When does a knife becone a clone or a fake and not a style ?

M

mblackfu

Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
406
Alot sodbusters, stockmen, congress, and other knives look exactly alike except for the brand. The style had to start somewhere yet no one calls these clones or copies. There are different blade shapes and we a running out of completely new designs.Is the term clone only used with modern knives ?
 
I think there's a gray area where a copy gets close enough to the original that it's clear what the maker is trying to do. But the beginning of that gray area is hard to find. Especially since the Internet allows us to search a world's worth of images and information, you're going to encounter what they call "convergent design" eventually. The human hand has shapes it likes to hold, and there are a limited number of things you can do with a knife blade.

The end of it, where a copy has the original's trademark (an engraving or a specific shield in the case of traditionals), is sure easy to see! When you can buy a $70.00 "XM" from a certain website, with the flaming horse head silkscreened onto the blade, there is no doubt what's going on.

It's also important to define the difference between a trademark and a "pattern". The words "sodbuster", "trapper", "canoe", "congress", "electrician's knife", all refer to a general pattern of knife, but there can be many variations on the theme within that pattern. To the best of my knowledge, nobody owns the word "sodbuster", although I expect somebody to try.

Edit: There is also an existential question about the limits of imitation, and "becoming the mask". Which is to say, if a copy is so good that it cannot be distinguished from the original, is it still a copy?

I suppose that the answer would be "yes", if the maker personally remembered each knife he had made. Otherwise, it's an interesting discussion for another thread.
 
Sodbuster = Type of knife, just like a drop point is a type of blade.

Strider = A company that builds a distinct style of knife, Kevin John = a company (whatever they are) that intentionally copies/clones the distinct style of a Strider knowing full well what they are doing.

Don't let the "semantics" get in the way of the "intent" and the picture becomes really clear.
 
My take:

A "clone" closely resembles another knife by a different maker. It is a copy.

A "fake" goes further, attempting to pass for the real thing by copying not only the original's shape, but also its logos, packaging, etc.
 
Bill1170 said:
My take:

A "clone" closely resembles another knife by a different maker. It is a copy.

A "fake" goes further, attempting to pass for the real thing by copying not only the original's shape, but also its logos, packaging, etc.
Click to expand...

Can we take this a step further please?

Can we agree that there may be a definable difference between a clone, a copy and a fake? A fake and a counterfeit are basically the same in my mind. Both are designed to defraud the public. I don't always have a problem with a copy. I do, however, have a problem with something fake or counterfeit.

So, when does a copy or clone become a "style" of knife? I guess that would be when the name, model or brand of the original product becomes common slang for all products of a certain design. The term "Buck knife" for all knives styled after the 110 would be a good example. That became so common years ago that some local governments used the term when they added knife laws on the books.
 
Last edited:
Any traditional pattern was invented by someone who is long since deceased, in some cases centuries ago. Variations on those patterns by modern makers are where their individual style can come through. If a maker deliberately copied the dimensions, materials, and look of a custom from another maker, there might be some fuss about it. Making a 4.25" closed trapper isn't going to ruffle any feathers because the pattern is old.

Traditional knives don't seem to have the same cloning issues that modern knives do, at least not on the same scale.
 
If you see style cues it's one thing but if it's exactly the same but lesser materials or a website selling a new knife drastically cheaper than the average price you know it should run


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mblackfu said:
Alot sodbusters, stockmen, congress, and other knives look exactly alike except for the brand. The style had to start somewhere yet no one calls these clones or copies. There are different blade shapes and we a running out of completely new designs.Is the term clone only used with modern knives ?
Click to expand...

When were talking traditionals I see them like guns and certain aspects of guitars. Are all bolt action rifles and revolvers copies? In a sense yes, but they're styles that prove to work that don't need changing, they're perfectly effective as is. I also think the history, or rather, length of a particular styles existence plays a factor aswell, like the sodbusters, or even balisongs, and katanas.

Its hard to quantify when a "style" can be widely used and not be considered a clone, for instance if a company started mass producing sebenza style knives, most people would be upset because CRK has worked really hard on their designs. But what about in 50 years? Would it then be more acceptable to be mimicing their designs?

For you guitar players, is the kahler tremolo system a copy of the Floyd Rose? Some would say yes, others would say no because its got 'X'% differences in the design.

Im rambling here, I guess to sum it up, I don't believe there's a definitive answer to this topic, its going to just be filled with opinionated conjecture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top