On clones, by genre, a thesis

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.
 
I think I agree with basically everything you said. To add an example for the modern folders lets look at the oft cloned Sebenza: it is a very good tool that is well crafted, but I think its iconic design and the prestige stemming from a history of excellence are undeniably two major selling points. And by extension to take that design and put it into production in your factory is to take something that is not yours and hence the outrage from loyal consumers.

One argument I hear every time from pro-cloners is that the buyer would never be able to afford the real thing anyway. So? So how does that make that right? I can't afford a custom Druid, yet I feel no desire to buy a clone. If ever really wanted to though I would save and cut back spending elsewhere til I could, that simple. The Sebenza's price point is at what I consider about my spending limit and I had to save for it, so owning my first one is a special experience. If you only have $50 and want a quality knife, pick up a nice spydie that calls to you, it'll bring more joy into your life when you whip it out than any Sanrenmu imo.

But hey just my opinion, don't intend to ruffle any feathers
 
I think the reason modern knife people care so much is because Clones have more potential to hurt the sales of a modern blade . the modern knife world moves so fast and there are so many designs that it's easy to buy a clone you believe to be an original design.
I can see how a company could lose sales when people miss a design when it comes out then end up attracted to it a year later in a knife they don't know is a clone.
Or the Buck 110 thing happens where those who can't afford the original settle for the flea market ( I guess Aliexpress...ect in this case ) special.


Now something I just couldn't not bring up is how everyone got mad when Gerber copied the crkt m16 or supposedly copied the Crkt peck, but nobody complains about the many many many Buck 110 lookalikes that are out there.
Any lockback clip point folding hunter out there is nothing more than a buck 110 wannabe
 
I think I agree with basically everything you said. To add an example for the modern folders lets look at the oft cloned Sebenza: it is a very good tool that is well crafted, but I think its iconic design and the prestige stemming from a history of excellence are undeniably two major selling points. And by extension to take that design and put it into production in your factory is to take something that is not yours and hence the outrage from loyal consumers.

One argument I hear every time from pro-cloners is that the buyer would never be able to afford the real thing anyway. So? So how does that make that right? I can't afford a custom Druid, yet I feel no desire to buy a clone. If ever really wanted to though I would save and cut back spending elsewhere til I could, that simple. The Sebenza's price point is at what I consider about my spending limit and I had to save for it, so owning my first one is a special experience. If you only have $50 and want a quality knife, pick up a nice spydie that calls to you, it'll bring more joy into your life when you whip it out than any Sanrenmu imo.

But hey just my opinion, don't intend to ruffle any feathers
It's basically what happened to the iconic Buck 110 all over again, and there's only one real deal which nothing else can compare to. ( don't have any experience with or interest in the crk , but I understand it )
Those who couldn't afford a Buck 110 would just get a flea market special, and buck lost so many sales to people who would've saved up for one if they couldn't get a wannabe for 5$
 
Hickory, I think though that illustrates my point. To your Buck 110 point, the lockback folding hunter had a lot of variations, by a lot of companies. I couldn't find out how old the lockback is, but its well used. So to my point, if someone asks if they should buy that style of knife, I'm going to say, buy a buck because its good, not because they have any ownership over the design. People who want a cheap knife, are going to buy a cheap knife, that goes without question. The fact that there are a lot of bad folding hunter knives says more about the classic-ness of the design. Covers poorly done, but covers none the less. I mean even a crappy knife has to look like something right? Now there is something to be said that maybe buck had the first then every other producer made one in the 70s thus making it more generic, but I hold that even the 110 follows traits passed to it from all the knives that came before it.

To your other example however, if the case is that there is a pretty much 1-1 copy, the Jango Fett as per my other definitions, then the question has to be raised, why? In the case of the Gerber, I'm not familiar so I can't much say. In the case of the Sebenza JFs then one has to look at what variation is possible in a slab scaled frame lock, and if that knife is done in such a way to mimic the iconic features of the sebenza which I would say is often the case, and therefore worth standing against not on the quality (good or bad doesn't matter) but rather the design. Its entirely possible that in 50 years someone will refer to a Chris Reeves style folder to describe something that looks like his knives, and the consumer will choose from the various vendors what cost and quality level suits them. But right now while he has the ability to profit from his design work, then its only fair that he be allowed to do that under the protection of if not the law, then at least the community. If two companies of equal-ish size and generally good standing (gerber and Columbia river) want to duke it out in the courts over a single design (ie cold steel vs. everyone) then that's fair too, if they choose not to, then I don't see the problem as such. They take all those risks willingly. But in the cases where there isn't a clear legal framework I think it is up to the community to support the companies that they see fit. It does come down to motivation, I'm happy to recommend someone a good knife at any price point. And like you Hickory, I'm not willing to direct someone to a cheaper Jango Fett of a knife design just because they cannot afford the original at this time.

Again I want to make it clear, we are not talking the sorts of things that are clearly just out to dupe the buyer. I'm talking this gray area of differing markings or subtle changes that are oft used as the loophole.


I guess the other thing I'm trying to do is open up the nuance of what we are actually talking about when clones get discussed. Not to find anyway to justify their existence. Why bother making 1-1 copies of components if not to try to sell them as the real thing? But rather to get a wider view of the framework around protecting the IP of creators when the legal framework is not so clear. I think that its our responsibility as fans of cutlery to make sure that good original designs get rewarded, and that the folks who do a good job make enough money to keep doing it.
 
It's basically what happened to the iconic Buck 110 all over again, and there's only one real deal which nothing else can compare to. ( don't have any experience with or interest in the crk , but I understand it )
Those who couldn't afford a Buck 110 would just get a flea market special, and buck lost so many sales to people who would've saved up for one if they couldn't get a wannabe for 5$
I disagree that people would have saved for the buck if the clone wasn't available. IMHO that is a perspective of a person who was never a clone customer. Most of the people who I know who buy clones it was simply a matter of refusal to pay prices they felt were over the top. I think most people would just go without owning a design. I don't think very many people that would buy a clone were ever a customer for the more expensive thing.

Take for instance one of the two clones I have right now. Its a clone of a very famous makers work. You cant touch this persons knives for under $3000 and that is if you can buy it direct. All of his factory collabs are either very off point or nearly as much money as an original because one of the companies making his designs are incredibly overpriced in their own right. Even from them you are going to pay $2500. I wouldn't be saving for that design if the clone didn't exist. Its not a sale he was EVER going to get whether the clone existed or not. And the collabs don't faithfully honor the original design. So I wasn't going to buy anything he was officially attached to.

There really isn't a lost sale in that scenario. The only lost sale was lost when they priced their products as high as they did. Now their is a sale to be gained if the opportunity was seized. And that would be to have a faithful reproduction made with slightly reduced features at a price everyone can afford. You will curb the desire for someone to get a clone and they will feel good about their purchase. A perfect example is the Todd begg bodega. The steelcraft version is very close to a bodega 2.0 and about the third of the price. Their customs still sell fine.
 
Last edited:
I disagree that people would have saved for the buck if the clone wasn't available. IMHO that is a perspective of a person who was never a clone customer. Most of the people who I know who buy clones it was simply a matter of refusal to pay prices they felt were over the top. I think most people would just go without owning a design. I don't think very many people that would buy a clone were ever a customer for the more expensive thing.

Take for instance one of the two clones I have right now. Its a clone of a very famous makers work. You cant touch this persons knives for under $3000 and that is if you can buy it direct. All of his factory collabs are either very off point or nearly as much money as an original because one of the companies making his designs are incredibly overpriced in their own right. Even from them you are going to pay $2500. I wouldn't be saving for that design if the clone didn't exist. Its not a sale he was EVER going to get whether the clone existed or not. And the collabs don't faithfully honor the original design. So I wasn't going to buy anything he was officially attached to.

There really isn't a lost sale in that scenario. The only lost sale was lost when they priced their products as high as they did. Now their is a sale to be gained if the opportunity was seized. And that would be to have a faithful reproduction made with slightly reduced features at a price everyone can afford. You will curb the desire for someone to get a clone and they will feel good about their purchase. A perfect example is the Todd begg bodega. The steelcraft version is very close to a bodega 2.0 and about the third of the price. Their customs still sell fine.

Isn't that basically CRKT's entire business model? Purchase the right to use a maker's design, put it into mass production-grade materials and sell them for a fraction of the maker's price with the maker's endorsement.
 
Isn't that basically CRKT's entire business model? Purchase the right to use a maker's design, put it into mass production-grade materials and sell them for a fraction of the maker's price with the maker's endorsement.

In a sense. But IMHO a couple fatal flaws. 1. The materials to me are usually sub-par. And even when they claim to use premium materials someone manages to screw it up. And 2. The execution of those materials are usually done rather poorly.

What I am talking about is basically making the same knife. Same materials and as close to the same workmanship as possible. Again a perfect example being the steelcraft bodega. It even actually has some upgrades to the 2.0. It has s35vn vs N690 and still utilizes 6al4v titanium. The satin versions have handground blades and hand satin finishes. The only real differences are the amount of refinement and attention to the smaller details that can be addressed in the full customs and they chose to make it a regular frame lock with a replaceable lock insert instead of the traditional removable lockbar with no insert. The import also has a machined pocket clip rather than the stamped version on standoffs found on the more expensive model.

This business model has been done countless times in the Music industry. Some companies m0ake the exact same model with the exact same materials and the cheaper imports often times have even better hardware than the originals. The people who want the originals still want the more expensive version because their motivations to buy aren't value based but rather prestige based. They want exclusivity, refinement and street cred if you will. They sell tons of both. Everyone wins. And the companies who follow this model are often times the least replicated. And the replicas that are made usually suck. IMHO clones are most prevalent when you leave a large portion of potential price points unfilled.
 
Isn't that basically CRKT's entire business model? Purchase the right to use a maker's design, put it into mass production-grade materials and sell them for a fraction of the maker's price with the maker's endorsement.

You are spot on with that statement. Unfortunately, CRKT usually is sub-standard for the money they charge.

A few years ago, CRKT offer a clone, JF, cover (call it what you will) of a knife designed by Peter Marzitelli. It was called the Prowler. I saw one at a gun show, years ago, and just had to buy it. Only AUS6 blade steel and FRN scales so it's not the best knife but, the design has served me well over the years, including my time in uniform. The Prowler has been out of production for years but, I still find them on eBay from time to time. Normally, I pick them up if the price is right.

But, here's the reason I bring this all up. At the time I purchased the knife, I had no knowledge of the maker, Peter Marzitelli, or any of his designs. I also had zero knowledge of the problems facing the knife industry because of clones and counterfeits. I bought the knife because I liked the looks of the handle. I still buy them today because of ergonomics and price. The knife could have been counterfeit and I would have not cared one bit. I still would have bought the knife.

I should note that, since then, I have seen pictures of Marzitelli's work and it is beautiful. A great combination of art, workmanship and practicality. I would purchase one of his fixed blades in a second if it met my needs but, I would never buy his Prowler. Why? Because, as nice as his work can be, his Prowler is just a little over the top. Just a little to much bling for my needs.

I guess that my point is that some people are going to buy clones, copies, covers, JFs and even counterfeits no matter what. The knife will just meet their needs on some level.

Why are we making such a big deal over clones, copies, etc.? Like we really have any control over what another person spends their money on.
 
Last edited:
I disagree that people would have saved for the buck if the clone wasn't available. IMHO that is a perspective of a person who was never a clone customer. Most of the people who I know who buy clones it was simply a matter of refusal to pay prices they felt were over the top. I think most people would just go without owning a design. I don't think very many people that would buy a clone were ever a customer for the more expensive thing.

Take for instance one of the two clones I have right now. Its a clone of a very famous makers work. You cant touch this persons knives for under $3000 and that is if you can buy it direct. All of his factory collabs are either very off point or nearly as much money as an original because one of the companies making his designs are incredibly overpriced in their own right. Even from them you are going to pay $2500. I wouldn't be saving for that design if the clone didn't exist. Its not a sale he was EVER going to get whether the clone existed or not. And the collabs don't faithfully honor the original design. So I wasn't going to buy anything he was officially attached to.

There really isn't a lost sale in that scenario. The only lost sale was lost when they priced their products as high as they did. Now their is a sale to be gained if the opportunity was seized. And that would be to have a faithful reproduction made with slightly reduced features at a price everyone can afford. You will curb the desire for someone to get a clone and they will feel good about their purchase. A perfect example is the Todd begg bodega. The steelcraft version is very close to a bodega 2.0 and about the third of the price. Their customs still sell fine.
When I was about 14 I almost bought a crappy 10$ lookalike ( I was 2 seconds away from owning it ), but decided not to because I knew it just wouldn't be the same. I waited and eventually got myself a real buck 110.

I agree that some people are just never willing to pay what genuine products cost, but clones still entice people who actually would pay what the real deal costs if no alternative. My best friend saved up for a buck 110, but when nobody was willing to drive him to the sporting goods store to buy it he ended up getting enticed by a clone at the surplus store down the street just because it was cheaper and available. If he had been patient and had the clone not existed he would've owned the real deal.

All I'm saying is that clones do entice people, and said people could be those who would buy the real thing if no alternative was available. This may not be very often but it does, and this is one legitimate reason why clones are bad.
 
Well gents, I'm off grid for the week, so keep it civil and let me know what you come up with.
 
The thing is, people want what they want and are rarely happy with a copy or clone.

I remember a time that I wanted a Kershaw Echelon type 1 and a bought a type 2 because of availability and price. The differences between types 1 and 2 are really very minor and to be honest, the type 2 has a nicer blade finish. But I still wanted a type 1! Searching for a couple of months (at most) I found one at a price I was willing to pay. Later, I just gave the type 2 away. Today, I would just go for which ever I could find at a decent price.

What gets me, is the person that refuses to pay for the product they really want but will run all over the country trying to find the best "deal". When they factor in the true cost of their shopping, many times, they could afford what they really want. A friend of mine did this with a .38 target handgun and then whined the whole time he owned the gun. "It's not the gun I really wanted, I wanted model...etc." This went on for years. The funny thing was that he drove an old, full size Ford truck that got really poor fuel economy. He traveled hundreds of miles looking in all the gun shops he could find. The guy spent way more in fuel than the slight cost difference between the two sidearms.
 
Last edited:
Not a bad spin on it but this is still such a big and complex matter but you do hit the big point the rage mostly centers around modern knives perhaps in part because we hate to see the makers and manufacturers who make products we love getting screwed while long dead ones means less their clones have been around for ages. In my opinion I believe that it also is because clones of modern knives are what the blind masses stumble on and miss out on the real thing.
 
I think what might further stimulate your interest in the position/philosophy of "clones" might be 1. the legal distinction of replicas vs counterfeit, and 2. trademark and patent laws when applying or not applying for international patents with different countries. Funny enough, you will find some interesting talk about this in clothing and accessory fashion designers.

Although making knives might not be as serious as making medications, you can find interesting arguments for and against generic (cloned) medications too.

In general, my philosophy would be that I would like to support the person/company that spent time, money, equipment, getting feedback from customers, etc. However, I can't always afford to do that. Additionally, the nature of competition also means that sometimes being the first means also being the first to have bugs or problems in the design which others can improve on without losing the R&D costs the originator had to deal with.
 
I think what might further stimulate your interest in the position/philosophy of "clones" might be 1. the legal distinction of replicas vs counterfeit....

Agreed.

Nothing seems to make members here sharpen their pitchforks and light the torches like a clones/counterfeit debate.
If the forum owner would just define the difference between clones, copies, and counterfeits in the forum rules, it could save tons of mud slinging.
 
In a sense. But IMHO a couple fatal flaws. 1. The materials to me are usually sub-par. And even when they claim to use premium materials someone manages to screw it up. And 2. The execution of those materials are usually done rather poorly.

What I am talking about is basically making the same knife. Same materials and as close to the same workmanship as possible. Again a perfect example being the steelcraft bodega. It even actually has some upgrades to the 2.0. It has s35vn vs N690 and still utilizes 6al4v titanium. The satin versions have handground blades and hand satin finishes. The only real differences are the amount of refinement and attention to the smaller details that can be addressed in the full customs and they chose to make it a regular frame lock with a replaceable lock insert instead of the traditional removable lockbar with no insert. The import also has a machined pocket clip rather than the stamped version on standoffs found on the more expensive model.

This business model has been done countless times in the Music industry. Some companies m0ake the exact same model with the exact same materials and the cheaper imports often times have even better hardware than the originals. The people who want the originals still want the more expensive version because their motivations to buy aren't value based but rather prestige based. They want exclusivity, refinement and street cred if you will. They sell tons of both. Everyone wins. And the companies who follow this model are often times the least replicated. And the replicas that are made usually suck. IMHO clones are most prevalent when you leave a large portion of potential price points unfilled.
Its ok to steel designs from other companies that earned their success the hard way/old school/honest way because other companies do it..... Ya why not...great attitude
 
Its ok to steel designs from other companies that earned their success the hard way/old school/honest way because other companies do it..... Ya why not...great attitude
Thats not what I said. But you have the right to feel however you want. And to make any assumptions you want. And judge others based on those assumptions. Luckily I have the right not to care. Have a good day.
 
Agreed.

Nothing seems to make members here sharpen their pitchforks and light the torches like a clones/counterfeit debate.
If the forum owner would just define the difference between clones, copies, and counterfeits in the forum rules, it could save tons of mud slinging.
No. Not really. Technically all clones and counterfeits are off limits. So the definition of what makes a clone a counterfeit doesnt matter. Its basically like this, if you have a knife and have to ask if its a clone you might as well keep it to yourself. Even if its only vaguely reminiscent of another design. Discussions like this usually are left to be if no one resorts to insults and soap boxing. But specific knives, sharing pictures and anything that could be viewed as pro clone? Asking for trouble.
 
No. Not really. Technically all clones and counterfeits are off limits. So the definition of what makes a clone a counterfeit doesnt matter. Its basically like this, if you have a knife and have to ask if its a clone you might as well keep it to yourself. Even if its only vaguely reminiscent of another design. Discussions like this usually are left to be if no one resorts to insults and soap boxing. But specific knives, sharing pictures and anything that could be viewed as pro clone? Asking for trouble.

How do you figure? More often than not, our opinions are on the same page or very close to it but, this time, I have to disagree.

Unless I have missed something, the only place in the rules that list clones, counterfeits, etc. is the Exchange. The only other area that I find anything close is Site Rules, Section 7. That section, as you know, has to do with keeping things legal. Not circumventing the law of the land, trying to get around import laws, and such. No real reference to clones, etc.. Is there anything else in the forum rules (other than what I listed above) that limits our discussions about clones and counterfeit products? If so, I don't know about it. I don't see how they are off limits except as listed above.

I think you and I can agree that counterfeits can damage the knife industry. Can we agree clones, copies, etc. probably do very little that's positive to help the industry or our hobby? Maybe they act as a gateway knives for owners or collectors. Maybe. It could be easily argued that they cause more harm than good, though. No question that they can be a grey area.

Part of the problem is that, as members, we can't agree on a clear definition between clones, copies or counterfeits.
One member may view all three as counterfeit and claim they are all wrong. With him, it's all black and white. To him, your are slime if you even consider owning one. Another will be against clones but copies are fine if there is no deceit on the part of the producer or seller. A third member may feel that copies are acceptable with the belief that they are good for the industry. Another thinks that copies are OK if they are produced locally but heaven forbid they are made overseas. As we all try to voice our opinions on this issue, somebody's toes are bound to get steeped on.

As I read post here on the forum, I see members character attacked or, at least their morals questioned if they even bring up the topic of clones. You've seen it, too. Maybe you have even been a victim. Fortunately, it does not seem to be too bad at the moment. If clones can damage the hobby, what can happen when we attack the morals of our fellow members?

Maybe, just maybe, if forum rules clearly defined copies, clones and counterfeits, there would be less chances, or reason to verbally bring members morals up for questioning. Directly or otherwise. Of course, you may be right. Defining them might not make any difference.
 
In a sense. But IMHO a couple fatal flaws. 1. The materials to me are usually sub-par. And even when they claim to use premium materials someone manages to screw it up. And 2. The execution of those materials are usually done rather poorly.

You are spot on with that statement. Unfortunately, CRKT usually is sub-standard for the money they charge.

While we can agree that CRKT is expensive, I don't agree with the labeling of 8Cr13Mov, 4116 and Aus-8 as 'subpar' materials.

What I am talking about is basically making the same knife. Same materials and as close to the same workmanship as possible. Again a perfect example being the steelcraft bodega. It even actually has some upgrades to the 2.0. It has s35vn vs N690 and still utilizes 6al4v titanium. The satin versions have handground blades and hand satin finishes. The only real differences are the amount of refinement and attention to the smaller details that can be addressed in the full customs and they chose to make it a regular frame lock with a replaceable lock insert instead of the traditional removable lockbar with no insert. The import also has a machined pocket clip rather than the stamped version on standoffs found on the more expensive model.

This business model has been done countless times in the Music industry. Some companies m0ake the exact same model with the exact same materials and the cheaper imports often times have even better hardware than the originals. The people who want the originals still want the more expensive version because their motivations to buy aren't value based but rather prestige based. They want exclusivity, refinement and street cred if you will. They sell tons of both. Everyone wins. And the companies who follow this model are often times the least replicated. And the replicas that are made usually suck. IMHO clones are most prevalent when you leave a large portion of potential price points unfilled.

A few years ago, CRKT offer a clone, JF, cover (call it what you will) of a knife designed by Peter Marzitelli. It was called the Prowler. I saw one at a gun show, years ago, and just had to buy it. Only AUS6 blade steel and FRN scales so it's not the best knife but, the design has served me well over the years, including my time in uniform. The Prowler has been out of production for years but, I still find them on eBay from time to time. Normally, I pick them up if the price is right.

But, here's the reason I bring this all up. At the time I purchased the knife, I had no knowledge of the maker, Peter Marzitelli, or any of his designs. I also had zero knowledge of the problems facing the knife industry because of clones and counterfeits. I bought the knife because I liked the looks of the handle. I still buy them today because of ergonomics and price. The knife could have been counterfeit and I would have not cared one bit. I still would have bought the knife.

I should note that, since then, I have seen pictures of Marzitelli's work and it is beautiful. A great combination of art, workmanship and practicality. I would purchase one of his fixed blades in a second if it met my needs but, I would never buy his Prowler. Why? Because, as nice as his work can be, his Prowler is just a little over the top. Just a little to much bling for my needs.

I guess that my point is that some people are going to buy clones, copies, covers, JFs and even counterfeits no matter what. The knife will just meet their needs on some level.

Why are we making such a big deal over clones, copies, etc.? Like we really have any control over what another person spends their money on.

Same here. I would never pay the price for any of the makers' original designs that CRKT puts out. But CRKT also gives me a way to legally purchase the mass-production versions of these designs at a price that is way, way lower than what the makers are asking for.

If CRKT did not exist, those makers would not have made a sale off me ever because those prices are way above the ceiling I have for such purchases, and I would most likely have given up on the purchase (if there were no clones) or gone for a cheap clone. Everyone has that red line in prices where we will no longer consider buying something once that line is crossed, no matter how desirable it is.
 
Back
Top