small wonder that they're seeking Chinese patents to protect themselves in whatever way they can.

https://trademarks.justia.com/861/32/kizer-86132279.html

As far as I can tell, Ganzo has ZERO patents. But then again, why would you expect their self-proclaimed "history" to be the truth?
 
danbot said:
The "striker/hammer" that you mentioned in your review is listed in the specs as "Soldered glass breaker is designed for breaking glass, no other hard materials, like iron, steel, etc."
Click to expand...
Strong enough to hammer a nail into a tree.
danbot said:
Doesn't come with the ferro rod, so that really can't be included as a value for money feature. And in your review you state "The included ferro rod gives out good sparks and I reckon will be enough to make a fire in the outdoors." That doesn't exactly inspire confidence!
Click to expand...
Mine obviously arrived with the ferro rod (as you can see in the video).
I recommend you check with the store before you order if it will come included or not.
danbot said:
Please take this as its meant... constructive criticism.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I actually appreciate it.

marcinek said:
You can honestly say that knife was not made to look like a Gerber? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
YES, for 100%.
If it is in fact made in the same factory as Gerber, they could have just fired up the machines and make the exact same knife, just change the logo in the computer program.
The fact is they did make an effort to make it different from the Gerber knife (although I admit some things about it remind the Gerber).
 
The fact is they didn't change the logo. Tiny burnt thing. Did you miss that part? It is better to say you dont give a flying frog than continue to be deceitful.
 
AtechReviews said:
YES, for 100%.
If it is in fact made in the same factory as Gerber, they could have just fired up the machines and make the exact same knife, just change the logo in the computer program.
The fact is they did make an effort to make it different from the Gerber knife (although I admit some things about it remind the Gerber).
Click to expand...

You know it wasn't made to look like a Gerber. 100%. Were you part of the marketing team for Ganzo when they drew it up? (I guess that would explain a lot.)

And so, in your mind, if Gerber has a factory make a knife for them, then the factory has every right to just keep making the same knife with someone else's name on it?

And you are applauding them for making some minimal changes to it but, in the end, making it look just like a Gerber?

Of course it is your right to be an apologist for these companies and sites that take advantage of other knife makers work to make a quick buck...and we all know that is what is going on here.

The more you debate and pretend that is not what is going on the more people are going to be convinced you are in on it.

In the end it is all Spark's call, of course.

But that is a knife made specifically to look like a Gerber. Even you say so. You can put lipstick on that pig but it doesn't change things.
 
craytab said:
The fact is they didn't change the logo. Tiny burnt thing. Did you miss that part? It is better to say you dont give a flying frog than continue to be deceitful.
Click to expand...

Yes. This "it's not supposed to look like a Gerber" argument is disingenuous at best and deceitful or ignorant at worst.

If one does not believe that was specifically designed to look like a Gerber, then one is either completely unaware of what the Gerber "survival" line looks like, or one is trying desperately to blow smoke up our asses (and failing).

It's meant make money by looking like Gerber's product. Just like all the other clones and "homages" are meant to do.
 
AtechReviews said:
The fact is they did make an effort to make it different from the Gerber knife (although I admit some things about it remind the Gerber).
Click to expand...

Yup, just like those benchmade and spyderco and ontario and Lionsteel models feature differences! Like the PM2 or the SR-1 or the Rat 1 designs with the axis-lock, that's not an exact replica, so therefore it's OK, right? I mean, it's not like Benchmade actually owns the patent on the axis-lock, right?
 
Mo2 said:
They did not design the benchmade 940 yet they copied it. They did not design protec designs yet they copied it. Please tell me more about how you think they are legit.
Click to expand...

Ok... Yes the knives look exactly the same.
NONE of the parts will interchange tho. By U.S. laws alone that make the knife legal for import, and sale. There are enough differences to be outside infringement laws.
Now take a blade from a Case stockman, and install it in an early much earlier Sheffield stockman.
Is the Case a counterfeit?.
Buck 110/Is the Schrade version a counterfeit?

To ME this is not about close enough. It is about Glass Houses.

Mo2 said:
So that makes it okay? And some of those companies buy out the thing they are making. Cars are a different story. There is lots of issues with that. Some of it due to China and some due with people who don't want to pay alot for a car. And way more. I don't buy America cars (after having one).

Respectfully sir. There are no exceptions. Stealing IS stealing.
People want to pay less for knives as well.
You won't buy American cars? Curious...
I won't buy a 1000.00 folding knife. No matter who makes it.
I don't buy counterfeit knives either.


But your argument should not be its okay because others do it. No its not okay. And yes you should not defend them for doing it.
Click to expand...

I am not defending them.
I am stating as many facts/opinions as I find pertinent to the discussion.
I am not assuming what they do or why. Neither do I defend the American makers that "copy" each others work daily. Close enough is not a "version" of guilt. Not in MY country anyway.
Respectfully sir,
Ken


chiral.grolim said:
The OP claims that this is an original design. It is clear that the knife is actually a hybrid of a Gerber BG and probably another western knife
Click to expand...

Every Auto knife in the USA is a hybrid of the Italian Stiletto. Every fixed blade is a hybrid of the Roman bronze Short Sword. Every folder is a hybrid of the Hallstatt knife from 600BC.
Close enough for a comparator?


chiral.grolim said:
My speculation is that the handle and sheath and blanks are all left-over from (and probably paid for by) the Gerber BG projects, they may represent a future or a scrapped version of the BG product-line.
The question then becomes, did Gerber give permission for this use? Does Ganzo have a "right" to the various design aspects?
Click to expand...

As far as I know... You do not need a lisc. for a speculation so everything after "speculation" is word salad.
No disrespect sir.
I am trying to determine facts.


chiral.grolim said:
Could you point me to an address and hopefully an image of the "Ganzo knife factory"? I found their "about" page https://ganzoknife.com/about-brand/
This claims "Ganzo company received more than a hundred patents developing its own manufacturing methods and functional details." Since i have yet to see a single "original" design, locking-mechanism, etc., I am curious what the "patents" are, who issued them, etc. or why you think it "owns most of its designs because they designed and patented them in house". Evidence?
You seem to imply that GANZO owns the design-patents on the knives they make and it is the US companies (or Fiskars in the case of Gerber) that is licensing these designs? Is that right?
And you are asserting that the axis-lock is also being licensed by Ganzo, is that right?

Claiming that "they" (Ganzo) is "producing" knives for other brands implies that the factory=Ganzo rather than that Ganzo contracts the same factory that other brands ALSO contract.
Click to expand...

I am working on this sir.
China corporate law/records do not "google translate" readily but I am working on this for my own enlightenment.
I will share whatever I can find as fact.
 
craytab said:
The fact is they didn't change the logo. Tiny burnt thing. Did you miss that part? It is better to say you dont give a flying frog than continue to be deceitful.
Click to expand...
It isn't a logo!
If you paid attention to the video you would see it just symbolizes the uncoated area on the top of the blade to be used with the ferro rod.
This is what happens when you try to review the knife through a picture. SMH

marcinek said:
If one does not believe that was specifically designed to look like a Gerber, then one is either completely unaware of what the Gerber "survival" line looks like, or one is trying desperately to blow smoke up our asses (and failing).

It's meant make money by looking like Gerber's product. Just like all the other clones and "homages" are meant to do.
Click to expand...
I think if they did want to make money they could have found a better candidate than a freaking Gerber.
I also believe they had the Gerber platform but tried to make it look and function different.


chiral.grolim said:
I mean, it's not like Benchmade actually owns the patent on the axis-lock, right?
Click to expand...
They don't. The patent is owned by McHenry-Williams and was issued more than 20 years ago.
You know what that means, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top