“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.Advancing the idea that carbon is some manner of 'purist' Traditional is convoluted to put it politely.
...some are more traditional than others.
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?
http://greateasterncutlery.net/blog/2019/06/27/now-available/
View attachment 1152772
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.
I'd tend agree with you.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 bet you are right, I suspect we will see some French Kates here pretty soon. Love the button!re: French Kate. May have been ordered by Drake Well Museum for their upcoming annual Oil Festival. Just a guess.
... 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...
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.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.
Archaeology is built on typologies - otherwise all we would find is "trash" lol.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.
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.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.
That I can't argue with but it does matter how broad or narrow you want to draw the line.Archaeology is built on typologies - otherwise all we would find is "trash" lol.
Thought I was the only shovel bum on here Markeologist Mayonardo
Very true, as a good lithicist would know haha. Just don't tell those ceramics nutsThat I can't argue with but it does matter how broad or narrow you want to draw the line.