Knife World Article on Camp Knives

Gus Kalanzis

Gus Kalanzis

Havin' fun, learning and putting up with Bastid.
Staff member
Super Mod
Moderator
Joined
Oct 4, 1998
Messages
4,131
Darby and Randy,

My friends I do not want to stir up a storm but I think this situation needs to be adressed. (If either of you feel that I am out of line, it is OK to move or shut down this thread. As far as I am concerned we will always be friends.)

Enough of the the disclaimer.

I have read the article by Dominique Beaucant several times over the last few days. Those of you who know me know the respect I have for Knife World, but that respect is at low ebb. In almost 20 years of reading anything I could get my hands on regarding knives, I have never read anything as disrespetful towards a maker as Mr Beaucant review of John Fitch's knives.

Before I go any further, I have to say that knives aside John is a friend of mine and I also consider Mark Zalesky a friend.

Here are the problems I have with the article.

1. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when that opinion is offered at the level of dis-respect that Mr. Beaucant showed in that article, I feel that the opinion was based on an agenda rather than fact.

2. John Fitch did not send him a dull knife. I know that as a fact.

3. John Fitch makes some of the best performing knives I have seen and I also know for a fact that he puts the best of his work into every knife he makes or it does not leave his shop. (Actually it does leave his shop to get nailed up to a tree outside so John can practice shooting his .45's.). You don't win multiple cutting competitions or for that matter place highly in them by accident.

4. If I was conducting a review testing the performance and a knife came in that was not sharp (and I still do not believe that was the case) the first thing I would do would be to contact the maker. In this case the knife was shipped to the author "razor sharp". For those who do not know John he does not lie.

5. I met John at his first Blade Show (98 or 99), never saw a knife of his that did not encorporate a distal taper. Never handled a knife of his that did not exhibit exceptional balance. The first conversation I had with John stemmed from the exceptional balance of the camp knives he had on his table.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Mark as an editor, knife lover and friend, but letting that article out in the disrespectful tone and words that were used is not a wise move. Again, I do not have a problem with the opinion, but the way it was presented and some other things that I have become privy too regarding communication leads me to conclude that there is a sad underlying agenda and I am disapointed in Knife World for playing a part in it.

I am more than open to a discussion here on the article and other reactions to it from people who have read it.
 
I have to admit I have read a couple of articles by this author and had to wonder if Mark saw them before printing. Without disputing the testing, the spirit of the writing was discouraging. I don't believe it does a favor to the reader or the industry.

There I said it.

Dan Farr
 
Elegant, short and sweet Dan. I could not agree with you more. I do not have a problem with the testing (although I have my doubts about the accuracy) I do have a problem with the tone in which the results were conveyed to the reader. Again John is a friend, but I have tried to remove myself from who was being written about and I come to the same conclusion as you have. Even some of the negative comments of other knives came across to me as way to disrespectful.
 
The reported test results sure don't parallel what I can do with my Fitch camp knife! It is fantastic. Dispite the article, I don't think there is any doubt about John's abilities or his knives.
Dan
 
Gus. Et Al...

Is there a link available to this article or is it only in print. I would like to take a look at it for myself. I think I can trust your judgment but I find it hard to credit that anyone could give big John or his work a poor review.

-Sam.
 
I have not read this article because I do not have a subscription to Knife World, so I can not comment on its content, but I do believe that a reviewer should stick to reviewing and refrain from getting too personal in his/her comments. When I see personalities starting to enter a review I do not take them as seriously as ones based solely on the performance of the product being reviewed.

Anyway, I should have one of John's knives soon and I will be able to do my own evaluation. That means a heck of a lot more to me than the words written on a piece paper by some reviewer anyhow.
 
The Editor of Knife World should shop around for a new "Knife Reviewer"
Boy is he out of line and seems to have his own agenda.:confused:
Just an opinion.
I own a "Fitch" and I know better than to believe Beaucant.
;)
Randy
 
Sorry, there is nothing online. Knife World is a monthly periodical and up until this article I considered it the best.

Again the point was that I have never seen an article that presented so many negative aspects (some of which I know not to be true) in a disrespectful tone. There is nothing wrong with constructive negative comments if they are accurate and presented in a respectful manner.

Never mentioned that the article was personal, but I strongly feel that the article was written to reflect the author's personal agenda.
 
Sending a knife back because its performance was off because of the initial sharpness is more than slightly biased. How about if Fitch's knife was sharper than average, should it be sent back so it could be dulled.

What about QC and information about variance in the product. if the maker is allowed to perfect the knife before the review work is completed based on feedback from the writer, then all of this is destroyed.

As well just because John said it was sharp, or has sharpened knives well in the past doesn't mean he can't make a mistake. Similar statements can be made about Ray Kirk, however when I recieved the four test knives from him awhile back one of them had a large burr.

I would however argue that while initial sharpness is an issue, the performance of the knife should have been addressed after it was sharpened by the writer, as ease of sharpening is a critical issue. Some effort should have also been made to see if such a problem was to be expected, and make a comment to this regard.

Balance is also not a black and white issue. There is no such thing as a knife being "balanced" or not. The balance point can be looked at as positive or negative depending on the physical ability of the user, and how they use the knife.

A distal taper however can just be measured, take a few thickness measurements along the blade. A top down shot of the knife will show this clearly, a picture can also easily be taken showing the balance.

The tone should be neutral of course. However I have seen a lot of overly glowing reviews which are just as misinforming to the public as anything in the opposite. A problem which is rarely addressed.

Of course any issues with performance should be presented to the maker for comment. It is always possible that just a difference in technique could be the solution. For example if chopping is off, maybe it was made to be used with a different grip, or a different swing.

-Cliff
 
Cliff did you read the article? I agree with your premise and your statements. Again my problem is not with the opinion, but with the tone of the article.

As far as sending the knife back because it was too sharp. That is pretty ludricous. I never mentioned anything about sending the knife back, but I would call the maker to see if he wanted me to put an edge on the knife. At some point in testing, I would sharpen all the knives I was testing before some of the tests to come as close as possible to putting things on an even playing field. A valid point would be to state that the knife did not arrive sharp.
 
I think all of you here know or at least know of John's work. If you don't, let me say it is TOP NOTCH. His personal integrity applied to his work is a model for all makers. This man kept himself out of testing for his MS last year due to a flaw in his dagger only he could find regularly. It was so minute most of the Msmiths that loked at the dagger couldn't see it even after he pointed it out to them. His reply was "Gus is a friend of mine, and the ABS is clear about weld flaws in your test knives. I would be lying to both if I put it in to be judged."

John also tests his knives more than anyone I know of, wins more cutting competitions, several Blade awards and emphasises the performance of a knife before asthetics even come into consideration. I have not read the article, and don't need to to voice what I know of John and his work. He is one of the best.
 
Bastid :

Cliff did you read the article?
Click to expand...

No, I would agree that a tone should be neutral.

As far as sending the knife back because it was too sharp. That is pretty ludricous.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was the point.

I would sharpen all the knives I was testing before the test to come as close as possible to putting things on an even playing field.
Click to expand...

So would I for one part of the review, however I would not ignore initial sharpness. It is important to some people, critically so, and some makers are better at it than others.

-Cliff
 
The point here is the tone of the article. So it is kind of hard to understand an opinion of the article if it is unread. I would value your and anyone else's opinion after the article is read. Since my point is not how to conduct an accurate review. (That would be an excellent thread though.)

I more than agree that the opposite end of the hype (glowing) does just as much harm and again from my above post initial sharpness is a valid point that should come through in a well written review.
 
Gus,

You should be awarded a merit badge for actually reading Mr Beaucant review. I thought it was one of worst articles I have ever read in Knifeworld (which is usually very good). He is entitled to his opinions and right now I couldn't care less what they are. But, there is no excuse for his poor arguement, his awkward language, and his mysterious use of personal pronouns. It reads like a transcript of some drunkard's mutterings.

Throughtout the piece Beaucant refers to himself as "I", "we", and "all of us." Who these other people may be, and whatever opinios they may have of these knives, we are never told. Indeed, it seems that the testing comes to a complete stops whenever the author hand gets sore or tired. For example, when he talks about Grant Fraser's knife; he writes: "Since I couldn't bear the pain and knowing that the knife didn't cut well at all, I simply put it away." Which was just as well since just about all the knives he tested were uncomfortable in hand, or caused blistering.

I knew we were in for a bumpy ride when I read this sentence: "Off the soap box for now, and on to the tests of a wide variety of camp knives that are suitable for any outdoor activity, and would make a worthwhile addition to an outdoorsman's gear." This was an ambitious piece, and attempting to test that many knives can be a challenging task. The more so when the author seems inexperienced with effective rope cutting techniques, or is unaccustomed to heavy knife usage. The title of the article asks "They are pretty, but do they work?" Perhaps we will get an answer somedays; but, don't look for it within this article.

n2s
 
Originally posted by Cliff Stamp


Yes, that was the point.



-Cliff [/B]
Click to expand...

Then why did you ask the question?
 
I read the article in its French translation, and I enjoyed it. The tester was clearly disappointed with the knife, and said so forcefully, as I would expect him to do. I also note that a bunch of other makers were tested in the other articles of the series and did really well, he had some really constructive criticism for Terry Primos, etc. What I mean is, look at his other articles, and he writes good review. So unless he's out to get Fitch, I can't think that he would lie. If the knife was really ill designed, I don't see why he shouldn't say so.

Fitch has done really well in many cutting contests, so it seems clear to me that this knife was an exception. I note that the two knives the tester liked best had a Moran-style handle.

Personally, I'm more often disappointed by articles explaining how all the knives are great, etc. In this series at least there were really clear winners (JS William Hurt?) and very disappointing knives.

My understanding is that makers were asked to submit knives for this very clear purpose, knowing that the knives were tested "out of the box". Proposing to the maker to send him back a knife would invalidate the test. One thing that this test does is look at how seriously the maker prepared the camp-knife to be used as such.
 
I haven't gotten my issue yet and hopefully it won't be long. It is very hard for me to imagine that some one had a hard time in getting a knife of John's to perform. Maybe he was tired when he got to John's knife and couldn't swing it very hard or maybe he just didn't like the way his handle was formed. That is one reason that there are so many different blade and handle styles, different people like them in their own style for using.
Cliff, I check them all for burrs now :). I think it thought it was going to have to chop the concrete block and was getting in shape for it. :)
I do think that personal feelings should play a part in testing because we all have our own personal likes and dislikes, but that should not be an evaluation of the preformance of the blade. Such as; "That knife cuts like the dickens but I think it is too ugly".
Darn, I sure wish I had already read the article. Makes me feel kind of silly trying to figure out why some one doesn't like one of John's knives. I got one that was only forged to shape and I like it. :)
 
I've read the article in "La Passion des Couteaux" and agree with what Joss just said. The reviewer was disapointed with the knife mainly because of the too short handle (he said) that made the knife to be out of balance and hard to use. There are two scenarios:

1. Dominique Beaucant has really big hands and/or got a Fitch knife that was not as good as usual. Also remember it is a camp knife, so IMO the edge will be left a bit thicker on purpose.
2. He has something against Mr. Fitch

He made positive remarks about Terry Primos camp knife (he said something about the handle being too small again ... big hands?)
He was very pleased with the camp knife from Glen Marshall (big beefy handle on that one judging from the photo)
In the next issue there will be an article about a Fisk knife that was tested in the same session ... I will let you know what he says.
 
Thanks guys. I appreciate your thoughts on the article.
 
Darn - I wish I could read this article so I could understand what the heck everyone or talking about. One can offer constructive criticism without being snide, condescending and insulting. Not being bale to read the article, I really can't offer any comment. Having owned 3 of Fitch's knives and having handled many more I can say that he's an exceptionally talented bladesmith producing extremely desireable knives.

Cheers,

Roger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top