Fixin' it? "Code of ethics"

[danbot]

Like you , I feel if one maker ( non original maker ) is to be seen as part of the deception , so is the other ( original maker ). I still believe, it all falls back to the seller to disclose the true facts , either maker is simply providing a service and neither can be GUILTY of fraud.

The wayI read Ed's views , the non original maker was guilty of fraud , I merely wanted to know if he viewed the original maker in the same way if the seller didnt disclose the refurb.

John; The way I read Ed's view was that the dishonest seller's transaction becomes a fraud. The maker, whether origional or not becomes part of the SELLERS deception. I agree that NEITHER maker would be guilty of fraud.

If I did a repair or a refurb on one of my knives for a customer, and then found out that they had lied about its condition when they sold it, I would definitely feel that I had been made a part of that persons deception. Then I would try to remedy the situation if it were possible, and I would not deal with the dishonest seller again.

Dan.

 

[RogerP]

I haven't been vocal, but will express my views. If I own the knife, I'll do whatever the hell I want to with it. There is no ethical or moral issue involved - unless I cheat someone or lie to someone trying to sell it - then I am more than morally and ethically suspect, of course. Seems kinda simple to me, but apparently not to those who try to wax philosophical about it - give 'em a big "DUH".

Bob - I sure wish I'd just said THAT and quit. :thumbup:

Roger

 

[betzner]

Bob - I sure wish I'd just said THAT and quit. :thumbup:

Roger

Yes, Roger, but it was marvelous, just sitting here reading your posts these last few days, agreeing completely - and then being able to give just the very condensed version, LOL.

Bob

 

[2knife]

......

 

[RogerP]

Okay Kevin, I'll give it a quick shot:

Just because someone can buy a 1/2 million dollar painting does it give them the right to deface it?
Is it right that some historical buildings and real estate are protected by law against modernization and development?

Depends on what you mean by "right". If you mean legal "right" as your example suggests, then yes, absent a law preventing them from doing so, the owner can go ahead and add a moustache to the classic painting. This is hardly a novel concept - you own something, you can do with it what you will.

Others may not like it, they may moan, and whine, yell and scream, stamp their feet, go on an internet forum and call your choice unethical, but they have no right to insist you do otherwise.

If you mean "moral" right - we're going to be here a while. The whole concept of enforcing morality is no light subject. Though we like to think otherwise, morality is neither immutable nor universal. What was generally considered perfectly moral in the US just 50 years ago, or 150 years ago, is different than today. In other countries today, the concept of a woman having a vote is considered immoral. They cling to that view with as much moral certainty as the very different principles which you hold dear.

Investing issues such as the refinishing of a KNIFE with moral judgment strikes me as more than a little self-serving and utterly over the top in the context of issues which actually and legitimately engage moral concerns.

When someone seeks to take their concept of morality and shove it down my throat, the question I ask first is what gives THEM the right?

Applied to knives, just because someone owns a Moran St-24 is it acceptable for them to grind the blade and handle to fit their personnel preference?

Yes, as above. I am waiting for the Moral Authority to explain to me why the ST23-carrying soldier is committing a "contemptible atrocity" in having his knife altered to meet his needs. I suspect I'm in for a long wait.

John, we do know how many of these safe queens perform as they are tested by the maker and/or created utilzing the same proven processes he has used hundreds of times. In my opinion the shame is that some believe just because a knife is a "safe queen" that's it's not capable of performing to very high degree.

Agree with the above.

Roger

 

[betzner]

Bob,
Since you spoke up, do you still feel the same as in this post? Politics aside..
And/or , have you ever "done whatever the hell you want to do" with a Warenski?
David

I will do whatever the hell I want with any of my knives. But are you suggesting I would be an idiot and detract from the value of a Warenski? If you are, who is the idiot?

 

[betzner]

Roger, again we agree completely.

 

[jjtjr]

Originally Posted by betzner
I think that perhaps the best example, almost the only example, of when I find a refurbish to be acceptable (from other than the original maker) is when Jay Hendrickson is asked to bring a Moran back to life. And by that, I mean nothing more than a clean up, not a repair. I can think of a couple more examples, but I think this is a good one to start the discussion, IMHO.

2knife wrote:
Bob,
Since you spoke up, do you still feel the same as in this post? Politics aside..
And/or , have you ever "done whatever the hell you want to do" with a Warenski?
David

David,

I bought the Moran knife from Bob, that he had Jay Hendricson clean up.
In case you don't know it Bill Moran is dead. Jay is the most prominent maker of knives in the Moran style, Jay and his wife Nancy were the two people closest to Bill Moran in his later years. Who would be better to buff up a Moran knife?

Of course Bob told me before we made a deal the Jay had cleaned the knife, which in my opinion is the main theme of this thread, any seller disclosing the fact about a knife he is selling.

Jim Treacy
:thumbup:

 

[2knife]

.......

 

[betzner]

I have no intention of playing along. My comments were succinct and absolute enough that that the reasonable person would recognize they are not subject to interpretation.

The more this thread continues, the dumber it gets. I am outta here.

 

[sheathmaker]

Bob,
I was making no judgement call- just asking. You've answered it.. No, (one would be an idiot to do so). Ethics aside, it's a financial incentive that governs?
Again, this is a reasonable choice you make, as owner.

What of "ethical or moral obligation" to Buster Warenski? (feel any?)
Such as that of a museum curator?

Thanks for your participation.
David

Damn!, I was safely out of this thread, but David, I've just got to know.....Your posts are filled with little questions, some in parentheses. Do you really have a deep yearning for the answers or do you just enjoy poking the hornet's nest with a stick???? (?)

Paul

 

[severedthumbs]

2knife are you a collector of fowler knives?

 

[John T Wylie Jr]

Some great points & views have been brought up in this thread , all remained civil as well ,which was great. :thumbup:

Thanks for the discussion fella's , think I am going to bow out of this thread.

 

[2knife]

......

 

[2knife]

.....

 

[2knife]

.......

 

[2knife]

......

 

[Jose Reyes]

Last words?
David

I agree it was blown a bit out of proportion. BTW, if you upgrade to platinum you can have the last word and lock the thread...

 

[Ed Fowler]

I offer a life time guarantee on my knives to the original owner.
Why?
1) I fully realize my knives are a significant investment and want those who buy time to do so with full confidence that they will perform to my standards and hopefully theirs. If not I want to know.

2) I Because I want to know how they perform and learn from the experiences of others.
This is a learning opportunity for me.

3) I feel like people knives have integrity. This integrity can be seriously influenced by others who chose to work on them.

Note my thoughts on the Scagel that had been re-worked by a "mastersminth". The Scagel signature (through his visable methods) was missisng, the dealer did not feel it was a big deal, but his client did!

4) When others put their finger in the pie - this integrity can be lost.

5) Yes the owner can do what ever he want to do with his knife - when he sells it I feel that we should be honest with those who wish to purchase it.

I applaud the maker who signs knives he works on - this is honesty and to be admired.

6) Every vintage knife that is re-worked by another maker is permanently changed. If we as makers work on others knives without disclosure we dilute the heritage of that knife for ever more.

I recently purchased a 1940 vintage wind up watch, one year younger than I. I took to to my jewler who has kept my watches running since 1974. He opened the case and on the inside of the back were engraved the marks and dates of all who have worked on it. I feel this is an example of preserving history as well as the integrity of the watch.

I would like to see this kind of documentation on all knives as well, but do not feel it will ever happen.

This thread has explored many variables - thoughts few makers have been exposed to and I sincerely thank all who shared their thougths. When I started few shared thoughts like this and I strongly believe it is a good thing for our community.

 

[RogerP]

Wow - you just can't let this go, can you David? 4 consecutive follow-up posts by you when this thing had already run its course, and then some??

"Contemptible atrocities" , I made one or two.

I made the same mistake reading this article.. I think it leads to wide assumptions- myself being foremost guilty of generalizing. The result is the conviction later in this thread that Ed is guilty of "casting aspersions". Look to the original quote:

"A maker who takes one of my knives that has been used hard and has the audacity to feel he can refinish her to "mint condition" commits what I feel is one of the most contemptible atrocities known to the world of knives."

Yes, this particular quote referenced his own work, but if you read this whole article and took from it that Ed was restricting his moral judgment ONLY to those who refinished HIS knives, then your comprehension level is sadly lacking.

Later, in this thread, this presumption leads to a full out assault on the ethics issue, when really Ed was referring to thoughts on his own knives, and of others trying to make a "used" knife "mint", for sake of profit motive.

Expressing a contrary opinion is not an assault, David. Unless, of course, one is starting from the premise that the proponents of the "contemptible atrocity" platform should not ever be called into question. If that's your belief, you picked the wrong place to pass out the Kool-Aid.

The title of the article "The Ultimate Knife Atrocity? Never alter another maker's knives without his permission. "

Note the question mark, first. Second, note "without his permission". Again, never taken into account .. I do believe we collectively argued many points, making foregone conclusions in many cases. Doing an injustice to what Ed was saying. And, the rush to judgement.

"Without his permission" implies that permission is required. It isn't. Just like Ed's claim in the article that a maker refinishing one of his knives is STEALING something from him (the pleasure of doing so himself) implies that Ed has some ownership of same. He doesn't. And to the best of my knowledge, nobody can steal from you that which you don't own in the first place.

I see no injustice done to Ed. I see an injustice done by Ed to any maker who has taken on a refinishing job in good faith from a legitimate owner. Rush to judgment? Has any harsher judgment been levelled in this thread than "adulterate" "unethical" "stealing" "sacrilege" and "contemptible atrocity"? Who was casting those stones, David? Are you really going to stand in that big glass house of yours and complain about others rushing to judge Ed?

I mean, if someone had come on here and called Ed a contemptible, unethical, sacriligious thief, you might have a legitimate complaint.

Last words?

I sincerely hope so, but I highly doubt it. If you must endlessly regurgitate, maybe you could answer the question of whether both the original maker AND a second maker would "become a part of the deception" when, without their knowledge, the owner fails to disclose the refinishing on resale?

Roger