When you start saying things about his work like "absolute crap," I think that's way out of line. You may be affecting his livelihood, and/or ability to earn income from the knives he makes.
No one is saying to sweep anything under the rug, or pretend you don't have an issue with the knife. But calling it crap on a worldwide forum is uncalled for, in my opinion. Why not contact him FIRST and work it out.
And no one said you owe him an "easy review," but if you're going to do a review on it, is that the kind of language you see in a professional review?
I have to say I agree with you that if making subjective comments I should at least make it real clear as to what the comment is limited to: By saying "total absolute crap" I meant it only regarding the saw's functionality, which is zero, and deceptively so I might add... But by saying "total", and then saying the knife will be a "beater", I have to admit I got carried away by my disapointment... I'll even appologize to Wall for having been careless in not making clear the distinction (I did praise his knife otherwise)... It is just that I cannot understand how he never tested, or figured out, that having the saw's top on a single plane would turn it into a decorative feature, this on a knife not advertised as intended for decoration... That being said, it is the thinnest edged hollow handle I have besides the Randall (and reworked Boker Apparo), and of the 3 I would say it is the better knife...
I have since tested this knife in the field, and generally it came out well against the Randall Model 18, although I noticed a lot of strange unexpected results and behaviour that are both specific to the design, but also apply to all hollow handle knives generally. Because I had chopped in a different way before, I never noticed these issues to the extent I did this time.
Unfortunately I still cannot load up the "in action" photos, as the "F" inlet still does not appear in my view box, for some reason. So I'll just try to be brief using generic photos... I will post pictures when the computer problem is finally fixed...
Chopping performance: 9" Wall, 1/4" stock, versus 7.4", 3/16" thick Randall Model 18 (with ground down guard, so lighter than stock): Incredibly, about the same(!!), despite the Model 18 balancing just behind the guard, which I consider very poor balance (versus 1" in front of the guard on the Wall, which I consider incredibly good chopping balance for a hollow handle, this due to the aluminium and small diameter). This is quite a surprise to me, especially since the knives are similar in edge thickness, and the Randall is much thinner in stock than the Wall...
My theory is as follows: The Wall originally sported a fairly broadly radiused convex edge (though similarly thin to the Randall overall): By converting it to a V-edge, I could not go all the way up the side to elliminate completely the radius of the convexing (this would have required scratching up the side into a huge 1/8" bevel, which would not only have looked bad, but would also have been enormously time-consuming, as it was on the Neeley SA9) , so that above the V-edge bevel the blade still immediately "thickens" in a convex curve: I much improved the original sharpness, but this "thickening" action just behind the edge is a sharp contrast to the slight hollow on the Randall's cross-section: The V-edges are both similar in thickness, but where the Wall swells rapidly fatter after the edge bevel, the Randall basically goes straight up into sides that do not widen at all... This alone expains the mismatched smaller blade equalled the much larger blade: When chopping, I could "feel" the remaining convexing inhibited the Wall's "bite". It still performed decently, though I would guess the heavier-feeling Chris Reeves Jereboam would out-chop it by about 20-30% (it is being refinished in a green Cerakoating, so I didn't have it available).
Despite this surprising result, the Randall came out very badly in handle confort: I had used for wrapping a very tough-surfaced, tightly woven 350 lbs rope (harder-surfaced than regular 440), and this still made the handle too large in diameter, but it also was way too aggressive for chopping: The issue is not easily fixable in my opinion, because chopping makes you want to grip rearward, and the blister may have been caused by the oversized buttcap knurling itself, not just the rope... The Wall's very thin diameter handle was superbly confortable in comparison. The only downside of its excellent handle is the wrapping cord moved around a little, revealing a slight gap in the rope: No real adverse effect...
The most interesting thing I found in both knives is the serious tendency to roll "into" the wood grain when chopping low to the ground. It was slightly worse on the Wall than on the Randall, despite the much better grip, but very bad on both compared to the Chris Reeves. The convexing of the Wall edge may have played a role, but what was interesting to me was that it was so much more severe and less controllable than when doing shoulder-height chopping with the Chris Reeves Jereboam. This below illustrates what I think was the two-pronged difference: 1-The handle-edge relationship, 2-Chopping with the blade in a tip-down attitude:
Now compare the above edge-handle/handle center relationship to that of the Randall below: The greater height means the Randall is more "tipsy" at the moment its blade hits the wood to chop, which means the slightest off-square centering will have a greater chance of leaning the blade and suddenly making it "follow the grain" paralell to the wood grain, rather than cutting perpendicular to it:
Now here you can see how the Wall's edge-down design might also have caused trouble:
But the rolling effect was so marked and dangerous this time (it litterally whipped both blades sideways with great violence, very near my leg and foot) compared to the comparatively mild effect on the Chris Reeves Jereboam (still a bit scary the first time around), that I felt sure such design differences could not have been the whole story: Another difference with my older testing was that the Chris Reeves was used to trim limbs at shoulder height, which made the blade hit point up, while this time I tested the Wall and Randall on limbs resting close to the ground, in a point-down attitude: I think this might have had this effect:
In any case I think it definitely is an issue worth keeping an eye out for...
And yes I am keeping the Wall...: Who knows, if he fixes the teeths, then mine will become a collector's item...
As to determine if it is still an improvement over the Lile design, the weight-forward balance is definitely better, and the thinner diameter handle is also superior in my view, even for big hands. The lower edge position on the Wall does prove to not combine very well with a round handle... The Liles however have another problem which the Wall avoids completely: Way too thin point geometry that is just far beyond what it should have been: When I found this out, I lost forever my interest in the Liles. Do note however that the Andy Wood copies appear to have a noticeably sturdier point design: This is a pre-dot Lile Mission, but I have confirmed that current Neeley production First Bloods are similar in point thinness:
Gaston
Just how often do these experienced knife fighters lug around a concealed Kurkri?... I know the Al Mar Warrior was designed by serious "martial artists", but to me it simply curves the wrong way... I have to wonder just how much training, or how many knife fights ever take place, when the reach of stabbing is never mentionned as a big surprise when you actually attempt it... What apparently happens is you instinctively reach with your other hand to hold back "in range", and then, statistically, more often than not, you injure your own other hand... This is known to cops all over, who always check stabbing suspects for self-injured hands... How come knife-fighting masters don't ever emphasize this, or the incredibly short range of stabbing right off the bat? I'll let you guess...
