Traditional vs. Non-Traditional

Status
Not open for further replies.
ptradeco

ptradeco

Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
2,872
A question for the traditionalists and or purists here. When does a traditionally patterned knife cease being a traditional knife. For example say a knife maker decides on a long established pattern but instead of natural scale material or micarta or something everyone is used to he uses titanium or aluminum or some other material. Say he goes another step and machines patterns into that material. He then makes a departure from normal steels and uses something like Carpenters CTS-XHP. He elects to stay with a recognized blade style but rather than the finishes we are most accustomed to he either bead blasts or stone washes it. And for the sake of argument let us say fit and finish is top shelf, conventional half stop is there, walks and talks like a million bucks.

From a purists point of view we would have gone beyond a traditional knife I am guessing. What about from the traditionalists point of view? Is there a difference?

At some point in history natural materials and simple metals were the norm because they were what was available. As time went on other materials became more commonplace. Now things such as micarta and CF are embraced. Some of the best known talents use them. Steels have advanced tremendously.

I pose this not to incite or offend but for my own personal knowledge. I have been collecting high end custom knives for 30+ years but only in the last few branched out to slip joints. In the world of art knives and others there are very few boundaries. This does not seem to be the case with slip joints.

This is getting to be a bit long so I end here. Enlighten me if you please.

Thank you in advance,
Brad
 
Last edited:
For me, as long as it is a slipjoint knife with springs and no locks, and a traditional profile i.e. blades, then I consider it a traditional knife.
 
I have to agree with Corey on this one. You can make a stockman with Titanium scales and the latest, greatest powdered steel from Crucible Metals (not sure why you would use the titanium, but the choice of steel would be interesting). It would still be a stockman, and a stockman is a traditional knife.

Interestingly, Spyderco is making a Titanium version of their UKPK. Now, the UKPK is not a traditional pattern by any stretch, but it is a slipjoint.
 
I don't think that materials make much of a difference, if any at all.

A stockman is a stockman, no matter if it's made with plain carbon steel blades with bone handlles, or stainless steel blades and modern materials. In fact, I consider my old Buck 301 a pure stockman design even though it was made out of materials that an 1880's cowboy never saw.

To me it's all form, not materials.

The most recognized design, the sodbuster, has a long history of being made in yellow delrin based material. Some custom sodbusters have been made in G10, micarta, as well natural materials, yet they all sodbusters by looks.
 
Blues,

You kind of hit on my point, one of them anyway, with significantly fewer words I might add! I know a couple of knife makers who got themselves thrashed pretty well for so called sac religious treatment of a traditional pattern. I am not really looking for black and white here, just thoughts from long time collectors and subject matter experts such as yourself.

Brad
 
I would love a slip joint as described. Preferably larger in a "coke bottle" pattern. :)

Patterns make it traditional, not materials in my opinion.
 
Brad, first, I'm no expert. There are some experts that spend their time here but even most of them won't admit to that moniker.

That aside, despite my tongue in cheek reply above, I do think that it's very difficult to put into words what makes a knife "traditional" as there are always nuances and exceptions that can derail a standard definition.

So, I rely upon my study of various books on the subject, the knives in my and other members collections and the images available here as well as on the greater internet. Well, that as well as the feel for the genre that I have developed as a result of putting in the time.

Besides, if I were foolish enough to paint myself into a corner, the wiseacres on this forum would challenge every moderator decision that Gus or I make and use our words against us.

So, "I know it when I see it" works for me on a variety of levels. ;) :thumbup:

And welcome to the madness...glad to have you here. :cool:
 
I have to agree that it's more the design than the materials. However, one also needs to look at the totality of it all.

Put Ti or some other modern material for the handles, some new "latest/greatest" blade steel, etc & you still have a traditional knife, but with more modern looks. However, add a pivot to it & say, a clip & now it's starting to look like something else & that something else might not be considered a traditional type knife.

Same thing with FBs. There are plenty of FBs out there made out of the same materials as a traditional style FB, but it's not a traditional style FB. I would think the term Elliot uses, "I'll know it when I see it" makes a lot of sense in that case.

Having said all that, I had a Ty Montell custom slip-joint. It was a 2-blade Trapper. It definitely is a traditional knife, but it sure was more modern, materialwise. It had anodized Ti bolsters & liners, filework on the springs, & screw construction instead of pins. It certainly wouldn't/couldn't have been made 100+ yrs ago, but it was a traditional knife.
 
What the heck are you guys talking about now. :)

artWashborn.jpg
 
Actually those were made by a friend and forum member here. Art Washburn. Art's knives are known for his attention to blade action (or in the case of these 2 walk and talk). He is not known for multiblades, but he nailed these two.

Granted the materials are "a little different".

Thanks guys, I have been waiting for the right thread to post these. ;)
 
I'm a somewhat conservative, old fashioned sort of guy, (OK, a grumpy old fart too stubborn and set in his ways to change), and the best definition of traditional I can come up with is "something that looks and works much like it would have in my grandfathers day, or before."

Everybody has their own version of what "traditional" might be, and who's to say mine is more right or wrong than yours, but that's the rough rule of thumb I would apply to the term. Big box full of grey areas there though.

Very interesting pair from Gus there, great looking knives and I'd certainly be happy to own them, but I would struggle to define them as traditional. Then again, what the hell do I know!
 
gajinoz said:
I'm a somewhat conservative, old fashioned sort of guy, (OK, a grumpy old fart too stubborn and set in his ways to change), and the best definition of traditional I can come up with is "something that looks and works much like it would have in my grandfathers day, or before."

Everybody has their own version of what "traditional" might be, and who's to say mine is more right or wrong than yours, but that's the rough rule of thumb I would apply to the term. Big box full of grey areas there though.

Very interesting pair from Gus there, great looking knives and I'd certainly be happy to own them, but I would struggle to define them as traditional. Then again, what the hell do I know!
Click to expand...

I am with you 100%. I too would have a difficult time considering them traditional. Best to stick with what Elliott said. "I know it when I see it". Those two are 100% traditional patterns and though made quite well I would not consider them traditional knives.

Then when I look at Jason's my thought is yes. So it is a gray area indeed to me also.
 
protourist said:
That one looks unbelievably comfortable to use.:cool: You do use it don't you?
Click to expand...

I do carry and use it. It's a great knife. I scratched it up pretty bad which is easy to do with Ti. I took a Scotchbrite pad to it looks all purdy again. :thumbup:
 
Bastid said:
I am with you 100%. I too would have a difficult time considering them traditional. Best to stick with what Elliott said. "I know it when I see it". Those two are 100% traditional patterns and though made quite well I would not consider them traditional knives.

Then when I look at Jason's my thought is yes. So it is a gray area indeed to me also.
Click to expand...


Gus, while as a matter of personal taste I don't much care for the look of Damascus anywhere but the blade, I've got to believe that slipjoints using Damascus in both the blade and handles have been around a lot longer than any of us (or our Grandparents even) have been around. I don't know this to be true or not, but I bet a few of the regulars here do. I am assuming the particular patterns of Damascus in your knives are a relatively new invention, but they are clearly traditional Doctor pattern knives that could not be more traditional even if the pattern of Damascus is different from old Wootz steel. IMHO those are Traditional knives all the way.

Although I don't usually like the Damascus handle look that Interframe is pretty dang sweet. :thumbup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top