Why are Spyderco knives so ugly?

OrangeBlueOrangeBlue said:
The wordmark, logo and hole are all covered by different trademarks. The wordmark and logo are pretty straightforward on what they protect. The hole is a little different; they're claiming a trademark on the use of a "round hole" rather than any other shape of hole. Basically, they argued that because they used a round hole for the entire patent period and it's associated with Spyderco, they should be the only ones allowed to use a "round hole." As a lawyer (though I only deal with IP peripherally), I don't find it a particularly convincing argument.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the lawyerly perspective.

It seems to me that devaluing products to defend a trademark that probably wouldn't hold in court is not a good business practice. I would really prefer that they focus more on improving the user experience and less on trying to defend a likely indefensible trademark. Trying to enforce this trademark against knife makers with unique designs will likely only result in negative publicity and legal fees for Spyderco.

I think if Spyderco did any kind of rigorous marketing study, they would likely find that many potential customers are less likely to buy products with non-functional holes or would be willing to pay less money for knives with non-functional holes.
 
Last edited:
If Spyderco didn't have the hole in the blade, I wouldn't buy them at all. The small complaints I have about their knives isn't enough to turn me off. I have a few and like them all, but some more than others. I can live with only using Spyderco the rest of my life. I can't say that about any other brand at this time.

For me, it comes down to this, although there are things I would like to change about my favorite Spyderco models, I can live with them. The things that bother me about other brands of pocketknives, I can't tolerate.
 
While I completely prefer flippers and thumbstuds: their styling and
design DO work very well together.
 
Wil lRogers said:
Spyderco makes some of the most ergonomic knives out there. They feel great in the hand and cut like the dickens. But they're so ... well, ugly. Their blades look like someone took a pie-shaped wedge of steel and punched out as large a circle as possible in the wide end of the pie. Couldn't they do something to produce a more slim and elegant blade even with the S-hole? Or are they tryig to prove that esthetics has no place knife design?
Click to expand...
The answer..... is the first sentence of your post.
And some guys think Spydercos are cool looking....
Pretty much everyone can agree Spyderco in design to use, quality of production....is a great knife.
 
Horses and camels are pack animals, beast of burden.
Horses are beautiful animals......camels not so much.
Going into the dessert........
 
Karl H said:
Thanks for the lawyerly perspective.

It seems to me that devaluing products to defend a trademark that probably wouldn't hold in court is not a good business practice. I would really prefer that they focus more on improving the user experience and less on trying to defend a likely indefensible trademark. Trying to enforce this trademark against knife makers with unique designs will likely only result in negative publicity and legal fees for Spyderco.

I think if Spyderco did any kind of rigorous marketing study, they would likely find that many potential customers are less likely to buy products with non-functional holes or would be willing to pay less money for knives with non-functional holes.
Click to expand...
Based upon comments in this thread as well as other threads in the Spyderco Subforum about the fixed-blade hole it is clear that some people aren't bothered by the hole while others are (I fall into the latter group.) Since you don't know what you don't know, it would be interesting for Spyderco to do such a marketing study to ascertain how much business it is losing in fixed-blade sales due to the non-functional hole. Specifically because of the hole I've never owned a Spyderco fixed-blade knife and never will as long as the hole is there.

Please don't construe my comments as bashing Spyderco overall--they make great folders and I currently own several. It's just the hole in their fixed-blade knives that is off-putting to me and keeps me from buying them.
 
The spyder hole opener is by far, in my opinion, the most comfortable way to open a knife. I've always had a special place in my heart for the Endura. I've tried many different knives and I've always ended up going back to the Endura. The knife is a thing of beauty.
 
I've only an endura4, got used to it but never totally meshed with the looks or the ergos. It works but is ugly and strange to my hand (just like glock). It would have sat in my drawer or been sold if not for the Wave opening.
 
Another Shepherd said:
Ugliest knife I have ever seen:
sp_C217GP__15503.1529006546.jpg

Spyderco C217GP Caribbean Salt
Click to expand...

Interesting I did not know they made a Stryper signature model.
 
12.jpg

Spyderco knives are ugly? IMO the classic Centofante II is absolutely beautiful (not my pic)
 
I think Spyderco emphasizes function over form and that's why their knives aren't always stylish. Good grip, tall, flat-ground, slicey blades, no fuss spidey holey opening, functional clips.... Makes for a great work knife, but not necessarily a work of art.
 
Monofletch said:
If you “pretty” them up the price would increase.
I hated the pm2 for the longest time. I never could understand why it was so popular. I have been carrying one for a few months now and it might be my favorite knife. It took a while to get use to the compression lock though.

And who says it’s not beautiful!

View attachment 1657365
Click to expand...
I’m glad to see the compression lock has finally grown on you! Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top