Why are Spyderco knives so ugly?

As they say: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Granted, the basic Spyderco design (w/the hump in the blade predicated by the size of the hole) is the result of the emphasis of function over style which isn't all that attractive . . .

BUT Spyderco has still made some very beautifully designed knives from an aesthetic/stylistic perspective, including but not limited to (and in no particular order of priority), the following knives (all of which I own):

Drunken
Vallotton
Gen 1/2 Police (stainless steel body w/o any holes in it)
Advocate
Calypso Micarta Gen 1
Hungarian
Kris
LionSpy
Lum Tanto Folder
Lum Tanto Fixed
Nirvana
Nilakka (folding Puukko)
Puukko Fixed (Rosewood handle looks better than G10)
Pattada
Opus
One Hundred Pacer
PITS
Rubicon Gen 1 Polished CF
SpyderFly
Tropen
Serrata Fixed
Zowada CF
Swayback
Southard
Positron
Native Chief
Renegade
Des Horn
Hanan
Ikuchi
 
When I first started getting into good knives it took some time for me to warm up to the look. And while they're no looker compared to a Sebenza or nice traditional, I came to appreciate their unique form-following-function appearance. It's almost comparable to the human body. Lean sculpted muscles don't look the way they do just to look good, they look good purely as a result of their increased practical function.

OFsq0BV.jpg
 
I buy art to look at and knives to use. The two spyderco knives I own are great for their intended purpose. (PM3LW; SEARK). That's the not ugly, but instead quite handsome part, at least to me.
 
I used to hate the look of them too, but they grew on me.. still wish they would make another box handled puukko style folder in the style of kwaiken/nilakka.
 
dirc said:
ok, I might agree with some of their models being on the ugly side - delica comes to mind... but don't tell me my gb2 is ugly, imho its a beauty

C134CFP2_Both.png
Click to expand...
I think the GB2 and the native chief are some of the prettiest blades they made. I kind of agree with the OP though, most are kinda ugly... Over time I grew to appreicate there more utilitarian kind of beauty. They are great work knives, And spyderco is my favorite pocket knife I have tried so far.
 
Wardo46 said:
THIS!!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I get it that the round hole is Spyderco's trademark and I'm fine with it when the hole is functional and serves a purpose, i.e., to open the blade on a folder. But I will never understand why they insist on drilling a non-functional hole in a fixed blade just to have their "trademark" on it. The logo on the blade identifies it as a Spyderco and nothing further is needed. Drilling the non-functional hole does 4 things: adds unnecessary manufacturing cost, weakens the blade, creates a place for gunk and germs to collect and it's ugly (IMO). That's the reason I've never owned a Spyderco fixed blade and never will as long as they insist on having that ridiculous hole.

Sorry for the rant. I feel much better now. :D
Click to expand...
It's really simple why they do it: it's a trademark. If they didn't put that hole on every knife they could lose the trademark and then anyone could freely copy the spyderhole. Also trademarks aren't generally functional. It's just something that identifies the company. So every Spyderco knife gets the trademarked hole.
 
I actually find their serrated hawkbills incredibly sexy, reverse-S models included. The hole hump kinda integrates into the curve of the blade and doesn't look like an add-on as much as it might on other blades. And the teeth look like a a chiseled gem. They also seem to be one of the only manufacturers to offer a decent EDC hawkbill that isn't a karambit.

w9U5z87.jpg
 
I think the Sliverax has a very elegant appearance. The detent is too weak for it to flip well, but it flicks beautifully with thumb or middle finger. It closes easily with one hand and has decent steel.
www.spyderco.com

Sliverax™ Carbon Fiber - Spyderco, Inc.

Designed by automotive engineer and knife enthusiast Paul Alexander, the Sliverax is the first factory-made folding knife to combine Spyderco’s Compression Lock® mechanism with a flipper-style opener. Its sleek drop-point blade is crafted from CP...
www.spyderco.com www.spyderco.com
 
Fanglekai said:
It's really simple why they do it: it's a trademark. If they didn't put that hole on every knife they could lose the trademark and then anyone could freely copy the spyderhole. Also trademarks aren't generally functional. It's just something that identifies the company. So every Spyderco knife gets the trademarked hole.
Click to expand...
While I'm not an expert on intellectual property law, this statement didn't sound right to me so I did some research and found an article dated July 2, 2020, in the National Law Review entitled "Proving Abandonment: How Trademark Rights Can Be Lost Through Non-Use." The first paragraph of the article states:

"Section 45 of the Lanham Act states a trademark is considered abandoned when “its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use.” Abandonment may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, but proof of nonuse for three consecutive years is prima facie evidence of abandonment. Since use of a mark must be bona fide and registration cannot be used to reserve rights in a mark (apart from intent to use applications), a challenger seeking to cancel a registration on the basis of abandonment must either provide evidence of three consecutive years of nonuse or prove (1) the respondent discontinued use, and (2) the respondent intended not to resume use."

Note that the article does not state that the trademark must be used on every item. Not using the hole only on Sypderco's fixed blade knives while continuing to use it on its folders (the vast majority of Spyderco knives) would clearly not constitute "non-use." Moreover, continuing to use the hole on its folders would be clear evidence that Spyderco didn't "intend not to resume use." Consequently, neither prong of the test is met and Spyderco should easily be able to defeat a challenge to its trademark based upon not using the hole on its fixed-blade knives.

I don't think concern about losing its trademark is the reason Spyderco puts a hole in its fixed blades but what the reason might be escapes me.





​

 
Wardo46 said:
I don't think concern about losing its trademark is the reason Spyderco puts a hole in its fixed blades but what the reason might be escapes me.
Click to expand...

Just consistency of practice.

While failing to drill a hole in a fixed (or other) Spydeco may not put Spyderco's trademark at risk, it is a simple matter of drilling a hole in all Spyderco knives so that "not" having one in a specific knife never becomes a "lack or failure of use" trademark issue.
 
Last edited:
gotta blame the spideyhole a bit too. thats why the only knives i have from spyderco are their harpies and other hawkbill offerings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top