What knife would you like to see next from CPK?

duramax duramax :

I have now made a promise to myself to litter less in and not to loiter in ANAQ thread, unless:

A- I actually have a Q to ask

B- I become Nathan whisperer!

With that said, about the 6" UF:

What immediately impressed me about that pattern was that once I held it for the first time ever, it felt like my arm just extended by about 11". It just melted in the hands and became an extension of my limb! This is not to take away anything from any other of these great CPK patterns but IMHO, that UF feels so natural with such poise and balance even if never intended for fighting where it has its initial DNA concepts.

I dunno as to how much a 4" BL will affect this beautifully balanced knife, but do not let its current 6" BL give you any second thoughts about acquiring the one which actually exists.
 
Casinostocks said:
duramax duramax :

I have now made a promise to myself to litter less in and not to loiter in ANAQ thread, unless:

A- I actually have a Q to ask

B- I become Nathan whisperer!

With that said, about the 6" UF:

What immediately impressed me about that pattern was that once I held it for the first time ever, it felt like my arm just extended by about 11". It just melted in the hands and became an extension of my limb! This is not to take away anything from any other of these great CPK patterns but IMHO, that UF feels so natural with such poise and balance even if never intended for fighting where it has its initial DNA concepts.

I dunno as to how much a 4" BL will affect this beautifully balanced knife, but do not let its current 6" BL give you any second thoughts about acquiring the one which actually exists.
Click to expand...

Thanks, oh don’t worry I’m all in on the UF that exists :-) I was just curious if ever it was a thought. I’m not asking Nathan to consider making them. I think the FK2 will fill that notch perfect :-)
 
I may be wrong but have a feeling the answer will be to think of the integral dagger where the insets in the handle are flush and without any visible fasteners. That is what I am thinking, anyway. But "integral" can become a complicated subject. There are forged integrals, some of which have guards that are forge-welded onto the piece, which to some people constitute a true integral only if the portion forge-welded comes directly from the same billet. Others consider such a piece to be not a full integral. Then there are integrals formed out of a single billet that are not forge-welded but formed from stock removal and typically not damascus. Then there is the subject of half-integrals, where the design doesn't call for a pommel, which would be full integral if it had the pommel. It's been a long time since I have seen any reference to a half-integral, however. And then there are design purists who believe that a forge-welded integral is not a full integral purely because something is added via forge-welding. To me, that's integral integral but should be referred to as a forge-welded integral. Sorry for writing a book, and will be interested in seeing Evil Genius' response.
 
betzner said:
I may be wrong but have a feeling the answer will be to think of the integral dagger where the insets in the handle are flush and without any visible fasteners. That is what I am thinking, anyway. But "integral" can become a complicated subject. There are forged integrals, some of which have guards that are forge-welded onto the piece, which to some people constitute a true integral only if the portion forge-welded comes directly from the same billet. Others consider such a piece to be not a full integral. Then there are integrals formed out of a single billet that are not forge-welded but formed from stock removal and typically not damascus. Then there is the subject of half-integrals, where the design doesn't call for a pommel, which would be full integral if it had the pommel. It's been a long time since I have seen any reference to a half-integral, however. And then there are design purists who believe that a forge-welded integral is not a full integral purely because something is added via forge-welding. To me, that's integral integral but should be referred to as a forge-welded integral. Sorry for writing a book, and will be interested in seeing Evil Genius' response.
Click to expand...
Well, we know we can skip the forge weld talk on this one! The only thing I could come up with was the scale attachment, which kinda doesn't say integral in my mind. To me, the integral portion of the dagger is the metal work all being machined from one piece. The scales aren't really integral at all as they are separate pieces that are attached to the metal work. Based on those ideas, I have had a hard time figuring out how integral applies to the current design of the Shiv unless Nathan is changing sumptin'.
 
"Integral" doesn't mean that the integral knife in question is one piece of metal and nothing more, without anything attached to it. There are many, many daggers and knives I have seen that are full integral but have some form of insert/inset. Nathan's custom dagger is an integral dagger.
 
Try googling "custom integral knives" and you will see that what I called half integral is often referred to as semi-integral, and that all integrals, full included, have some form of non-metal attachment, ie, scales or handle.
 
Agreed, on that definition of integral and that the daggers are integral, I don't think we are saying different things in that regard. What I guess i am saying is that I don't see how pinning the scales to the Shiv would make it integral versus one that has screws.
 
Sorta what I was thinking. They are all integral, all the CPKs following that process, so, I am still confused about why it is being referred to as integral Shiv as opposed to just a 10" Shiv when we don't use integral to describe any of the others?
 
In Nathan’s case an integral would be machined out of a block as opposed to being carved out of a chip.
On an integral the guard is wider and taller than the blade stock or ricasso but part of the same piece of metal.
On most of Nathan’s work the guard is the same thickness as the ricasso/blade stock. These are not typically considered integral but one could argue they are.
It’s like integral is more 3D. Not integral is more 2D.
This is my understanding. Not a definition.
Semi integral is with an integral guard but separate pommel piece in examples I’ve seen. Not flat stock.
Full integral is blade, guard and pommel are all one piece of metal not out of flat stock.
The only work of Nathan’s I recall seeing that would normally be called integral would be the daggers.
Hope this helps.
I reserve the right to be wrong!

ETA: correction - everywhere I said “guard” above I should have said “bolsters”.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top