I appreciate the thought and effort that you have put into your reply, but can you really expect a dealer to go through that?I'm kind of with you on this - kind of.
I am in full support of Mike's decision with limiting it to one per household. That said, it comes with inevitable side effects that I am considerably less excited about. The collectors in us all will undoubtedly be keen on obtaining more than one variant from this run which means we have, with some certainty, been forced to pay inflated secondary pricing.
Does this practice curb the flippers? Perhaps. But perhaps not. I am sure there will be plenty of folks seeking to offload their single selection for a healthy markup as soon as they get it in hand. Unfortunately, it is the nature of the beast at this point and there is naught that anyone can really do, including Mike, to genuinely hamper these practices. The folks in question care nothing for the knives themselves or the community, you can't really fix that.
It is nice to say that one per household is for the good of the community and perhaps, in spirit, I can agree. But I know the reality of it. Look at how many dealers limited the 93s to one per household and then look at how many were immediately posted for ridiculous markups afterwards. It feels nice to say, "one per household, fair shake and all", but it hasn't proven to work like that.
I think the best Mike could do is limit his SFO to a single cover variant and THEN limit it to one per household. Less desirable for a collector perhaps but it gets the knives into more appreciative hands nonetheless.
I think that it's admirable that Mike has gone to the lengths he has already to make things as fair as possible.
Mike was spending money out of his own profits to fund his reservation system. Think about that for a minute. How many vendors do that?
I think that fact stands on its own merit.
Mike is MY first choice, every time. Whether or not you choose to be a customer is up to you, but in my experience you won't find a better vendor.
Last edited: