Ways to attack Cliff Stamp's reviews - A guide for the thin-skinned

This is where Cliff and I (and possibly you) part. I believe that tests and conclusions should be based on the intended use of the product, not the intended use of the user. If I buy a few fillet knives, and test them for wood chopping, I’ve done a disservice to the manufacturers. The fillet knives were never intended for wood chopping. The only fillet knife to appear worthy in the test is a badly designed fillet knife. No matter how much factual information I’ve acquired during the test, readers might easily be misled by my findings. The manufacturers lose out. The readers lose out.

Your assumption here is that the readers know what they need in a knife. I disagree. I believe that a large part of the knife buying community has learned false information, and do not know what they need. I read far too many posts where absolute wrong information is given as fact. Numbers, without valid conclusions based on the product’s intended use, often lead to further misinformation.
 
Originally posted by Buzzbait
Perhaps this is the problem. Maybe Cliff's writing leaves so much to the imagination, ten people will draw ten totally different conclusions from his work. that's not good, IMHO.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with that. I like that the man has compiled a lot of data so that it's possible for folks to draw lots of different conclusions from his work.

There are so many bands that were hugely influenced by Hendriz or Zep that sound nothing like them and sometimes that's for the better and sometimes for the worse. I won't fault the original bands for how the newer ones were inspired by them.
 
I agree. This is party night. The Red Sox go to the post season!!! Have a Sam Adams, on the house!!!
 
"This is where Cliff and I (and possibly you) part. I believe that tests and conclusions should be based on the intended use of the product, not the intended use of the user."

We do, indeed, part here. I think there's room for both, and I want all of the information about the knife--the object itself, not people's preconceptions about it--that I can get.

Knowing what manufacturers had in mind may be helpful in sorting through my buying options, but I don't consider their intentions to be relevant as strict rules for which tools I should use for what purpose, and how.

As for determining what I want to do with a given knife, I look to the object, itself. Regardless of whether it came from a knifemaker who intended it to be a fillet knife, or, alternatively, just mysteriously fell from the sky and landed in front of my feet, I would consider its origin to be historical trivia, and nothing more.

As for doing a disservice to the manufacturer, I don't agree with that, either. I think the information to be gained by investigating a fuller scope of use is, at best, useful to all involved, at worst, irrelevant. It is only harmful and a disservice when a knife is unfairly misrepresented as a poor performer, for performing poorly outside its intended scope of use. It could, quite likely, turn out to be good for the manufacturer, if a tester finds the scope of acceptable use broader than the manufacturer intended, thereby increasing the potential market. If two knives perform equally for their intended use, but one also serves well in a secondary use while the other does not, I think this is a useful thing to point out to the public--disservice to the manufacturer be damned. I also would like to imagine that a manufacturer may find it helpful and useful to receive feedback about how its wares perform across a broader ranger of use, and what exactly the limits are.

--Mike

P.S. I must note that the world of art would be sad, indeed, if we were to confine ourselves to the artist's intentions.
 
It is only harmful and a disservice when a knife is unfairly misrepresented as a poor performer, for performing poorly outside its intended scope of use.
Click to expand...

You found my bone of contention. I see this from time in reviews on Bladeforums. Even worse, it runs rampant amongst the general readership. People have this odd tendency to attribute all manner of non-knife functions to their knives, and become so angry and frustrated when the knife can't handle it.
 
Hey I came back to see what beers people are drinking, and I find this.

Oh well at least, Evolute and Buzz both make outstanding arguments. Gentlemen, I thank you for your considered opinions.


Evolute, do you think Cliff reviews are devoid of “preconceptions”?

Are Cliff’s reviews scientific or more his opinion? I ask because sometimes I can’t follow all of the scientific stuff in Cliff’s reviews. I think that Cliff’s unscientific opinions are more meaningful to me than his scientific testing.


Buzzbait,


Originally posted by Buzzbait
People have this odd tendency to attribute all manner of non-knife functions to their knives, and become so angry and frustrated when the knife can't handle it.
Click to expand...


Would you please cite an example of this?

Could you tell me where manufactures show how their knives are supposed to be used, so that there is no confusion about the intended use?











:)
 
Actually Buch does their heat treat according to the methods that Paul Bos sets out, and for the stuff the want to make real sure of he does it.
 
Time to set the record straight.

1) Wurzburg Hofbrau is the best beer. When the brewerey is 4 blocks from your barracks, and a case is 16 marks for 20 (1/2 liter) bottles, a 12oz Bud at $.25 sucks wind. 30 years has not changed my mind one iota. (I can't find my oomlats or I never would have misspelled it);)

2) Cliff's testing is just that. Duh.
 
I agree with Buzz. I think Cliff does both the knife and the manufacturer a disservice when he tests a knife outside the design concepts. I liken it to taking a Ford Focus on a high speed chase to see at what speed and turing radius the thing flips and how long it can opoerate above red-line. Yes, your Honda Civic will outperform the Focus, but it's not relevant.
 
Let's all keep in mind that the non-beer side of this thread has run beyond Cliff's testing and reviews, and has cut to the very point of many of Bladeforums posts and knife use attitudes. I don't want people to think that I have Cliff in my sights with every comment I've made. Like I first said, I've gotten some excellent information from an number of his tests, just not all of them. I just don't necessarily agree with the destructive testing in the matter in which he tests and reports his findings. He does some great work in other areas, IMHO.
 
1- Go Red Sox
2- Canadian and American beer, by and large, are crap.
3- 75% of all the reviews posted on this forum are crap(mine included)
4- Then again 75% of everything is crap.:p
 
Stop underestimating! 99% of everything is crap and the remaining 1% is statistically insignificant. :)
 
Cliff Stamp makes knives fail. As long as you pay attention to what level of abuse they fail at, I don't see how anyone could be misled. People say something like 'You'll never break such and such using it correctly for it's intended purpose.' Cliff finds out when you will break it. I'm more interested in his subjective comments, like handle feel. An edge will cut til it's dull, and steel will bend til it breaks.
 
"So I curtailed my Wallpoll-ing activities, sallied forth, infiltrated your place of purveyance to negotiate the vending of some...
FUNNEL CAKE!

(Apologies to Python-ites everywhere)
 
One valid reason for 'destruction' testing of the hypothetical filet knife MAY POSSIBLY (possibly, mind you) that it accelerates the aging process and wear and tear of a knife over the course of many years.

If you want a filet knife that is a GREAT filet knife, and also will continue to be a great filet knife for many, many years, than it MAY be helpful to know that it will shred a kitchen sink without the handle separating from the blade or whatever else might otherwise only have happened over many years of strict filleting.

As another example:

A number of years ago I owned a Sig 226 9mm Pistol. I wanted some very simple custom work done to it. In my search I found a Gunsmith who was considered by many to be 'THE Sig guy'. He did lots of really outrageous stuff to them; hot pink anodizing, shortening the frames, and cutting slides shorter, camo anodizing, you name it. And he did all those things WELL!!! This led me to believe (and I still think that the idea may be valid) that if he could do all that fancy stuff, he could handle my simple stuff easily. In the end I went with another Gunsmith who also had a very good reputation with Sig's and charged a lot less.

Just some thoughts,

-John
 
OK, I might as well hop in here as well.

Basically, I agree with Buzzbait's comments as far as stating that knife testing should be at least somewhat related to the use for which the knife was intended. Therefore, destructive testing, while having some possible academic, theoretical value, are not of much value to the average knife user. Cliff has accumulated a large amount of statistics that are relevant maybe in a science lab, but don't mean that much to the guy taking his knife out on the trail. A proper choice of tools is much more important.

I would be much more interested in seeing Cliff try to keep his testing parameters within the range of the intended use of the product--even going a "little" beyond, for test purposes.

That said, it was refreshing to see the basically well-reasonded posts on this thread rather than the usual "I hate Cliff/I love Cliff" hysteria that has ensued in the past.

Now--I'm off to pick out my favorite beer for the night ahead.:D
 
Oh Yeah, New Castle Brown Ale RULZ!!!!! (said with an Iron-Maiden-type attitude)

-John

PS - Big fan of Guinness and Yeungling Lager, too...
 
Originally posted by knifenerd
Therefore, destructive testing, while having some possible academic, theoretical value, are not of much value to the average knife user. Cliff has accumulated a large amount of statistics that are relevant maybe in a science lab, but don't mean that much to the guy taking his knife out on the trail. A proper choice of tools is much more important.
Click to expand...
I guess I have a different perspective on destructive testing. One that allows me to draw some conclusions, and ergo some achieve some learning.

Destructive testing is about finding limits. Finding limits with knives made of various materials, at various hardnesses, with various blade grinds, etc, can help one choose materials and dimensions for a high performance blade. And, in case you haven't caught all of Cliff's reviews, aggressive testing can flesh out hype and puffery sometimes... and lord knows there is a lot of that chaff to sort out here on these forums.

How do you suppose aerospace engineers optimize the selection of various materials and components used to build an airliner? More relevantly, how do you suppose a materials engineer optimizes the selection of, say, extruder blades used to cut pellets from a polymer billet in the manufacture of polymer pellets (that end up being used in a huge variety of materials in daily use, e.g., automobile interior materials, PVC pipe, plastic cups and mugs, etc). Do you suppose a Charpy tester would be useful in the design of the spec for materials that will see sudden impact forces/stresses/loading? Suspended walkways? Suspension bridges?

While I'll agree that the average person might only have and/or need a couple of very high performance knives, and plenty of the rest of the knives are typically used within reasonable boundaries, there is some value in understanding appropriate materials, hardnesses, grind profiles/angles/thicknesses to be used in the custom mfg of a high performance knife.

I have learned enough from Cliff and others that I could collaborate with a good custom maker to make a high performance knife that would exceed the performance of others that I currently own, albeit maybe in small ways like handle ergos for my particular hands and preferences (e.g. flared handle butt), but in some big ways like steel, hardness, blade profile. To me that is where the value is in Cliff's testing... I learn, I challenge my previously held ideas, I learn some more, and I end up ahead for my effort, which is pretty light... some reading, and later some field testing.

Tests that subject a knife to reasonable bounds, considering it's design, yield very useful results. I then see no problem with aggressive testing, and/or moderately or completely destructive testing (how many people are willing to do this with their money?) once the basics are covered.

YRMV.

My collection is shrinking in quantity, by design. There are plenty of daily carry knives that see light to moderate use. I'll ultimately boil my collection down to a select few knives that mean something to me and have their places in my own world. That will include a select few hard use knives... some big choppers, some hard abrasion resistant slicers, and others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top