WIP - Burt Foster/David Broadwell laminated subhilt

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

You frequently feel justified in presenting whatever you feel like, and by previous admission, don't know very much about custom knives, and certainly don't have much time in it...so, if we go by that, your opinion in this case, concerning this subject might carry less importance than mine, were we keeping score...which I am not.

But thanks for chiming in Lorien, and reminding me why I have you on "ignore", and why your drivel bothers me much less when I do bother reading it.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
aww, I tried, but I just can't keep ignoring this guy:).
I'm not here to make enemies of anyone. I enjoy the site for its educational power, and the interaction. Except these gnarly bits which increasingly are biting my ass.
I hope it stops.
 
Last edited:
Kohai999 said:
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)
Click to expand...

STeven, the question posted is a bit of a red herring. Since you feel the Loveless design is the best, no-one can show you a picture of a design YOU will like better.

I would argue that the Loveless style is certainly NOT BETTER than any of the Broadwells posted - but where would that leave us? Does a design have to be superior to have merit? Is any hunter design that is neither Loveless drop point nor Fisk Sendero beneath consideration? All I can say is that I am glad that most makers don't feel that way. I wouldn't have much interest in custom knives at all if the rich diversity that exists were abolished in favor strict adherence to an arbitrary norm.

Perhaps those collectors who are satisfied with close copies of Loveless originals are the ones meekly accepting the norm and not demanding more creativity from the makers? Perspectives and perceptions vary. When it comes to design aesthetics, there is no ONE RULE, ONE LAW, ONE IDEAL - except that driving each collector to purchase knives that appeal to them.

If a collector likes the Loveless design, there are a number of makers who will provide same. Their choice is a valid one and should not be disparaged as mindless conformity. If a collector likes Broadwell's designs and appreciates them as fluid, flowing, beautiful representations of the genre, their choice is valid and should not be disparaged as amorphous, formless or pointless because they lie on a different path.

Tha's how I see it.

Roger
 
One thing that I think is important in this discussion is that man, by his nature, adheres to straight lines. Fly in an airplane and look out the window. Lots and lots of straight lines. Streets, buildings: all straight lines. One reason is that man can judge quite accurately things like parallel and perpendicular with great accuracy by eye, as long as everything's straight. It is far more difficult to design an object, whether it's a car or a knife, and do so with a bare minimum of straight lines, and still have the eye so see that all those curvy, wavy lines move from and intersect with each other in a pleasing way. In nature, there's nothing remotely like a Loveless Big Bear. Perfectly straight, parallel and perpendicular. If that's your brand of sausage, fine.

Of course, precision machinery is designed to make things straight. From surface grinders to mills and lathes, modern technology makes it a very short trip to a straight result. It's much harder to think outside all those straight lines and that forces a maker to do a tremendous amount of work with non-precision tools. If a maker can work in that non-precision environment and still turn out a precision product, then that represents a far greater level of skill, and should be given proportionately greater respect.

And while we're defining things, lets define the difference between constructive criticism and the more common type. Constructive criticism offers direction. It presents reason. It is logical, and it is ordered. "I don't like it" is not constructive. "It should look like this," is not logical without further facts. It allows a person to lay out his opinion, but it shuts the door on further discussion.

I'd really like to hear some logical, ordered reasons why the design of this knife as shown in post #1 is not a progressive improvement over the predictable straight and parallel shape of a Loveless, et. al...?
 
Gee, whoulda thought that some WIP pics would create such an uproar??

STeven,

I fully admit that the design is "non-traditional" - ie not a Loveless clone.
I should also say that I appreciate the "loveless design" such as it is, as well as the work of SRJ, Mike Lovett and all those who emulate it so nicely. In fact,
I happen to own a "traditional" subhilt myself - kumbaya :D

Also, I should say that I am not offended by your comments - in fact, I have always appreciated the fact that you are a straight-forward kinda guy with your opinions. One of my surgery professors in Med school used to say "I might be right or I might be wrong........but I'm never unsure!"
I think ,STeven , you might agree with this !

If I am not mistaken, you are also a "non-traditional" type yourself in many ways, so I'm surprised you are so adherent to tradition here;)

Obviously, I personally quite like this design, and think I'll stick with it :D

Both Burt and David have excellent taste and design sense from my POV, and I tried not to interfere with that!

Oh, and FWIW, I have a curly koa subhilt just "exactly" like that last one Roger posted...so maybe STeven can forgive me after all:p

HAppy New Year and kumbaya again

Bill
 
In my opinion, the contention in this thread simply reflects differences of opinion/preference/taste. I don't think it is a black and white issue with a finite solution.

When I think of subhilts, I would think of David Broadwell before a Loveless. While there is NO doubt Loveless was and is an icon of knife design, my preference is for those i've seen made by David Broadwell.

But that is ONLY my preference and I think each person is entitled to theirs. I fully admit that I don't have the knowledge of many that post here, but I know what I like.

I know....WHO CARES!!:D:D

Peter
 
I think Burt makes a couple of great points -

one of the "parameters" that differs between "man-made" objects and those made by nature is the presence or absence of straight lines. Whether one likes one or the other or a blend of the 2 is personal choice. It is like the difference between "geometric" art and Impressionism in a way - which is "better" ?

got me, but in general I prefer the more organic lines, and as Burt pointed out, it can be more difficult to pull this off vs straighter lines. I think that some people have an innate "sense" of curves and flow, and some do not.

what is really interesting to me is the relationship between geometry and nature - specifically, the Golden Ratio/Golden Rectangle thing which does tend to recur in nature, even though you just about never see a straight line, except maybe in crystals.

As far as "criticism" goes - I agree that constructive, reason based comments are least likely to lead to woe :D
 
I personally don't feel that the sub-hilts on David's knives fit the definition of amorphous at all. There is certainly nothing inherently wrong with them.
 
Keith,

you are absolutely right -

Since the hilts clearly HAVE a shape, they cannot be "amorphous" by definition


I think "non-traditional" covers it pretty well from my POV

Bill
 
RogerP said:
STeven, the question posted is a bit of a red herring. Since you feel the Loveless design is the best, no-one can show you a picture of a design YOU will like better.

I would argue that the Loveless style is certainly NOT BETTER than any of the Broadwells posted - but where would that leave us? Does a design have to be superior to have merit? Is any hunter design that is neither Loveless drop point nor Fisk Sendero beneath consideration? If a collector likes Broadwell's designs and appreciates them as fluid, flowing, beautiful representations of the genre, their choice is valid and should not be disparaged as amorphous, formless or pointless because they lie on a different path.
Click to expand...

BillF, first let me congratulate you on starting a thread that unifies the opinions of Roger Pinnock, and Kevin Jones....that does not happen very often.

Roger, I would simply say that Loveless is the originator of the subhilt, and that the design is timeless, sexy and sublime.

I feel that many of the Broadwell designs look blobby, specifically in the handle area....which is another way of saying amorphous...."organic" COULD be an apt description, but generally reserve for work like Fuegen, Schmidt, David Mirabile, Jimmy Fikes......not hatin' on Broadwell, just not loving on his work either.

How is saying that you don't like something, and giving some basic reasons why disparaging?...I thought I was pretty encouraging to BillF...he certainly responded diplomatically and without venom, showing some real class.

Kevin Jones said:
Ironic, as isn't this true of many Loveless collectors?
Click to expand...

In a word...NO! Many Loveless collectors have specific types and materials that they look for...I don't know how many you know, Kevin, but I know a bunch, and for example, many eschew burgundy Micarta as a handle material, for reasons that I have no understanding of....I like the material.

Burt Foster said:
I'd really like to hear some logical, ordered reasons why the design of this knife as shown in post #1 is not a progressive improvement over the predictable straight and parallel shape of a Loveless, et. al...?
Click to expand...

I'll call you, it may take some time to explain.

Well, I tried calling Burt, he answered his cell phone, but did not bother speaking, continued entertaining his guests it sounded like, he is a funny guy....hard to argue with that kind of maturity, amigo....I bow down to your superior intellect and design skills, as well as the example you set.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
Last edited:
Kohai999 said:
BillF, first let me congratulate you on starting a thread that unifies the opinions of Roger Pinnock, and Kevin Jones....that does not happen very often.
Click to expand...

Lol. :)

Kohai999 said:
Roger, I would simply say that Loveless is the originator of the subhilt, and that the design is timeless, sexy and sublime.
Click to expand...

Not disputing that in the least. In fact, I quite agree. What I am disputing is the validity of assessing the design merits of all subhilts by the degree to which they most closely copy his knives.

STeven,

If all you had said was "I don't particularly care for the design as my taste in subhilts run more in line with traditional Loveless patterns." - well, I can't imagine that there would be much debate. You like what you like.

But when you add in:

1) describing the design as "amorphous"
2) and a "step backwards"
3) and suggest that designs such as this are a result of collectors not being sufficiently demanding and meekly accepting what they are offered without question (at least your comment, in context, could certainly be taken this way)

..well, I don't think it is a tortured stretch to view those comments as disparaging.

As to the merits of this particular design versus the traditional approach, Burt has summed that up better than I could (or did).

Yes, Billf replied without venom. He seems like a real good egg. I think you will allow that my responses were venom-free as well.

Roger
 
Roger

Congrats on the Blade article!

I hope I am not expected to continue coming up with threads that "unify the opinions of Roger Pinnock and Kevin Jones" :p

that might be too much expectation for one man - hehe!

STeven, Burt IS a funny guy from the times I've seen and talked to him...but I think you know that already!

I don't consider myself "meekly accepting " of whatever I am offered - I will say that I have the wisdom/foresight/whatever to agree with ANY design decisions my wife makes in regard to our home, as she has far superior taste in that regard!
 
Hell, can't we just enjoy the damn fine knife? :confused:

You don't like the looks? at least appreciate the effort and craftsmanship and celebrate the enjoyment of the future owner. It's kinda like going to a birthday party and making disparaging remarks about someone elses present.
 
Will Leavitt said:
Hell, can't we just enjoy the damn fine knife? :confused:

You don't like the looks? at least appreciate the effort and craftsmanship and celebrate the enjoyment of the future owner. It's kinda like going to a birthday party and making disparaging remarks about someone elses present.
Click to expand...

Not really...this is where we discuss this kind of stuff....pretty good, imo....the Makers Forums and the Gallery are where "we" sit around and give virtual high fives.

I've been around for a while, Will.......I only do this sort of thing when I feel it can at least lead to some quality discussion, unlike some of my counterparts, old and new, who just decide to throw up whatever may stick, without a point, without a position.

Anyway, it's all good.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
Steve,

Not trying to be funny. :) Tried to just hang up on you like a gentleman, as I knew I didn't have sufficient time to explore the vagarities of the topic. Who knew I answered the phone and kept on talking?! Oops. Hope you didn't hear the names I was calling you! Ha!!!

And though I do enjoy talking to you, I hope you don't feel like you need to call me to explain. Heck, this whole forum exercise is just another version of "second life" where we all get to be the king of our own opinion kingdom. I'd like to be called "Burt the Wise" from now on, please. I mean, if it's not interesting or cantankerous enough to post here, then it's probably not worth it...right? Who really cares anyway???? I don't. I'm just posting to stir the pudding. :D
 
Well, I think it's REALLY cool and is shaping up nicely!!! :)

While I do think Loveless's patterns seem to be timeless... it's also a great thing to see completely different take on a sub-hilt. I love David's sub-hilts... I think the ss and koa one posted is flat-out gorgeous :)

This is sure to be a super fine knife by two very great makers! :thumbup:

Thanks for posting the WIP Bill, these are my favorites! :D
 
Burt Foster said:
And though I do enjoy talking to you, I hope you don't feel like you need to call me to explain. Heck, this whole forum exercise is just another version of "second life" where we all get to be the king of our own opinion kingdom. I'd like to be called "Burt the Wise" from now on, please. I mean, if it's not interesting or cantankerous enough to post here, then it's probably not worth it...right? Who really cares anyway???? I don't. I'm just posting to stir the pudding. :D
Click to expand...

Thank you Burt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top