What is an Integral Knife?

A Bill Moran full tang integral.

Photo courtesy of IQ Knives website:
moran_hunter2.jpg
 
1. I too believe that Jerry´s post cleared some issues. To me, there´s no such thing as an "integral" definition, but what there is to define is what parts could be "integral" to the blade, such as "integral bolster", "integral pommel", "integral guard", "integral bolster, guard and pommel" and so forth.

2. I think that maybe a definition is called for in order to organize some standards from the collection point of view. What am I collecting? The makers often think of definitions from the construction point of view, and that can be very accurate and yet do not fill the needs of definitions to set a collections style.

3. If we go along the construction point of view even the differences in methods would set stock removal integrals from forged integrals apart in two different categories.

4. If we go along the object point of view, then the "single piece" definition would be ok, but we would crash into the construction point of view (damascus and welded parts, for instance), though we would bypass the method problem stated above.

5. Sometimes I get the feeling that some makers try to define the therm "integral" in relation to their own work and techniques. That doesn´t seem very fair IMHO. One can use very different techniques and achieve the same quality and/or aesthetic average results.

6. And sincerely, what literature has to say is only an individuals point of view printed in paper, nothing else. It is no different than anyone´s opinion here. What defines, in my point of view, the quality of the information, is the source, and not the media that contains it. That being said, there can be good and bad definitions of integral knives in books, forum threads, magazines, and live conversations. It really depends on who said what.

An anecdote to illustrate: many years ago (80´s) there was this guy in Brazil that was associated to a gun magazine and was a knife collector as well. He wrote several articles on knives for this magazine and, since it was the only available source to the general public in the country, his articles quickly became law and tradition. You can´t imagine how bad the new generations of knifemakers have to to fight to clear up all the stupid BS of maybe ten years of "definitions" and "information" in printed media. Of course some of his information on the subject was good, but at who could tell at the time?

Happy new year to ya'll!

Jeff Velasco
 
I'm no expert on these but since the parts are all fused together I think it's safe to call it an intergal. It may not be the accepted definition of years gone by but now that this method has been invented maybe the definition will change in the future. In essence it seems to meet the standard and I find it much more appealing than a knife just being ground down from a solid block of stainless.
 
This thread is great.
But I always wonder why this industry tries to re-define words that already have definitions, like "custom"...... never mind.
But, anyway, according to The Imperial Dictionary of the English Language, "integral: comprising all the parts; whole; complete; entire."
That is the adjective form.
And the noun form, "a whole; an entire thing."
 
If it were a casting like a Charlie Weiss, it would be considered an integral, so why not a weld job?

To me its all about the finished product. I am not so concerned how the cat was skinned. Machined, forged, welded, cast---these methods can all created a blade with an integral, contoured guard and in some cases an integral, contoured buttcap or pommel.
 
Karl, I guess my way of thinking is just allowing for progress. Words are added and removed from the dictionary based on fad so maybe revision is also possible. Of course maybe we can just call it a Sfreddogral? :D

Anthony, I agree, the finished product is more important than the method used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top