You gotta read this BS

I did read it, and your reaction was the same one I had. What a bunch of worm castings! Yes, some of the old time makers were great, but perfection has never been obtained. The new masters come just as close to perfection, as the old guys did.
 
Yup, same here. Your post gave me quite a chuckle too. :)
 
Burchtree said:
Yup, same here. Your post gave me quite a chuckle too. :)
Click to expand...

Yessirree! Dem ol' timers had much better heat treatin' ovens than we does. They never did crack a blade in water neither! Better fit and finish?

BULL-LONIE!
 
I had to respond to that, it just bugged me. I'd go so far as to admit that the *average* bladesmith then might be better then the *average* bladesmith now, since the average then was a pro and the average now is a hobbiest, but our best can certainly compete on even footing (that's being generous, with modern HT/metallurgy info, ours are better) with the best of the oldtimers.
 
Tai Goo makes pieces in that general vein, with much greater detail, with no grinding whatsoever--hammer finishes only. Integrals, too.

Is he saying Jerry Fisk can't improve on that? Or Bagwell? Heck, I've never held a Bruce Evans knife, but based on jpg vs. jpg comparisons I find it hard to believe that thing is that much better.

It may very well be original, but I'd like to know how all those experts knew it was when Levine can't seem to find any proof.
 
I have to admit that kind of surprised me. This seems a sort of snobery. It may be true that there were standardized techniques used in the 19th century that have fallen out of general use today but I can't really believe there's no one working now the equal of any smith then. I truly believe the best knives in human history are being made today. Maybe not in my shop, but they're out there; no doubt in my mind. Levine kind of hurt my feelings. :rolleyes:
 
As with many things in our world, follow the money for the answer to why those comments were made, of course.
 
That's a pretty tough statement for him to live up to. I suspect that the modern masters have far surpassed what the older ones could do.
 
It's not just about the blade performance, it was said that no knife today could match the fit and finish of the blades of yesteryear. :confused: :rolleyes:
 
Guess I will chime in here..First Thanks for the great compliment Gwinneydapooh,I can only dream of matching the knives of old...

Let's see how do I put this,Mr.Levine is correct in most of his statement,but what he didn't mention was that the blades of old England were done by many masters not just one,in there factories a man would do the same exact job on a knife from the time he started till he quit,thus you had people forging the same blade for one specific knife for over 50 years then a seperate heat treater,then you had the master that did the handle and guard work that was a master jeweler most times,then the engraving was done by another master and so on.Remeber these were still factory knives but hands on with only a few foot powered or water powered machines.I love trying to reperoduce these Bowies because of the challenge of figuring out how and why theye did the things they did.But you have to think about this I am only one person trying to reproduce what many different masters had done then and I have but one lifetime to learn what all them had each of there lifetime to master.This isn't easy.As for the American made Bowies most were ruffer working models,but when they dressed on up they did a number on it.I would love to have a time machine so I could go back and see what these knives looked like when they were new and unused yet,I bet they were imaculately made.The old factory made knives were just that factory made just like our modern factory made and not to many people expect the same fit and finish from these knives as they do from us handmade makers,so you also have to take that into consideration when looking at there fit and finish compared to ours.
As to the steel,sure a properly heat treat thin blade will flex allot but the thicker blades that had full thickness spines couldn't flex any better than ours do today.There is still so much knowledge from the old master that has been lost over the years that we may never know all there tecniques and how or why they did what they did...
Heck do we say that the Old Oriental swords werent as good as todays makers,no they were legendary and not mastered copletely yet today,close but not completely,and so goes it with the Bowie knives.
So I gues what I am trying to say is that they did what was expected of fine cutlery in the 1800 and we do what is expected of cutlery today,Heck we all cannot be Warenski who in my opinion is as close to the old masters as we have in this day and time.There never has been or ever will be a perfectly made knife but we all strive to make the best we can and hold ourselves to the standard of the times.
Heck when you think about it,we still can't master wood carving like they did in the old days,also paintings can't come close now as they did back then,the same is true in all the arts,look at the old jewelery and castins from the old days and they put modern stuff to shame,what makes us think that knives would be any different.they didn't have tv or the internet or even radios to bother them back then and would start there craft at a very early age and would be masters of it at the same time we are just getting out of school and starting a trade so we can never have as much time to learn as they did..

Hope my rambling doesn't make anyone mad at me here,these are just my thoughts on the subject and if I am wrong I will gladly change my opinion to the correct way of thinking.
Bruce
 
I'll agree with you for the most part Bruce, but then like as now I believe the knife depended on the maker. Some were better than others, some had better heat treat and some had better fit and finish. And some of the Sheffield bowies were great, and some were not so hot, depended on the master, or aprentice, or market. Also while a lot of knowlege may have been lost, the smiths of old probably did one part rite and two parts wrong, though many if not most of the old blades saw much heavier use than most knives now so if it wasn't a pretty good knife the cutler would be out of buisness shortly unless it was purly ornimental. I will say that it is an interesting knife, and handle shape. Though a lot of old knives have been rehandled so without a good history behind it there's no way to tell.

I would like to add that as a cap & ball revolver nut the gun in the back ground is not a regulation Walker, but looks like it's pieced together from several old guns. It may or may not be original but looks like a Walker grip and frame, Dragoon cylinder and barrel, and the barrel has a modified loading lever and latch. Could have been done way back when but I dout it. Not exactly worth a lot without matching serial numbers.
 
You don't make me mad, but I do want to disagree with something...

Heck do we say that the Old Oriental swords werent as good as todays makers,no they were legendary and not mastered copletely yet today,close but not completely
Click to expand...
If you mean artistry and technique, there's modern smiths in Japan and abroad doing the exact same techniques today. If you mean in performance and function, then certainly the top makers swords of today are of better quality then the old swords. Better steels and HT tecniques make amazing blades today, while most of the effort in making a Japanese sword is in making the tamahange(sp?) usable in the first place. Some people think it's overhyped, but for this example I think it's worth mentioning the Howard Clark L6 bainite katana.
 
I respect your modesty Bruce but for once I have to disagree with you. This is true for a number of makers, most of whom are members of this board...but since your knives were brought up, I'll discuss them.

I have studied descriptions and pictures of your knives for years. I have also handled and studied your knives in person. While I am no where near skilled enough to match your work, I have made knives long enough to know what I'm looking at.

The knives that I have examined were as close to perfection in both fit and finish, and in artistic proportion, as can be had.

Further, the balance and ergonomics make them almost weightless in the hand.

I have never handled an original that surpasses that. Perhaps a few that equaled but not surpassed.
 
RE: comparing the old and the new

This discussion goes on and on in almost every artistic endevor. It's very pronounced in Japanese Sword circles. But everyone seems to overlook a simple fallicy in this line of reasoning. For example, look at paintings and artists.

How many working artists are around right now? Compare that to the number of all the artists that have ever lived. Now people say, "The artists of old are better than the artists of today." And to prove it, they'll pull examples from the huge pool of art history.

Well, duh!

For example, if I have 100 tons of random rocks that thousands of rock hounds have picked thru for hundreds of years, there's gonna be some gems. But if you have a bucket of random rocks that no one has sorted, you might not find much.

It isn't quality of the pool of rocks on earth, it's a matter of probability.

Then to infer from that study that all 'modern' artists cannot be as good as all the artists of the old days, is quite a fanciful feat of logic.

Steve
 
I have asked how many modern guys could do some of the ancient work I have seen, if they had to work with the same tools. Aside from this thought, I would prefer not to touch on the old guys versus the new thing, there are many steaming piles on both side that I would prefer not to step in ;).

But before anybody starts considering any suggestions about "flexibility", please, please, please do a little bit of research about elastic limits vs. yield limits and Youngs modulus (modulus of elasticity). It will give some very good perspectives into this debate;) The "flexibility" subject has got to be in the top 3 of topics that I have heard blade folks make fools of themselves with by rash statments that have nothing to do with reality.
 
I don't know much about older knives because I don't collect knives. So I can't comment on how they compare with knives made today. But I do know that our ancestors were good at what they did. As Bruce E. stated above, they started there professions at young ages and were taught by fathers and grandfathers that had been doing the same profession for years and years before that. And you can't tell me that they didn't do the best they could with every piece they created. Thats just human nature to do your best so you can be proud of what you've created, and to try to improve on each and every piece after that.

As for doing the stuff they did with the equipment they had. No, would be the answer to that, shoot I can't even get close to doing what they did with the modern equipment I have today. But if I had been trained and taught on the equipment they had and had the first hand knowledge handed down. I figure I could get close. Its not so much the equipment and how modern or not modern it is that matters, but the knowledge to make that equipment do what you want it to that matters.

My grandfather was a master finish carpenter, I never met him because he had passed away before my birth. But I have seen work that he had done, and it was as fine or finer then any finish work I have seen done today and he did most of it by the use of hand tools, but thats all he had, that and the knowledge to use them.

Now, Kevin and Bruce, I've never got to see or handle any of you fellers work. I would sure like to, but from what I've seen in photos, it is amazing and I figure in 150 yrs. or so, if Bladeforums is still going on, and this topic comes up again, it wouldn't surprise me to see your 2 names mentioned on it.

Bill
 
"But before anybody starts considering any suggestions about "flexibility", please, please, please do a little bit of research about elastic limits vs. yield limits and Youngs modulus (modulus of elasticity). " -Kevin Cashen

Umm, Kevin, could you please give us a bit of an overview of the above statement and how it applies with the flexibility issue. Are you saying that the more flexible an item is the less yield strength it has?
 
Umm, Kevin, could you please give us a bit of an overview of the above statement and how it applies with the flexibility

That's a pretty deep subject Guy....I'm going to get some popcorn and settle in for this.
 
Me too, Peter.

And Sando makes an excellent point. I've had to point that out in literature many times. People say "where's our era's Shakespeare?" Well, nobody knew Shakespeare was "the Elizabethan era's Shakespeare" while he was alive, either. It was the fact that his work stood the test of time that made him so popular and beloved later on.

There's someone of equal talent writing today, it can almost be guaranteed. But none of us have probably heard of him. He may even have gotten some reviews but been savaged in all of them. Three hundred years from now, people will wonder why we didn't all read him, because he obviously expressed the spirit of our times so perfectly that we should all have been amazed.

This problem is only getting worse at present in literature, sculpture, smithing and dozens of other arts, because it is becoming so much more common to practice them that anybody and everybody can do it if he wants. This gives us more chances to find that genius, but also a lot more dilettantes (like me) to wade through before we do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top