I salute your enthusiasm SK, but I have wondered several times during this thread if you were aware of the non-profit nature of this longstanding project. I thought about raising the issue, but didn't want to appear rude. I don't think any of the volunteers who have generously donated their time and labour to bring us previous forum knives has actually risked financial peril though, since the knives have always been paid for in advance. As my friend Bill above notes, the issue of covering costs is different to the issue of profit
The reasons why Spark has a veto over this project should be obvious. In terms of trying to circumvent the rules here by producing a 'Porch' knife, which is effectively just a standard SFO, I strongly agree with
abbydaddy
above, and I would also consider the use of it in this way to be a total abuse of the term. Nothing to stop us all going out and buying a Case Peanut and scratching 'The Porch' on the side of course!
I'd be surprised if Spark were unreceptive to a commercial proposition, but if there is merely a proposal on the table for a Buck SFO, then I think that might be better discussed in the Buck sub-forum. Hopefully, we can see a BF traditional knife produced this year, but that shouldn't be at any cost in my opinion, I'd sooner see the project paused until a proper BF traditional knife can be produced in the spirit of those which have gone before. I'm not that desperate for just another knife
I can understand this, but if there is any trepidation based upon the belief that a 25k debt is the likely outcome, or even a 50/50 shot, then I would like to show that not the case.
By making some decisions prior to moving forward, I don't see how the risk for loss couldn't be limited, if not mitigated near entirely. Though by limiting the risk, we would also limit the supply based upon total orders placed, and the rate at which they occur.
Since SK stated that the minimum batch size was 100 pc., we will use that as our basis.
If SK were to set up a 100 pc order quota, then update the batch size by 50 as fitting orders were placed, minding a set order window per batch.
1) 100 knives ordered (minimum met, order to be placed)
2) 50 additional orders placed (batch total now 150)
3) 50 additional orders placed (batch total now 200)
4) 23 additional orders places (batch total still 200, 23 placed towards next batch. If 100 minimum now met, proceed back to step "1").
If the order timeframe was set for two weeks, and that lapsed in between items "2" and "3" then the next batch would already be at 73 pcs ordered.
Knives are to be paid for when the batch is submitted to Buck. If your knife is in that batch, you pay. If not, you do not.
* edit to add* This would also increase the likelihood of a higher number of earlier orders and less by those thinking they will be available for a longer period of time. Since they may get stuck in the group that does not make the it into production. On top of that, it may push those that are on the fence to order, since they will be rewarded by making a decision, rather than delaying one.
The order list would be held in order, so if anyone does not pay, this list will act as a will call list for folks already interested. This way, the knives unpaid for do not go to general public, and
skblades
is not stuck with them and his costs are covered. This would also allow for those that are in the last group to land a knife, albeit a slim chance, but a chance nonetheless.
------
Granted, this is just an idea off the top of my head, and I am open to input, ideas, thoughts, or concerns.
Edit to add the quote of where I got th "100" pc number from:
To address the quantity issue with Buck: 500 is definitely not the minimum. We have done runs as low as 100 with them. More standard is 200 and 250. I'd imagine it would be 250 since this would be a "brand new" configuration. I can confirm.