- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 7,613
Alrighty, so this is in response to a statement by PURPLEDC which I thought bore further examination. His statement to paraphrase "Its only here that so many get so bothered by clones, in other industries, such as watches and guns, its not such a big deal" And in fact I would suspect that this is true, insofar as the product being sold is worth purchasing, ie, someone might warn someone else away from a product because it's crap, not because its is a "clone"
But that isn't what I'm thinking about. I submit the following premise that "Cloning" is only viewed with unbridled hatred in some "genres" of knives. So for the following I'm going to set the following limits and definitions. Its not my goal to talk about Counterfeits, As defined as a product created and marketed with the intent to deceive the end user either by the use of trademarks, design features and or likenesses. Also the word clone doesn't really work either because you can have an IBM clone, a 1911 clone, or a Pontiac Fierra, and those are what they are, descriptors of a thing, with no judgement on the quality based on that designation alone (well, maybe the pontiac is a bad example)
So I propose two new terms. First is to describe a knife which is manufactured in a way to be as close to another knife as possible, up to and including dimensions, or proportions, key features. This could include singular small differences such as the use of a differing locking system, changing from sculpted scales to slabs provided that the overall handle shape was maintained, or change in the opening method, such as a thumb-stud instead of a disk, provided that these changes fit within the design language of the knife, and no other changes were made. We will refer to these as Jango Fetts, or JFs.
Second we need to describe knives that offer more changes, but can still trace an obvious path to anther, inspirational knife. We will call these Covers, like how a song can be covered, either note for note, or with major changes, you know its still that song.
Lastly we need to break down knives, I suggest the following for simplicity although we know there are exceptions:
Classic folders: typically two handed openers, with back-spring based locks or hold-opens, generally featuring pinned construction, and relying on a scale/bolster/liner.
Classic fighter: typical large fixed-blade with some sort of guard generally of the quillion type
Classic utility: typical smaller fixed-blade generally without guard or with an integral guard rather than a quillion
Modern folder: Characterized by one-handed opening, synthetic scales without need for liners and bolsters (although not excluding them) bolted construction, and locks developed in the last 40 years or so, and designed around the advantages provided by modern steels and methods.
Modern fighter: Large fixed-blade characterized by designs taking advantage of modern steels and methods, more often with anatomically designed handles, often with multiple areas of differing utility on the blade (saw-back, cutter hooks, pry tips)
modern utility: Similar to classic utility but likely featuring modern aspects such as blade coatings, synthetic materials.
Now who cares about JFs by category:
Classic folders: nope. Since most classic designs are well over a hundred years old by now, and many are just mix-and-match of design features, I think its well accepted that anyone can make for example, a barlow pattern knife, call it such and so long as they don't go claiming they are the one who invented the pattern or the blade shape, no one will much worry. In this category they are all Covers.
Classic fighter: again, see above, as well as there are cases where the name of a designer has become part of the design language, such as a Randall style fighter, or Bowie knife, those are prescriptive as well as descriptive.
Classic utility: same
Modern folder:Massive rage. Now since the modern folder is just as often designed around an aesthetic, here we see that a straight up Jango is not so welcome. The patterns are not old enough to hold to have any history apart from the inventor/designer. Also due to the wide range of possibilities afforded to the modern folder designer, to use all of the same design tools as someone else seems untoward. Contrast to say a Stockman pattern knife, there are some expectations that it will have three blades, probably of a clip, spay, and sheepsfoot pattern, although you could do something subtly different, you are not copying one knife, but following the family tree of many.
Modern fighter: again, massive rage Similar to the modern folder, the specialized design aspects of the modern fighter often include elements that are intended by the designer to be characteristic of their style. Such as the SOG double scallop back, Busse talon hole, and similar. In these cases the design aesthetic does not need to be copied to mimic the function, so its again harder to justify. The fact that there are fewer Jango fixedblade fighters on the market is likely due to the fact that mall-ninja stuff sells better at a lower pricepoint, and few people care if Mtech is getting ripped off. But if someone found winkler Jangos, that would be a different story
Modern utility: None to little. Partly because modern utility blades trace so much lineage back to their classic cousins, often the only difference being a coating, or G10, there isn't much concern when two knives look very close. There is often some other feature that sets them apart and really the knives in comparison are often not the only ones that could be looked at. Honestly how much variation could you add to a three inch FFG drop point with 1.75 inches of blade height at the riccaso, an a full tang? sure, some, but not much, and its all just a matter of degrees. Again we are back to covers, different backing band, but we can all sing the words.
So in TL;DR, lots of knife folks don't care. Modern folder fans do most, and I think with good reason. Other sorts of knives have far more history, and so its all just variation on a theme. I think the biggest reason that it bothers modern folder fans is that there is just no reason. you can do literally anything, so why do a 1-1 Jango Fett? Do a cover, a re-mix, or an original.
But that isn't what I'm thinking about. I submit the following premise that "Cloning" is only viewed with unbridled hatred in some "genres" of knives. So for the following I'm going to set the following limits and definitions. Its not my goal to talk about Counterfeits, As defined as a product created and marketed with the intent to deceive the end user either by the use of trademarks, design features and or likenesses. Also the word clone doesn't really work either because you can have an IBM clone, a 1911 clone, or a Pontiac Fierra, and those are what they are, descriptors of a thing, with no judgement on the quality based on that designation alone (well, maybe the pontiac is a bad example)
So I propose two new terms. First is to describe a knife which is manufactured in a way to be as close to another knife as possible, up to and including dimensions, or proportions, key features. This could include singular small differences such as the use of a differing locking system, changing from sculpted scales to slabs provided that the overall handle shape was maintained, or change in the opening method, such as a thumb-stud instead of a disk, provided that these changes fit within the design language of the knife, and no other changes were made. We will refer to these as Jango Fetts, or JFs.
Second we need to describe knives that offer more changes, but can still trace an obvious path to anther, inspirational knife. We will call these Covers, like how a song can be covered, either note for note, or with major changes, you know its still that song.
Lastly we need to break down knives, I suggest the following for simplicity although we know there are exceptions:
Classic folders: typically two handed openers, with back-spring based locks or hold-opens, generally featuring pinned construction, and relying on a scale/bolster/liner.
Classic fighter: typical large fixed-blade with some sort of guard generally of the quillion type
Classic utility: typical smaller fixed-blade generally without guard or with an integral guard rather than a quillion
Modern folder: Characterized by one-handed opening, synthetic scales without need for liners and bolsters (although not excluding them) bolted construction, and locks developed in the last 40 years or so, and designed around the advantages provided by modern steels and methods.
Modern fighter: Large fixed-blade characterized by designs taking advantage of modern steels and methods, more often with anatomically designed handles, often with multiple areas of differing utility on the blade (saw-back, cutter hooks, pry tips)
modern utility: Similar to classic utility but likely featuring modern aspects such as blade coatings, synthetic materials.
Now who cares about JFs by category:
Classic folders: nope. Since most classic designs are well over a hundred years old by now, and many are just mix-and-match of design features, I think its well accepted that anyone can make for example, a barlow pattern knife, call it such and so long as they don't go claiming they are the one who invented the pattern or the blade shape, no one will much worry. In this category they are all Covers.
Classic fighter: again, see above, as well as there are cases where the name of a designer has become part of the design language, such as a Randall style fighter, or Bowie knife, those are prescriptive as well as descriptive.
Classic utility: same
Modern folder:Massive rage. Now since the modern folder is just as often designed around an aesthetic, here we see that a straight up Jango is not so welcome. The patterns are not old enough to hold to have any history apart from the inventor/designer. Also due to the wide range of possibilities afforded to the modern folder designer, to use all of the same design tools as someone else seems untoward. Contrast to say a Stockman pattern knife, there are some expectations that it will have three blades, probably of a clip, spay, and sheepsfoot pattern, although you could do something subtly different, you are not copying one knife, but following the family tree of many.
Modern fighter: again, massive rage Similar to the modern folder, the specialized design aspects of the modern fighter often include elements that are intended by the designer to be characteristic of their style. Such as the SOG double scallop back, Busse talon hole, and similar. In these cases the design aesthetic does not need to be copied to mimic the function, so its again harder to justify. The fact that there are fewer Jango fixedblade fighters on the market is likely due to the fact that mall-ninja stuff sells better at a lower pricepoint, and few people care if Mtech is getting ripped off. But if someone found winkler Jangos, that would be a different story
Modern utility: None to little. Partly because modern utility blades trace so much lineage back to their classic cousins, often the only difference being a coating, or G10, there isn't much concern when two knives look very close. There is often some other feature that sets them apart and really the knives in comparison are often not the only ones that could be looked at. Honestly how much variation could you add to a three inch FFG drop point with 1.75 inches of blade height at the riccaso, an a full tang? sure, some, but not much, and its all just a matter of degrees. Again we are back to covers, different backing band, but we can all sing the words.
So in TL;DR, lots of knife folks don't care. Modern folder fans do most, and I think with good reason. Other sorts of knives have far more history, and so its all just variation on a theme. I think the biggest reason that it bothers modern folder fans is that there is just no reason. you can do literally anything, so why do a 1-1 Jango Fett? Do a cover, a re-mix, or an original.