WIP - Burt Foster/David Broadwell laminated subhilt

This one is going to be fantastic for sure. I have David's DVD on carving, and he is an amazing artisan.
 
That's all I got for now!

Sorry:p


Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year to all!

Bill
 
billf said:
That's all I got for now!

Sorry:p


Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year to all!

Bill
Click to expand...

Good luck with that, and Happy Holidays to you.

Am hopeful for you with this project, and am certainly curious about it.....but I don't think I like the design aesthetics...there seems to be a trend lately about making an amorphous shape to the subhilt region that is a step backwards, imo.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
I want to thank everyone for the compliments and encouragement on this project. It's great getting to make this variation on one of my favorite sub hilt designs for Bill. It's also great getting to work on something new like Burt's laminated steel.

Hey, Steven, I'd only worry if Bill thought the design was a step backwards. I believe he's okay with it though! :)

More pictures for Bill to post in a few days.

David Broadwell
 
Kohai999 said:
Good luck with that, and Happy Holidays to you.

Am hopeful for you with this project, and am certainly curious about it.....but I don't think I like the design aesthetics...there seems to be a trend lately about making an amorphous shape to the subhilt region that is a step backwards, imo.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
Click to expand...


I don't understand what you mean by 'amorphous shape', or how the shape that I saw in the sketch is a step backwards. A step backwards from what? Are there specific examples of this trend?
:confused:

1. lacking definite form; having no specific shape; formless: the amorphous clouds.
2. of no particular kind or character; indeterminate; having no pattern or structure; unorganized: an amorphous style; an amorphous personality.
3. Petrography, Mineralogy. occurring in a mass, as without stratification or crystalline structure.
4. Chemistry. not crystalline.
5. Biology. having structural components that are not clearly differentiated, as the nuclear material in certain bacteria.
 
Last edited:
Lorien said:
I don't understand what you mean by 'amorphous shape', or how the shape that I saw in the sketch is a step backwards. A step backwards from what?
Click to expand...

This example, done extremely well by S.R. Johnson, from the website Classic Guns & Knives represents the vanguard of the subhilt shape(Loveless has since dropped the scale bolt between the hilt and subhilt to move the two closer together, but this example will do just fine for discussion):



There are many here who don't think that the Loveless style needs to be adhered to when creating a subhilt....OK, fine...show me a BETTER looking shape, and I'll stop the incessant drumbeat...probably cannot be done, but I'll keep an open mind.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
Kohai999 said:
This example, done extremely well by S.R. Johnson, from the website Classic Guns & Knives represents the vanguard of the subhilt shape(Loveless has since dropped the scale bolt between the hilt and subhilt to move the two closer together, but this example will do just fine for discussion):



There are many here who don't think that the Loveless style needs to be adhered to when creating a subhilt....OK, fine...show me a BETTER looking shape, and I'll stop the incessant drumbeat...probably cannot be done, but I'll keep an open mind.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
Click to expand...



STeven,

Does the lugged guard have any purpose besides looking cool?
 
Lorien, "amorphous" does indeed mean formless, unorganized, and those other definitions in your post. One example I liked was "an amorphous blob of protoplasm". I was pretty sure that my sub hilt design did have a form and was organized! I mean, I drew it with my bifocals on! Couldn't find a definition for amorphous that mentioned tradition.

Garsson, anybody can copy a Loveless sub hilt, and hundreds if not thousands of knifemakers have done so, including me. It's "Knifemaking 101", first year work! Steve happens to do it better than most, but the pic you posted shows his copy of a Loveless Big Bear. Shouldn't you have posted a picture of a Loveless knife as the "vanguard of the subhilt shape"? I don't know that the world needs more copies of Loveless' work. Besides, throwing in a standard, straight 5/16" thick slab of nickel silver as a sub hilt with limited character on a carved art knife would be just. . . bad design, and ugly!

David Broadwell
 
I've always been rather fond of David's take on the sub-hilt, and the reason I like it is because it is different and a little "out of the box" in design.
 
I LOVE subhilt fighters. The classic style is...well...classic and always a winner. Seeing what great makers apply to the basic design is always a treat and I look forward to it.

Will have to get my mitts in a creative subhilt during 2009 :D Stay tuned y'all.
 
dbl-edge said:
Garsson, anybody can copy a Loveless sub hilt, and hundreds if not thousands of knifemakers have done so, including me. It's "Knifemaking 101", first year work! Steve happens to do it better than most, but the pic you posted shows his copy of a Loveless Big Bear. Shouldn't you have posted a picture of a Loveless knife as the "vanguard of the subhilt shape"? I don't know that the world needs more copies of Loveless' work.........a sub hilt with limited character on a carved art knife would be just. . . bad design, and ugly!

David Broadwell
Click to expand...

1. MOST knifemakers who attempt a copy of Loveless's work do so badly...missing many of the details that make a Loveless knife what it is...not heavy, comfortable in the hand, quite usable....cannot speak for your attempt at Loveless reproduction, as I have never handled it.

2. If I could have found an easily accessible pic of a Big Bear, I would have posted it...this one was readily available.

3. The knife world has responded to those that can do a sincere and credible homage to Loveless work quite favorably....D. Kressler, Mike Lovett, John Young are just a few makers as an example...new up-and-comers like Thad Buchanan, Steve Gatlin and Charles Vestal have benefitted from closely following Loveless style knives as well....oh, you may chomp at the bit against these design constraints as an artist, this is your freedom...but don't belittle or minimize the success of those that can pull it off CONSISTENTLY.

4. Clean lines and quality execution can be imparted into just about any art-knife design...that is not your thing....OK....none of this was meant as a personal attack...simply a difference of aesthetic expressed. Am fairly sure that Bill will be happy with the knife, so my expression of opinion should not affect your bottom line....don't you have some pens to make>:)

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
Kohai999 said:
This example, done extremely well by S.R. Johnson, from the website Classic Guns & Knives represents the vanguard of the subhilt shape(Loveless has since dropped the scale bolt between the hilt and subhilt to move the two closer together, but this example will do just fine for discussion):

There are many here who don't think that the Loveless style needs to be adhered to when creating a subhilt....OK, fine...show me a BETTER looking shape, and I'll stop the incessant drumbeat...probably cannot be done, but I'll keep an open mind.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
Click to expand...

I see you edited your post while I was forming my response. You are asking for OPINIONS on what people think LOOKS good. We all know that some think blonds LOOK better than redheads, but that is just an OPINION. Can you give any logical reasons as to why the Loveless model LOOKS best? And I don't mean tradition; tradition isn't logic. Personally, I think every sub hilt fitting I've put on a knife in the last 20 years is better than any Loveless did! That, however, is my OPINION and that of my customers. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but dictating to others what is right or best or proper based solely on your opinion, especially when you present no logic to back it up, is rather demanding among other things.

David Broadwell
 
Kohai999 said:
There are many here who don't think that the Loveless style needs to be adhered to when creating a subhilt....OK, fine...show me a BETTER looking shape, and I'll stop the incessant drumbeat...probably cannot be done, but I'll keep an open mind.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
Click to expand...

I am definitely one of those people. While that S.R. Johnson is undeniably beautiful, I simply cannot accept that it is the ONLY type of beauty there is to be found within the subhilt category - any more than a D.E. Henry bowie is the ONLY type of beautiful bowie that exists.

I find David's subhilts to be nothing less than stunning. I prefer the term "organic" to describe his designs. I don't find the perjorative term "amorphous" to be applicable at all.

Obviously, the customer selected these particular artists because he fnds their style appealing. To criticize the design for failing to slavishly follow the confines of the (indisputably beautiful) Loveless design seems to rather miss the point, IMHO.

orig.jpg


orig.jpg


orig.jpg


Broadwell's designs stand on their own merit, and in my opinion, they stand very tall indeed as beautiful representations of the genre. I applaud his creativity, his artistry and his skill intaking inspiration from e legend, but rendering designs that are recognizably his.

Roger
 
dbl-edge said:
I see you edited your post while I was forming my response. You are asking for OPINIONS on what people think LOOKS good. We all know that some think blonds LOOK better than redheads, but that is just an OPINION. Can you give any logical reasons as to why the Loveless model LOOKS best? And I don't mean tradition; tradition isn't logic. Personally, I think every sub hilt fitting I've put on a knife in the last 20 years is better than any Loveless did! That, however, is my OPINION and that of my customers. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but dictating to others what is right or best or proper based solely on your opinion, especially when you present no logic to back it up, is rather demanding among other things.

David Broadwell
Click to expand...

If I edited my post, it would have indicated at the bottom of the posting.

You match whatever arrogance that I have been accused of in the last 15 years, and better it.

I don't dictate...I express myself....that I can do it strongly and with conviction is a testament to those who have taught me and shared knowledge with me.

You want logic mixed into a discussion of aesthetics, art and opinion....that is unlikely to work...if you want logic presented, introduce specific questions or assertations, and I will do my best to accommodate you.

I AM rather demanding...not enough collectors are, imo....meekly accepting what they are offered, with question.

RogerP said:
I am definitely one of those people. While that S.R. Johnson is undeniably beautiful, I simply cannot accept that it is the ONLY type of beuaty there is to be found within the subhilt category - any more than a D.E. Henry bowie is the ONLY type of beautiful bowie that exists.

I find David's subhilts to be nothing less than stunning. I prefer the term "organic" to describe his designs. I don't find the perjorative term "amorphous" to be applicable at all.

Obviously, the customer selected these particular artists because he fnds their style appealing.
Roger
Click to expand...

Funny, Roger, of those posted, the last photo, one obviously influenced by Les Robertson/Doug Casteel/Steve Rapp/Rod Chappel is my favorite

The others are not to MY liking, and certainly NOT BETTER than Loveless style(imo)

I once witnessed an (ahem) spirited discussion at Blade between Bob Dozier(D2 champion) and Devin Thomas(Stainless damascus master)...they were bagging on each other about steel choices....they are both right for what they do....some arguments just don't have a "winner".

(see the edit line at the bottom, David?)

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
Last edited:
Like any feature of a knife, the subhilt is open to interpretation.

I enjoy knives as Art, most especially when they push the envelope, and as such, I'm very excited to see the outcome of this next Broadwell piece. Because it incorporates Fosters' stainless laminated carbon steel, I think it is going to look exceedingly trick, even by Broadwell's standard.

I don't feel personally that it's appropriate to compare it unfavourably, especially at this preliminary stage, with any other's design.

The unfortunate thing about wip threads that I've seen, is that critique, (or whatever Mr. Garsson was engaging in) comes before the piece is done. Sometimes this is good, sometimes not so much. A lot of that depends upon who posts the information. If it comes from a novice knife maker, looking for input, that's one thing.
When the foundation of the established maker's design language is called into question and when the knife is a one-off 'custom', which has been carefully planned between at least three people, criticism seems to have more to do with taste than with providing useful and positive feedback.

I have seen a growing number of makers emulate Mr. Broadwell's design language, so it might very well be that he is at the 'vanguard of the subhilt design movement'.
But we will only know that in the future, so it doesn't really matter at this point. For now, I am going to enjoy seeing this knife come to life:).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top