I was slightly upset by what i read on a certain edged weapons forum today...
"I was just making personal opinions as to how it'd make his stuff more worthwhile for folks sorta like me. The people who aren't quite ready to dive into Chen, and would like something a lil further up the price line from KC or Himalayan Imports"
It seems that people in the world of edged weapons are beginning to equate price with quality on a 100% always definite basis. I could go on a microeconomics rampage as to why that is complete BS, but I won't. Let me just say this. There are people in certain circles of the sword industry that I genuinely feel are working together to generate propaganda in order to drive prices up. The result of these efforts is a prevalent new belief that only massive cash well get you true quality, and a distinct classification system (organized by price, not quality) that both takes away peoples ability to decide what a sword is, and undermines the product of several vendors.
It's a good thing this stuff wasn't happening in King Arthur's time, because if it was he probably would have ditched Excalibur once he was told it couldn't be all that wonderful if he didn't pay $7k for it.
In all seriousness, I think that distinct lines have to be drawn that seperate price and quality, as much as that may hurt smiths it would be better for the consumer. Case in point: The quote from earlier in my post is certainly accurate if the author is merely looking for something more expensive, but if he is looking for something more qualitive and with higher peformance (like he insinuates), he is dead wrong. I will gladly take my handmade, soulful, and nigh indestructable Kumar Katana (which is quite attractive as well) over a Chen Katana (or practically any other make or smith) without even considering price. This is because I am well aware of HI quality and the fact HI isn't interested in charging sky high prices. I am also well aware of the things that are going on under the skin of the sword industry.
Lets face it, the sword doesn't decide it's price, the smith does. Even the greatest of smiths can make their item inexspensive, even the worst of smiths can make their prices sky high. And material cost is a moot point.
In the current market, a well known smith, if he so chose, could spend $30 on materials and 1 day on making a sword. He could then tell buyers the sword took him innumerable hours and hard work to make and charge a few grand for it, and no one would *truly* know the better. After all, everyone says he's a great smith and besides cuz it's expensive means it's better right?
"I was just making personal opinions as to how it'd make his stuff more worthwhile for folks sorta like me. The people who aren't quite ready to dive into Chen, and would like something a lil further up the price line from KC or Himalayan Imports"
It seems that people in the world of edged weapons are beginning to equate price with quality on a 100% always definite basis. I could go on a microeconomics rampage as to why that is complete BS, but I won't. Let me just say this. There are people in certain circles of the sword industry that I genuinely feel are working together to generate propaganda in order to drive prices up. The result of these efforts is a prevalent new belief that only massive cash well get you true quality, and a distinct classification system (organized by price, not quality) that both takes away peoples ability to decide what a sword is, and undermines the product of several vendors.
It's a good thing this stuff wasn't happening in King Arthur's time, because if it was he probably would have ditched Excalibur once he was told it couldn't be all that wonderful if he didn't pay $7k for it.
In all seriousness, I think that distinct lines have to be drawn that seperate price and quality, as much as that may hurt smiths it would be better for the consumer. Case in point: The quote from earlier in my post is certainly accurate if the author is merely looking for something more expensive, but if he is looking for something more qualitive and with higher peformance (like he insinuates), he is dead wrong. I will gladly take my handmade, soulful, and nigh indestructable Kumar Katana (which is quite attractive as well) over a Chen Katana (or practically any other make or smith) without even considering price. This is because I am well aware of HI quality and the fact HI isn't interested in charging sky high prices. I am also well aware of the things that are going on under the skin of the sword industry.
Lets face it, the sword doesn't decide it's price, the smith does. Even the greatest of smiths can make their item inexspensive, even the worst of smiths can make their prices sky high. And material cost is a moot point.
In the current market, a well known smith, if he so chose, could spend $30 on materials and 1 day on making a sword. He could then tell buyers the sword took him innumerable hours and hard work to make and charge a few grand for it, and no one would *truly* know the better. After all, everyone says he's a great smith and besides cuz it's expensive means it's better right?
