KingMC
The Pun-isher
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Messages
- 11,600
It's an interesting suggestion - not without merit either. However, I seem to recall - long before I was around - that the Traditionals sub (The Porch) did not always have its own little corner here. Because there was enough discussion being had in other places in the forums involving traditional cutlery, it was decided to build a sub-forum for it specifically - complete with its own guidelines and such. Because such guidelines have been long established at this point, I don't see expanding on them to be particularly necessary or even all that welcome.
I will use the ZT 0230 as an example again. It is a slipjoint but it is very clearly a modern design with no resemblance to a traditional pocket knife pattern that I am aware of. If we start muddying the waters here too much, then we risk alienating a lot of folks who are here for the enjoyment and discussion of classic, traditional cutlery - be it pocket knives or fixed blades. If slipjoints of a purely modern design get a pass, then who is to say that fixed blades like Busse and such can't get a pass either?
Here is a pic of the ZT I am referring to:
Ultimately, I am of a mind to agree with @Railsplitter. I like knives of all types and will discuss them in accordance to the rules in the appropriate sub-forums. There is a reason that The Porch is separate from General Knife Discussion and I would hate to see the lines blur too much.
I read the guidelines before really posting here, and now that I am a mod I find myself reading the rules everywhere I go because I am often called upon to use them for moderation purposes.
This bit from Blues about the purpose of this subforum I think is relevant here:
Relevant Subject Matter & Decorum:
The "Traditional Folders and Fixed Blades" sub-forum is defined as follows:
Discussion of classic Hunters, Trappers, Lockbacks, Slipjoints, Skinners and other classic "traditional" designs...
...In other words, this is a non-commercial knife discussion forum with the focus centered squarely on traditional knives and patterns such as you'll find in this reference:
A bit more detail:
If a regular knife user of the mid 1960's would find nothing out of the ordinary about the design, then it's traditional.
That means large Buck 110-ish lockbacks are in.
SAKs date to the late 1800's. If they are not one hand opening, they are in. (See comments on materials of construction.)
Modern locking mechanisms such as Walker liner locks, pocket clips, holes / studs to allow one hand opening are all out. (Traditional liner locks, such as the lock on a TL29, are in.) Add a clip to a stockman, and it needs to be posted elsewhere. By the same token, if it is traditional except for a clip and you remove the clip, feel free to post it here.
We tend to have some tolerance when it comes to fixed blades. But, new designs with features such as glass breakers, are not included in this forum.
We give leeway on materials of construction. So if you have a nice stockman with G10 covers, it's traditional enough for us. After all, plastics have been used on knife handles since the 1800's. Stainless steel has been used in cutlery since the 1920's, so stainless is considered traditional. And even though PM alloys are new developments, that fella in the mid-1960's would never know the difference if he were looking at the knife, so they are OK, too.
Reading the bolded bit it seems clear to me that the design and form are the most important parts of what makes a knife "traditional", materials are immaterial if it looks and functions like a traditional knife. The only thing on the Italian-made knives in question that doesn't look clearly traditional are the screw fasteners, other than that the rest of the design fits in my interpretation of the guidelines here.
)
My skin acids or something just reacts badly with brass (the stuff stinks) but it certainly looks good as pin material.
