Lets talk GEC!

There is room for both steels in our traditional community.
I wish folks would simply allow each their rightful place. In my mind excluding or deriding either amounts to a form of "knife racism."
 
Thanks for pointing out the Forum guidelines. I should have read them more carefully.

Forums can sometimes drift into the contentious and that is certainly not my intent here; however, I must respond that my original post was solely about carbon steel and its relevance to traditional knife blades.
Advancing the idea that carbon is some manner of 'purist' Traditional is convoluted to put it politely.
“Purist” is your term, not mine. Advancing an idea that the earlier steels were carbon and therefore more traditional than the modern steels doesn’t seem convoluted but a possible area of discussion. The comments concerning handle materials, etc. have nothing to do with blade steel.

While many knives of modern materials are considered traditional in this forum it would seem that in terms of hewing more closely to the first steel bladed traditionals, both American and British, some are more traditional than others.

Thank you for all the helpful responses.
 
...some are more traditional than others.

I'd put that more along the lines of "Some are older than others." Age enters in, of course, but it's only important because it creates a date before which all knives are deemed traditional. After that date, design, materials, and construction all begin to enter into it. If it were only about age, we'd be all about broken rocks.
 
Interesting that GEC would post about Frech Kate pins being available...did they find a hidden stash of pins or is this some new way of leaving us clues for an upcoming release? Or was this pin never available and now it is? :confused::eek::rolleyes:

http://greateasterncutlery.net/blog/2019/06/27/now-available/

View attachment 1152772

I don't think they were making pins the last time they made French Kates. I might be wrong though.

I don't know whether they just felt like making some or they're planning a run.
 
I'd put that more along the lines of "Some are older than others." Age enters in, of course, but it's only important because it creates a date before which all knives are deemed traditional. After that date, design, materials, and construction all begin to enter into it. If it were only about age, we'd be all about broken rocks.

As my forum name indicates, I am an archaeologist and as such, I spend lots of time looking at artifacts. On broad levels, we often start separating groups when we identify the introduction of some new technology/shift/change in the toolkit. The introduction of stainless could be such a new technology but this was really just a new material, knives otherwise remained pretty much the same as before the introduction of stainless (and there was no massive shift away from the use of carbon to stainless). For me, I probably would have put the "traditional" cut-off at the mid-1960s (1963/1964 I think) just prior to the introduction of the Buck 110 (with the 110 not being a traditional). This is no slight on the 110, it is more a recognition that this was the game changer. I bet as the popularity of the 110 increased, the standard pocket knife correspondingly dropped in popularity. The introduction of the 110 marked a new way people thought of pocket knives and I believe, the 110 is the progenitor of all the wildly popular locking, one hand opening, folding knives we see today, whether they be Bucks, Spydercos, Benchmades, etc etc etc.
 
Last edited:
For me, I probably would have put the "traditional" cut-off at the mid-1960s (1963/1964 I think) just prior to the introduction of the Buck 110 (with the 110 not being a traditional). This is no slight on the 110, it is more a recognition that this was the game changer. I bet as the popularity of the 110 increased, the standard pocket knife correspondingly dropped in popularity. The introduction of the 110 marked a new way people thought of pocket knives and I believe, the 110 is the progenitor of all the wildly popular locking, one hand opening, folding knives we see today, whether they be Bucks, Spydercos, Benchmades, etc etc etc.
I'd tend agree with you.
 
Mark, I agree as well. The 110 has never appealed to me because of its blocky, heavy nature, and seems quite a departure from even large knives that came before it, i.e. daddy barlows and folding hunters.
 
Plus the 110 it's just too much brass...:eek: gateway to present Moderns;)

As for the carbon/stainless thing, most of us agree it's not a binary notion but if people put forward the idea that carbon is more 'traditional' and that GEC uses traditional materials then it's quite legit to point out that handle materials such as micarta, acrylic, new types of wood are not traditional per se. But they are welcome and effective.:thumbsup: Point made;)
 
... For me, I probably would have put the "traditional" cut-off at the mid-1960s (1963/1964 I think) just prior to the introduction of the Buck 110 (with the 110 not being a traditional). This is no slight on the 110, it is more a recognition that this was the game changer...

I really like this way of looking at it. Thanks
 
I know this is the GEC thread, but I think the point of the Buck 110 being a turning point is a valid one. I saw the change happen growing up. Most of us carried a small stockman or other type of common traditional knife. Then the 110 craze hit and everybody had a snap sheath on their belt and they started to refer to their knife as a weapon. I'm happy GEC sticks to the more traditional patterns that we recognize as tools. See, I brought it back around to GEC again. :D
 
Being an anthropologist, the cultural and evolution centric variety, I tend to agree with Markeologist that certain major technological shifts in tool making can be seen as horizon markers in the progression or evolution of hominin development. While the tool, such as cutting edges or knives, remain essentially the same in terms of purpose and use, their form and manufacturing techniques are often markedly different.

The Buck 110 also appeals to me as a major departure from previous pocket or folding knife designs and, to some degree, purpose, and I don’t consider it a traditional design compared to all that came before.

Consider the LionSteel Best Man, an intriguing design made entirely from modern materials, and likely with the technological aid of computer controlled machinery. It functions like a “traditional” knife design, looks like one and in those terms is one. However, it has evolved far from its ancestors of mid-nineteenth century America and further from its British roots. This is not a bad thing, and in fact may be much better in many respects.

I just want to observe that there is a long lineage of folding pocket knives which most of us could agree are “traditional” in design but that some are closer to the origins of the class than others.
 
As my forum name indicates, I am an archaeologist and as such, I spend lots of time looking at artifacts. On broad levels, we often start separating groups when we identify the introduction of some new technology/shift/change in the toolkit. The introduction of stainless could be such a new technology but this was really just a new material, knives otherwise remained pretty much the same as before the introduction of stainless (and there was no massive shift away from the use of carbon to stainless). For me, I probably would have put the "traditional" cut-off at the mid-1960s (1963/1964 I think) just prior to the introduction of the Buck 110 (with the 110 not being a traditional). This is no slight on the 110, it is more a recognition that this was the game changer. I bet as the popularity of the 110 increased, the standard pocket knife correspondingly dropped in popularity. The introduction of the 110 marked a new way people thought of pocket knives and I believe, the 110 is the progenitor of all the wildly popular locking, one hand opening, folding knives we see today, whether they be Bucks, Spydercos, Benchmades, etc etc etc.
Typical old school archaeological thinking. If it looks different it must be a different tool. Instead of looking at it from a user perspective. A knife cuts. And as an archaeologist to tell the users (us) that the Buck 110 is not traditional is the height of academic elitism.
 
Typical old school archaeological thinking. If it looks different it must be a different tool. Instead of looking at it from a user perspective. A knife cuts. And as an archaeologist to tell the users (us) that the Buck 110 is not traditional is the height of academic elitism.

Did you miss the "For me, ..." part? It's his opinion. Is the 110 traditional? The forum rules say so. But they even imply that it's sort of a dividing line. It was a big change, it was wildly popular, and it marked a big shift toward modern designs. I see it with a foot in both camps. Others disagree strongly, in both directions. That's OK. We all have a different picture in our heads of "traditional". No matter which side we put the 110 on, it's hard to argue that the 110 isn't the dividing line between traditional and modern knives.
 
Typical old school archaeological thinking. If it looks different it must be a different tool. Instead of looking at it from a user perspective. A knife cuts. And as an archaeologist to tell the users (us) that the Buck 110 is not traditional is the height of academic elitism.

A knife cuts. So do Oldowan flakes, scalpels, saws and paper. They are all different tools.

I should note that some people think academics are elite. In many cases they are since they know considerably more about their fields than laymen.
 
Typical old school archaeological thinking. If it looks different it must be a different tool. Instead of looking at it from a user perspective. A knife cuts. And as an archaeologist to tell the users (us) that the Buck 110 is not traditional is the height of academic elitism.
Archaeology is built on typologies - otherwise all we would find is "trash" lol.

Thought I was the only shovel bum on here :) Markeologist Markeologist Mayonardo Mayonardo
 
A knife cuts. So do Oldowan flakes, scalpels, saws and paper. They are all different tools.

I should note that some people think academics are elite. In many cases they are since they know considerably more about their fields than laymen.
Except that I wrote my dissertation on lithic technology so my opinion about compartmentalizing tools by other than its use is counterproductive. Plus, my relatives could skin and butcher a buffalo with rudimentary tools quite easily. No lockbacks or super steels needed.
 
Back
Top