What makes a knife.... PRETTY?

Lavan you put the Skirmish on the bad list.

Wow, I think the Skirmish, and the mini Skirmish is one of the best looking, and best made production knives of all time.

I know I am not alone on this one ;)
 
Pretty, hmmm... Gosh, Lavan you ask a hard question. This makes me look at my values and evaluations. The best I can do is tell you some features I like and some I don't.

Caveat: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. These are my own opinions (and they are strictly opinions, with no justifications) about what looks nice TO ME. YMMV and I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

Pretty handles do nothing for me. It's the steel that is beautiful to me.

I like to see a shape that shows the thickness of the steel. At the same time I like a high grind for its cutting ability. So to find something that has both is difficult. The Native III looks pretty to me and has a high enough grind to be useful. I think the Native III is prettier than the Native because I think the Native III lines flow better. (And please don't ask me to describe how.) Of the Kershaws, the only one that is on my want list is the Avalanche because it has a beautiful blade shape, even if it is black and assisted open. (I have no use and no desire for assisted opening blades, but that is another thread.)

I don't find recurve blades pretty in the least. Tantos don't do it for me either.

I don't like blades with weird bumps in them. Aside from not having any use for waved designs, I think they are ugly. Blades that have bumps so you can put a hole in them look odd to me too. I know they work. I have a Delica and it sees pocket time. But it still looks odd. Knives with holes that look good are the Native III, the Manix, and the Vex because the blade is wide enough to have a hole without needing a bump.

So Lavan, you asked and I answered. These were my personal opinions only and as such are worth zippity do-dah. But you asked.
 
And I'll agree on the recurves. :grumpy:

Don't like em. Never have, never will.

Yeh they may be good cutters, but ....well.... just personal taste.

:)
 
Hopefully Sal isn't holding his breath. I believe most people are hesitant to bother attempting to answer such a question as there is so much variability from person to person. (Yeah I figure he knows that and is breathing some clean Rocky Mtn air...)

There can be some generalities that will generally help the definition, but not definately. :D

Symmetry. Most humans identify with symmetry. Looking at a person's face, if everything lines up "normally" the person might be "good" looking. If one eye is higher than the other, and there is a scar, that person might be Igor.

Along with symmetry is "flow". Flow is harder to describe, but if you look at enough "ugly knife" threads, most examples have a lot of jagged or sharp corners. They lack flow.

Sometimes symmetry and flow can be offset by an outlier that actually enhances beauty. On the face example, a well placed mole on the cheek is often seen as a non symmetrical enhancement (Cindy Crawford for example...many pretty faces, but the mole is famous.) In knives sometimes a non-symmetrical knife with a jagged line might be beautiful...if not overdone.

Different, but not too different. Exotic inlays, some file work, and whamo, a $300 knife is suddenly a $1000 knife that any knife nut would be happy to own. Overdo the work and you might still get $1000, but it will be a one person show that makes most people's eyes water.

From a maker's viewpoint, beauty is strongly fixed with price. The higher the price the harder to make it beautiful to a large market. i.e. "Oh I love the Desert Ironwood inlay, but for a $200 knife I won't buy it unless it ..."

Sometimes what makes it beautiful just happens to override the ugly.
 
Lavan said:
Now don't go gettin all technical about it.

:D
Click to expand...

LOL, I wondered if anyone would just pass this by or laugh or what.

So actually here's my real answer.

To me a knife is pretty when it meets these requirements:

1. It has to be very functional. There are some really good looking knives but the handles don't form to your hand well and seem to want to slip out all the time. A form follows function knife is pretty to me. (example: Spyderco)

2. It cannot have damascus. To me this stuff is ugly as everything. I don't want a really "busy" looking blade. I just like one that looks utilitarian. Now Ed Schempp's damascus bolsters on the 25th anniversary Delica are a different story. They look beautiful even though they don't offer any more function.

3. I agree with zenheretic on the symmetry thing. I don't like knives with only a right hand clip. It doesn't need to be a 4-way clip just at least make it RH and LH. I also hate knives with only one sided thumbstuds. At least give it two and make it look half way decent.

4. The handle cannot be made out of a material that will break or crack if I drop it on the floor or ground once or twice. This is not pretty.

5. The blade should do what it's designed to do. It shouldn't have all these unneeded extra grinds and swedges everywhere just to look "cool". Again, form follows function here.

An example of what I think is a very pretty knife is the Spyderco Delica 3. It has solid FRN handles which take a lot of abuse and don't break. It has a fuctional blade and a nice fine point so that it can be used for delicate stuff too. No screws at all so that you never have to worry about tightening or loosening them. It's a very no nonsense knife and it does exactly what it is designed to do. It is a cutter but it can take abuse. It's also legal pretty much everywhere. That is beauty to me.
 
Uh-oh..... The Delica THREE!!!! Yuppers. The one I always come back to. The "four" just doesn't have ..."it"... for me. But the 3 ....endures.

Damn! I like that knife.

:)
 
For me... my recently bought ZDP-189 is not only a pretty knife, but one that is beautiful and gorgeous. It's where classy meets elegant and I can't stop looking at it.
Why? Well, for one, its polished blade that glistens in the light and just knowing that it's ZDP-189. One of the most anticipated, discussed, and debated metals to this day. And the titanium handle is gritty enough to get a great grip and offers a nice, cool, relaxed gray shade setting off the polished blade that it holds in its grasp. For me, the Leek is the culmination of what I've wanted from in a knife from the beginning of my knife-obsessions. A knife that features a thin profile, is light weight, and has an ultra-sharp, high edge-retention blade.
That beginning was only two years ago when I bought my CRKT M16-13M that I recently found (see my thread, " A day you have to read about... one of the best!") again. I wouldn't say this is a pretty knife by any means, but it's a true EDC, and one you can EDC and not really care about beating up - hence EVERY DAY CARRY. I will now carry both of these knives on me to utilize both of their purposes.
A knife I also consider pretty to me is the knife that first caught my eye, and one that I still have not had the Kahuna's to buy. That is Benchmade's Osborne 940 model. Even though now I would probably get the 942 since it's black, this knife stills make me say, "WOW!" every time I see it. And that is pretty to me...
 
The benchmade gravitator is on the ugly list? That is one sexy knife! Especially with the black blade.
 
fedaykincmndr said:
It's not what makes a knife pretty that's the question; it's what doesn't make the knife pretty? Which the list for is very short.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. A lot of knives stand out to me for reasons I cant explain. "Flashy" isn't always best (atleast for me). I'm much faster to point out what I DON'T like about the knife first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top